Monotherapy trials: presurgical studies

Gabapentin monotherapy for epilepsy: A review

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders, affecting more than 50 million people globally. In this review we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials of gabapentin used as monotherapy for the treatment of focal epilepsy, both newly diagnosed and drug-resistant, with or without secondary generalisation.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of gabapentin monotherapy for people with epileptic focal seizures with and without secondary generalisation.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 24 February 2020) on 25 February 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRA), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We also searched several Russian databases, reference lists of relevant studies, ongoing trials registers, conference proceedings, and we contacted trial authors.

RESULTS

We found five randomised controlled trials (3167 participants) comparing gabapentin to other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and differing doses of gabapentin as monotherapy for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and drug- resistant focal epilepsy with or without secondary generalisation. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence and present seven patient-important outcomes in the "Summary of findings" tables. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate due to poor reporting quality, poor trial design, and other risks of bias, such as selective presentation of findings and potential heavy industry input. Better quality research may change our certainty in the effect estimates. None of the included trials reported on the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizures and time to withdrawal (retention time) in an extractable way. Gabapentin-treated participants were more likely to withdraw from treatment for any cause (285/539) than those treated with lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate pooled together (695/1317) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25; 3 studies, 1856 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not carbamazepine. Fewer people treated with gabapentin withdrew from treatment owing to adverse events (190/525) than those treated with carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate (479/1238), (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.91; 1763 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), but not lamotrigine.

CONCLUSION

Gabapentin as monotherapy probably controlled seizures no better and no worse than comparator AEDs (lamotrigine, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate). Compared to carbamazepine, gabapentin was probably better in retaining people in studies and preventing withdrawals due to adverse events. The most common side effects associated with gabapentin were ataxia (poor co-ordination and unsteady gait), dizziness, fatigue, and drowsiness.

Pregabalin monotherapy for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Many people with epilepsy suffer from poorly controlled seizures, despite current antiepileptic treatments. Due to high rates of treatment resistance, there is interest in new pharmacological treatment options such as pregabalin. However, it remains unclear whether existing evidence of pregabalin is rigorous enough to support its monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin in people with epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (August 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7 ), MEDLINE (1946 to August week 1, 2012), EMBASE (1974 to August 2012) and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to August 2012). No language restrictions were imposed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pregabalin with placebo or another antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (QZ and LY) independently extracted trial data and assessed trial quality. We assessed the following outcomes: (1) time to withdrawal after randomisation; (2) time to achieve six-, 12- or 24-month remission; (3) the proportion of participants who remained seizure-free for six or more continuous months; (4) time to first seizure after randomisation; (5) validated quality of life measures; (6) health economic outcomes; (7) adverse effects. We expressed time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI), where an HR > 1 indicates an event is more likely to occur earlier on pregabalin than the comparator.

MAIN RESULTS

Two short-term studies involving 753 participants met the inclusion criteria. Only one study investigated the effects of pregabalin compared with lamotrigine in patients with newly diagnosed partial seizures, and the other study investigated the effects of pregabalin compared with gabapentin in hospitalised patients with refractory partial epilepsy. There were no studies on generalised-onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).We found that pregabalin was inferior in comparison to lamotrigine when measuring time to withdrawal due to inadequate seizure control after dose stabilisation from randomisation: hazard ratio (HR) 4.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 10.60; time to achieve six-month remission after dose stabilisation from randomisation: HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.76; the proportion of participants who remained seizure-free for six or more continuous months: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.87 (Europe: 0.83, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99; Asia: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.86; the Americas: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.19); and time to first seizure after dose stabilisation from randomisation: HR 1.74; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.39. There was no significant difference in safety-related outcomes between pregabalin and lamotrigine, but more participants in the pregabalin group developed somnolence, weight increase and convulsion. Pregabalin was better than gabapentin when measuring time to withdrawal due to all reasons after randomisation: HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.57; and time to withdrawal due to inadequate seizure control after randomisation: HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.92. No significant difference was found in safety-related outcomes between pregabalin and gabapentin. But we found some limitations in the study design which may have had an influence on the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin seems to have similar tolerability but inferior efficacy in comparison to lamotrigine for newly diagnosed partial seizures. However, considering the limitations in the study design (such as the short-term follow-up and the low initial target dose selection), the results should be interpreted with caution. The available data were too limited to draw any conclusions between pregabalin and gabapentin. The result indicated that the treatment effects were influenced by the study regions. The clinical disadvantage of pregabalin was more prominent in Asia when compared with lamotrigine. We should determine whether pregabalin has ethnic differences in the treatment of epilepsy in the future. This review does not inform any treatment policy for patients with generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures. Further long-term trials are needed to investigate the genuine effectiveness of pregabalin as monotherapy.

The Art of Managing Conversions between Antiepileptic Drugs: Maximizing Patient Tolerability and Quality of Life

Conversion between anti-epilectic drugs (AEDs) is frequently necessary in epilepsy care, exposing patients to a risk of incurring adverse effects and reduced quality of life. Little practical guidance is available to practitioners to guide conversions between AED monotherapies, or in adding a new adjunctive AED into a polytherapy regimen. This article reviews the impact of adverse effects of AEDs on quality of life in epilepsy patients, then reviews several important patient-related factors such as age, gender, medical and psychiatric co-morbidities, and co-medications that must be considered when selecting AEDs and ensuring tolerable and safe AED conversions. Practical strategies for transitional polytherapy AED conversion are then considered in different commonly encountered clinical scenarios in newly diagnosed and refractory epilepsy care, including inadequate seizure control, intolerable adverse effects, or idiosyncratic safety hazards. Successful conversion between AEDs requires regular monitoring for patient-reported adverse effects and appropriately reactive adjustment of AED therapy to maximize patient quality of life.

Development of new antiepileptic drugs: challenges, incentives, and recent advances

Despite the introduction of many second-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the past 15 years, a third of patients with epilepsy remain refractory to available treatments, and newer and more effective therapies are needed. Although our understanding of the mechanisms of drug resistance is fragmented, novel AED targets have been identified, and models of refractory epilepsy have been developed that can help to select candidate compounds for development. There are more than 20 compounds with potential antiepileptic activity in various stages of clinical development, and for many of these promising clinical trial results are already available. Several incentives justify further investment into the discovery of newer and more effective AEDs. Moreover, developments in clinical trial methodology enable easier completion of proof-of-concept studies, earlier definition of the therapeutic potential of candidate compounds, and more efficient completion of trials for various epilepsy indications.