A comparison of monotherapy with lamotrigine or carbamazepine in patients with newly diagnosed partial epilepsy

Management of epilepsy in older adults: A critical review by the ILAE Task Force on Epilepsy in the elderly

Older adults represent a highly heterogeneous population, with multiple diverse subgroups. Therefore, an individualized approach to treatment is essential to meet the needs of each unique subgroup. Most comparative studies focusing on treatment of epilepsy in older adults have found that levetiracetam has the best chance of long-term seizure freedom. However, there is a lack of studies investigating other newer generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). Although a number of randomized clinical trials have been performed on older adults with epilepsy, the number of participants studied was generally small, and they only investigated short-term efficacy and tolerability. Quality of life as an outcome is often missing but is necessary to understand the effectiveness and possible side effects of treatment. Prognosis needs to move beyond the focus on seizure control to long-term patient-centered outcomes. Dosing studies with newer generation ASMs are needed to understand which treatments are the best in the older adults with different comorbidities. In particular, more high-level evidence is required for older adults with Alzheimer's disease with epilepsy and status epilepticus. Future treatment studies should use greater homogeneity in the inclusion criteria to allow for clearer findings that can be comparable with other studies to build the existing treatment evidence base.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Lacosamide and Oxcarbazepine for Seizure Control in Children with Newly Diagnosed Solitary Neurocysticercosis

BACKGROUND

In newly diagnosed neurocysticercosis (NCC) with seizures, the choice of anti-seizure medication (ASM) seems to be arbitrary due to a lack of comparative studies. Although oxcarbazepine (OXC) is often considered efficacious for focal seizures in NCC, due to adverse effects, newer ASMs like levetiracetam (LCM) and lacosamide are also being explored.

METHODS

This study was performed by case record review of children with newly diagnosed solitary viable parenchymal NCC aged 4-18years who received lacosamide and OXC at least for 12 weeks between August 2019 and April 2021, from a prospective registry of a tertiary care teaching hospital in north India. Seizure control, electroencephalographic abnormalities, resolution of inflammatory granulomas and adverse effects were compared between two arms at 12 and 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Total 31 (8.3 ± 4.7 years, 19 boys) and 72 (8.6 ± 4.2 years, 43 boys) completed at least 12 weeks follow-up in LCM and OXC groups, out of which 2 and 51 completed at least 24 weeks follow-up in LCM and OXC groups, respectively. The occurrence of breakthrough seizure was comparable in both arms at 12 and 24 weeks (1/31 and 2/22 in lacosamide group vs. 2/72 and 4/51 in OXC group, p = 0.66 and 0.59, respectively). Patients receiving OXC had more frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (p = 0.0001) and four patients required discontinuation due to severe adverse events (SAEs), while none in the lacosamide group had SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Lacosamide appears to be efficacious and safe for achieving seizure freedom in patients with solitary viable parenchymal neurocysticercosis.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: levetiracetam 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and levetiracetam was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or levetiracetam in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), levetiracetam 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, levetiracetam, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug levetiracetam, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.

Efficacy and tolerability of antiseizure drugs

Drug-resistant epilepsy occurs in 25-30% of patients. Furthermore, treatment with a first-generation antiseizure drug (ASD) fails in 30-40% of individuals because of their intolerable adverse effects. Over the past three decades, 20 newer- (second- and third-)generation ASDs with unique mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetic profiles have been introduced into clinical practice. This advent has expanded the therapeutic armamentarium of epilepsy and broadens the choices of ASDs to match the individual patient's characteristics. In recent years, research has been focused on defining the ASD of choice for different seizure types. In 2017, the International League Against Epilepsy published a new classification for seizure types and epilepsy syndrome. This classification has been of paramount importance to accurately classify the patient's seizure type(s) and prescribe the ASD that is appropriate. A year later, the American Academy of Neurology published a new guideline for ASD selection in adult and pediatric patients with new-onset and treatment-resistant epilepsy. The guideline primarily relied on studies that compare the first-generation and second-generation ASDs, with limited data for the efficacy of third-generation drugs. While researchers have been called for investigating those drugs in future research, epilepsy specialists may wish to share their personal experiences to support the treatment guidelines. Given the rapid advances in the development of ASDs in recent years and the continuous updates in definitions, classifications, and treatment guidelines for seizure types and epilepsy syndromes, this review aims to present a complete overview of the current state of the literature about the efficacy and tolerability of ASDs and provide guidance to clinicians about selecting appropriate ASDs for initial treatment of epilepsy according to different seizure types and epilepsy syndromes based on the current literature and recent US and UK practical guidelines.

Neuropharmacology of Antiseizure Drugs

BACKGROUND

Antiseizure drugs (ASDs) are the primary therapy for epilepsy, with more than 20 drugs introduced into clinical practice to date. These drugs are typically grouped by their mechanisms of action and therapeutic spectrum. This article aims to educate non-neurologists and medical students about the new frontiers in the pharmacology of ASDs and presents the current state of the literature on the efficacy and tolerability of these agents.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and evidence-based meta-analyses of ASD efficacy and tolerability as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier Clinical Pharmacology.

RESULTS

The choice of ASD varies primarily according to the seizure type. Practical guidelines for ASD selection in patients with new-onset and drug-resistant epilepsy were recently published. The guidelines have shown that the newer-generation drugs, which have unique mechanistic and pharmacokinetic properties, are better tolerated but have similar efficacy compared with the older drugs. Several ASDs are effective as first-line monotherapy in focal seizures, including lamotrigine, carbamazepine, phenytoin, levetiracetam, and zonisamide. Valproate remains the first-line drug for many patients with generalized and unclassified epilepsies. However, valproate should be avoided, if possible, in women of childbearing potential because of teratogenicity. Toxicity profile precludes several drugs from use as first-line treatment, for example, vigabatrin, felbamate, and rufinamide.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiseizure drugs have different pharmacologic profiles that should be considered when selecting and prescribing these agents for epilepsy. These include pharmacokinetic properties, propensity for drug-drug interactions, and adverse effects.

Efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine in the treatment of focal epilepsy among children and adolescents: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is the most common chronic neurological disease in children, and focal epileptic seizures are the most common subtype. Unlike the data supporting treatment options for adults with epilepsy, evidence regarding the most effective first-line drug therapy for focal epilepsy in children and adolescents is limited. While lamotrigine is a therapeutic option for adults, there are disagreements surrounding its efficacy and tolerability in the younger population. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support a more definitive recommendation.

METHODS

We undertook electronic search strategies using Medline via Ovid SP, Embase via Ovid SP up to February 05, 2021. We also searched relevant articles through Chinese BioMedical Literature (CBM), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG, and VIP databases up to February 05, 2021. Study selection and data extraction were performed by 2 authors independently. The randomized controlled trials on focal epilepsy in children were included, and we made risk of bias judgments based on the methods endorsed by The Cochrane Collaboration. We used fifty percent or greater reduction in seizure frequency as an indicator of efficacy, the incidence of adverse events and treatment withdrawal as indicators of tolerability. The strength of the correlation was assessed via risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 7 randomized trials involving 757 participants fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Of the 7 trials, 3 were placebo-controlled, and 4 compared lamotrigine with carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine. Lamotrigine was significantly more effective than placebo in achieving ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency, but its efficacy was not significantly different from that of carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine (lamotrigine vs. placebo: RR 2.95, 95% CI, 1.88 to 4.61; lamotrigine vs. carbamazepine/oxcarbazepine: RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05. There was significant difference in the incidence of overall adverse events between the lamotrigine- and carbamazepine/oxcarbazepine-treated groups (RR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Lamotrigine was effective in reducing the seizure frequency when used as an add-on treatment in children with focal epilepsy, but current evidence does not suggest that lamotrigine is superior to carbamazepine/oxcarbazepine as monotherapy. For overall adverse events, lamotrigine has significantly fewer than carbamazepine/oxcarbazepine, suggesting that lamotrigine has better tolerability.

The number and kind of antiepileptics affect propofol dose requirement for anesthesia: observational study

The propofol dose requirement and the emergence time are affected by antiepileptic use. The effects on anesthesia of the number and kind of antiepileptic agents have not been reported. We investigated the relationship between the kind and number of antiepileptic agents and the propofol dose requirement for anesthesia and emergence time in intravenous general anesthesia for dental treatment for patients with neurological disorders. We studied 247 patients with neurological disorders who underwent dental treatment under intravenous general anesthesia. Patients were categorized according to the number of antiepileptics (none, single agent, two kinds, and three or more kinds of antiepileptics) and the kind of antiepileptic (carbamazepine, valproate, phenobarbital, phenytoin, zonisamide, clobazam, or topiramate) being received. The propofol dose requirement for anesthesia, emergence time, and predicted blood propofol concentration at emergence were evaluated. Patients on three or more kinds of antiepileptics had significantly lower propofol dose requirement (reduction in 25%, compare with no use) and predicted blood propofol concentration at emergence (reduction in 41%) and significantly longer emergence time (extension in 50%) (P < 0.05). Valproate and clobazam reduced the propofol dose (valproate 9% and clobazam 19%) and predicted blood propofol concentration at emergence (valproate 18% and clobazam 33%), while phenobarbital increased these parameters (30% and 125%) (P < 0.05). The number and kind of antiepileptics effects propofol dose requirement. In particular, valproate and clobazam reduce the propofol dose requirement, while phenobarbital increases this.Clinical trial registration UMIN No. UMIN000014179.

The medical treatment of epilepsy in the elderly: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in elderly individuals with epilepsy.

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases as well as bibliographies and conference abstracts. Published and unpublished, randomized, or quasirandomized trials reporting the use of AEDs in people aged at least 60 years with epilepsy were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently carried out each stage of the review. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Three thousand four hundred seventeen titles and abstracts were reviewed. Eighteen studies evaluating 12 AEDs met all eligibility criteria. Ten studies, comprising 1999 subjects, were suitable for meta-analysis. Among the elderly with epilepsy, lamotrigine (LTG) is better tolerated relative to carbamazepine (pooled weighted risk ratio [RR] of experiencing withdrawal due to adverse events = 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23-2.43). There is a higher probability, although with a 95% CI of borderline importance, of seizure freedom when comparing levetiracetam to LTG (RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.68-0.97). Single studies provide evidence for the efficacy and/or tolerability of other AEDs in the elderly, including brivaracetam, gabapentin, lacosamide, perampanel, and topiramate. The risk of bias of the included studies was frequently low or unclear, although there was on occasion a high risk of bias (especially with regard to selective reporting).

SIGNIFICANCE

There is some evidence for AED use in the elderly with epilepsy. More evidence is required, comparing newer AEDs to prior generations as well as examining the effects of determinants such as frailty, to guide clinicians when treating this rapidly growing patient population.

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 11, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free, and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are recommended as first-line treatments for new onset focal seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the first searches for this review in 1997. For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Clinical Trials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 26 February 2018, without language restrictions SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3787 eligible individuals from nine out of 14 trials: 68% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for carbamazepine; and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.82, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.55 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.66, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR for all participants: 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.41), moderate-quality evidence) showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine in terms of treatment failure for any reason related to treatment and treatment failure due to adverse events, but no different between drugs for treatment failure due to lack of efficacy.Time to first seizure (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 1.26, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41, high-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.97, high-quality evidence), showed a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (pooled HR for all participants 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07, high-quality evidence) or time to 24-month remission (HR for all participants 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25, high-quality evidence), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the treatment failure and withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment failure to be moderate for individuals with focal onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence indicates that treatment failure for any reason related to treatment or due to adverse events occurs significantly earlier on carbamazepine than lamotrigine, but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. The choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Comparison of lamotrigine and oxcarbazepine monotherapy for pediatric focal epilepsy: An observational study

PURPOSE

Oxcarbazepine is known as an effective first-line monotherapy for pediatric focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine has also been reported to have similar efficacy to and better tolerability than carbamazepine. Therefore, the effectiveness of oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine monotherapies was compared in patients with pediatric focal epilepsy.

METHOD

A total of 116 patients in pediatric patients with partial epilepsy received lamotrigine (n = 43) or oxcarbazepine (n = 73) monotherapy. The clinical characteristics, seizure outcomes, reasons for drug discontinuation, retention rate and adverse effects were evaluated for each drug.

RESULTS

Oxcarbazepine was more commonly used than lamotrigine (69/73 vs. 23/43) as initial monotherapy. Lamotrigine showed better efficacy than oxcarbazepine in terms of the seizure outcome more than 12 months (P<0.05). Oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine showed similar tolerability in terms of the retention rate, drug discontinuation and adverse effects. The rates of successful discontinuation were similar for patients receiving these drug as initial monotherapy (P > 0.05). The seizure outcome was much better for lamotrigine than for oxcarbazepine in patients with normal MRI findings and normal development (P = 0.001, P = 0.01). The retention rate was high in patients with MRI abnormalities or developmental delay in the lamotrigine group. The choice of lamotrigine was the only independent variable that predicted a seizure-free state, even after correcting for clinical variables (OR = 4.80, P = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Lamotrigine was superior to oxcarbazepine monotherapy because of its greater effectiveness in treating pediatric focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine can be selected as a first-line monotherapy in patients with or without abnormal MRI findings or delayed development.

Comparative efficacy of antiepileptic drugs in children and adolescents: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the comparative efficacy among antiepileptic drugs in the pediatric population (0-18 years).

METHODS

Using the Embase and MEDLINE databases, we updated to February 2017 the search strategy of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for epilepsy. We only included randomized clinical trials conducted in children and mixed-age populations. According to the PRISMA network meta-analysis guideline, the study-level quality assessment was made with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Three investigators independently selected articles. The efficacy outcome was considered to be seizure freedom or ≥50% seizure reduction.

RESULTS

We selected 46 randomized clinical trials. A total of 5652 individuals were randomized to 22 antiepileptic drugs and placebo. The point estimates of carbamazepine and lamotrigine efficacy showed their superiority with respect to all comparator antiepileptic drugs for the treatment of newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. In refractory focal epilepsy, levetiracetam (odds ratio [OR] = 3.3, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 1.3-7.6) and perampanel (OR = 2.5, 95% CrI = 1.1-5.8) were more effective compared to placebo. Ethosuximide and valproic acid were both superior to lamotrigine against absence seizures. The OR point estimate showed the superiority of adrenocorticotropic hormone over all comparators in infantile spasms. A wide heterogeneity in the length of follow-up was observed among the studies.

SIGNIFICANCE

This network meta-analysis suggests that the quality of studies should be improved through the use of comparative designs, relevant outcomes, appropriate follow-up length, and more reliable inclusion criteria.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for partial onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than current first-line treatment carbamazepine and other current first-line treatment lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam); carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Antiepileptic Drugs in Patients with Focal Epilepsy: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analyses

Several newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been introduced into clinical practice, offering choices for individualizing the treatment of epilepsy since AEDs have different efficacy and tolerability profiles. In particular, questions exist regarding which AEDs are the best options for the monotherapy of focal epilepsy. Is carbamazepine (CBZ), which is considered the standard treatment for focal epilepsy, still the best option for monotherapy of focal epilepsy, despite the emergence of new AEDs? In this systematic review, we compared the relative tolerability of all available AEDs for monotherapy of all types of epilepsy as well as their efficacy in the monotherapy of focal epilepsy. In addition, we compared CBZ with other AEDs for the monotherapy of focal epilepsy. We performed a search of the MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases for randomized controlled clinical trials. To compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of the AEDs, we performed network meta-analyses using a Bayesian random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the robustness of the results. A total of 65 studies were included in this review, composing 16,025 patients. Clobazam, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, sulthiame, topiramate, and valproate had the best efficacy profiles and demonstrated no evidence of superiority or inferiority compared with CBZ. However, CBZ showed the greatest risk of patient discontinuation due to intolerable adverse reactions, whereas lamotrigine had the best safety profile and an 81% probability of being the best for the tolerability outcome of patient withdrawals from the study due to intolerable adverse reactions, followed by sulthiame (60%) and clobazam (51%). The newer AEDs-levetiracetam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, sulthiame, and topiramate-should be considered for monotherapy of focal epilepsy because they were demonstrated to be as effective as the older ones (CBZ, clobazam, and valproate) for the treatment of focal epilepsy and were more tolerable. Lamotrigine was the AED with the best tolerability profile, suggesting that it may be the best option for the treatment of focal epilepsy in children and adults.

Non-health care facility anticonvulsant medication errors in the United States

INTRODUCTION

This study provides an epidemiological description of non-health care facility medication errors involving anticonvulsant drugs.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of National Poison Data System data was conducted on non-health care facility medication errors involving anticonvulsant drugs reported to US Poison Control Centers from 2000 through 2012.

RESULTS

During the study period, 108,446 non-health care facility medication errors involving anticonvulsant pharmaceuticals were reported to US Poison Control Centers, averaging 8342 exposures annually. The annual frequency and rate of errors increased significantly over the study period, by 96.6 and 76.7%, respectively. The rate of exposures resulting in health care facility use increased by 83.3% and the rate of exposures resulting in serious medical outcomes increased by 62.3%. In 2012, newer anticonvulsants, including felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, other anticonvulsants (excluding barbiturates), other types of gamma aminobutyric acid, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and zonisamide, accounted for 67.1% of all exposures.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of non-health care facility anticonvulsant medication errors reported to Poison Control Centers increased during 2000-2012, resulting in more frequent health care facility use and serious medical outcomes. Newer anticonvulsants, although often considered safer and more easily tolerated, were responsible for much of this trend and should still be administered with caution.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for partial onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam), and carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.

Epilepsy management in older people: Lessons from National Audit of Seizure management in Hospitals (NASH)

PURPOSE

Epilepsy is the third most common diagnosis in older people, however management in this group remains variable. National Audit of Seizure management in Hospitals (NASH) set out to assess care provided to patients attending hospitals in England following a seizure.

METHOD

154 Emergency Departments (EDs) across the UK took part. 1256 patients aged 60 years or over were included for analysis (median age 74 years, 54% men). 51% were known to have epilepsy, 17% had history of previous seizure or blackout and 32% presented with a suspected first seizure.

RESULTS

14% of older patients with epilepsy were not on treatment, 59% were on monotherapy. Sodium valproate was the most commonly used antiepileptic, 28%. 35% of patients with epilepsy, aged 60 and over, had a CT during admission compared to only 17% of those under 60. 80% of patients aged 60 and over presenting with a likely first seizure were admitted to hospital, compared to 65% of those under 60. 34% of those with suspected first seizure were referred to a neurologist on discharge compared to 68% of patients under the age of 60. 52% of 60-69year olds with a suspected first seizure were referred to neurology compared to 25% of patients aged 80-89.

CONCLUSIONS

Older patients presenting with seizures are more likely to be admitted to hospital and have imaging. They are less likely to be referred to specialist services on discharge. There appears to be significant disparity in patient age and rate of referral.

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line antiepileptic therapy for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments. It is also important that the effectiveness and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types are compared to one another.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are first-line recommended treatments for new onset partial seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to withdrawal, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

The first searches for this review were run in 1997. For the most recent update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (17 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 17 October 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 17 October 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3394 eligible individuals from nine out of 13 trials: 78% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were: time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), time to first seizure (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.37) and time to six-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94), showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine for withdrawal but a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07) or time to 24-month remission (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so the evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment withdrawal to be moderate for individuals with partial onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with partial onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lamotrigine was significantly less likely to be withdrawn than carbamazepine but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. A choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of New Pharmaceuticals in Epilepsy in Adults: The Results of a Probabilistic Decision Model

Epilepsy currently affects more than 400,000 people in the United Kingdom and 2.3 million in the United States. Drug therapy is the mainstay of treatment for patients with epilepsy, but therapies vary widely in their mechanism of action and acquisition cost. This article describes a decision model developed for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom. It compares the long-term cost-effectiveness of drugs licensed in adults for use in 3 situations: monotherapy for newly diagnosed patients, monotherapy for refractory patients, and combination therapy for refractory patients. The analysis separately considers the treatment of partial and generalized seizures. The full range of pharmaceutical therapies feasibly used in the UK health system was included in the analysis. The analysis showed that, on the basis of existing evidence, for newly diagnosed patients with partial seizures, carbamazepine and valproate are likely to be the most cost-effective mono-therapies. Carbamazepine is likely to be the most cost-effective 2nd-line monotherapy for refractory patients, and oxcarbazepine would probably be the most cost-effective adjunctive therapy for refractory patients if the willingness to pay for additional health benefits is greater than £18,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). For patients with generalized seizures, valproate is most likely to be cost-effective for newly diagnosed patients. For refractory patients, adjunctive topiramate is more cost-effective than monotherapy alone if the willingness to pay for additional health benefits is greater than £35,000 per QALY. There is, however, considerable uncertainty regarding these results. Some of the methodological features of the study will be of value in designing cost-effectiveness analyses of other therapies for chronic conditions. These include the methods used to deal with the absence of head-to-head trial data and the need to reflect time dependency in Markov transition probabilities.

Comparative effectiveness of levetiracetam, valproate and carbamazepine among elderly patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy: subgroup analysis of the randomized, unblinded KOMET study

Background

Few clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) as initial monotherapy for elderly patients.

Methods

This post-hoc subgroup analysis of data from an unblinded, randomized, 52-week superiority study (KOMET) compared the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) with extended-release sodium valproate (VPA-ER) and controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as monotherapy in patients aged ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. The physician chose VPA or CBZ as preferred standard treatment; patients were randomized to standard AEDs or LEV. The primary endpoint was time to treatment withdrawal. Results are exploratory, since KOMET was not powered for a subgroup analysis by age.

Results

Patients (n = 308) were randomized to LEV (n = 48) or VPA-ER (n = 53) in the VPE-ER stratum or to LEV (n = 104) or CBZ-CR (n = 103) in the CBZ-CR stratum. Mean age was 69.6 years, range 60.2–89.9 years (intention-to-treat population n = 307). Time to treatment withdrawal hazard ratio [HR] (95 % confidence interval [CI]) for LEV vs. standard AEDs was 0.44 (0.28–0.67); LEV vs. VPA-ER: 0.46 (0.16–1.33); LEV vs. CBZ-CR: 0.45 (0.28–0.72). Twelve-month withdrawal rates were: LEV vs. standard AEDs, 20.4 vs. 38.7 %; LEV vs. VPA-ER, 10.4 vs. 23.1 %; LEV vs. CBZ-CR, 25.0 vs. 46.6 %. Time to first seizure was similar between LEV and standard AEDs (HR: 0.92, 95 % CI: 0.63–1.35), LEV and VPA-ER (0.77, 0.38–1.56), and LEV and CBZ-CR (1.02, 0.64–1.63). Adverse events were reported by 76.2, 67.3, and 82.5 % of patients for LEV, VPA-ER, and CBZ-CR, respectively. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were 11.3, 10.2, and 35.0 % for LEV, VPA-ER, and CBZ-CR, respectively.

Conclusions

Time to treatment withdrawal was longer with LEV compared with standard AEDs. This finding was driven primarly by the result in the CBZ-CR stratum, which in turn was likely due to the more favorable tolerability profile of LEV. Results of this post-hoc analysis suggest that LEV may be a suitable option for initial monotherapy for patients aged ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00175903; September 9, 2005.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12883-016-0663-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of Drug Utilization Patterns in Observational Data: Antiepileptic Drugs in Pediatric Patients

PURPOSE

Physicians require information on the comparative benefits and harms of medications for optimal treatment decisions. However, this type of data is limited, especially for pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to use observational data to measure and compare medication utilization patterns in a pediatric patient population.

METHODS

Using pharmacy claims data from a large, national-scale insurance program in the USA, we identified all patients with a diagnosis of epilepsy treated with a first-generation antiepileptic drug (carbamazepine, ethosuximide, phenobarbital, phenytoin, or valproate) or a second-generation antiepileptic drug [carbamazepine extended release (XR), gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, tiagabine, topiramate, valproate XR, or zonisamide]. Treatment periods were defined on the basis of prescription fill dates and medication days supplied. Medication use was measured for individual antiepileptic drugs and for first-generation and second-generation drugs as groups.

RESULTS

There were 2527 patients (54 %) who initiated therapy with first-generation antiepileptics and 2139 patients (46 %) who initiated therapy with second-generation antiepileptics. First- and second-generation drugs had the same 1-year retention rates [26 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 24-28) and 26 % (95 % CI 25-28), respectively], and 26 % of patients (95 % CI 25-28) and 29 % of patients (95 % CI 27-31) who started on a first- or second-generation antiepileptic medication, respectively, resumed treatment with the initial drug after discontinuation. Overall, 73 % of patients (95 % CI 71-74) were treated with only one antiepileptic drug, with similar rates for patients started on first- and second-generation drugs [71 % (95 % CI 69-73) versus 74 % (95 % CI 72-76)].

CONCLUSION

Comparing drug utilization patterns in a pediatric population using observational data, we found similar rates of retention and therapeutic changes. These findings are consistent with the available comparative data and demonstrate an approach that could be extended to other drug classes and conditions in pediatric populations to examine drug effectiveness.

Solubility of Carbamazepine-Succinic Co-Crystal in Ethanolic Solvent System

Solubility of carbamazepine co-crystal produced from cooling co-crystallization process with succinic acid as a co-crystal former is investigated in this study. Two techniques were used to determine the solubility of the co-crystal which are gravimetry and HPLC. The solubility experiments in ethanol solvent systems were conducted at 6 different temperatures (25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 °C) while for succinic acid ethanolic solution system were conducted at 5 different concentration ratios. Both of the systems are equilibrated for 72 hours. Result from the experiments has shown that the solubility of co-crystal is temperature dependent. As the temperature increases, the solubility of co-crystal also increases; this agrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamic which states that heat facilitates the dissolution process by providing more energy to the system.

Safety of lamotrigine in paediatrics: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To identify adverse drug reactions associated with lamotrigine in children and compare the safety profile with other antiepileptic drugs.

SETTING

Databases EMBASE (1974-April 2015), MEDLINE (1946-April 2015), PubMed and the Cochrane library for randomised controlled trials were searched for studies on safety of lamotrigine.

PARTICIPANTS

All studies involving paediatric patients aged ≤ 18 years who have received at least a single dose of lamotrigine with safety as an outcome measure were included.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was safety of lamotrigine. Drug interaction of lamotrigine was the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 78 articles involving 3783 paediatric patients were identified. There were 2222 adverse events (AEs) reported. Rash was the most commonly reported AE, occurring in 7.3% of the patients. Stevens-Johnson syndrome was rarely reported, with a risk of 0.09 per 100 patients. Discontinuation due to an adverse drug reaction (ADR) was recorded in 72 children (1.9% of all treated patients). Fifty-eight per cent of treatment discontinuation was attributed to different forms of rash and 21% due to increased seizures. Children on lamotrigine monotherapy had lower incidences of AEs. Headache (p=0.02), somnolence (<0.001), nausea (p=0.01), vomiting (p<0.001), dizziness (p<0.001) and abdominal pain (p=0.01) were significantly lower among children on monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Rash was the most common ADR of lamotrigine and the most common reason for treatment discontinuation. Children receiving polytherapy have a higher risk of AEs than monotherapy users.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42013006910.

Lamotrigine and its applications in the treatment of epilepsy and other neurological and psychiatric disorders

Lamotrigine is a broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug, initially approved in 1994 for the adjunctive treatment of partial seizures in adults and for the generalized seizures of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome in pediatric (>2 years old) and adult populations. Its role in the treatment of bipolar disorder type I has also been well established. In addition, lamotrigine has been successfully used for the management of other neurological conditions such as migraines and neuropathic pain, and preliminary data show promising results. It has favorable pharmacokinetic properties and is generally well tolerated. The small risk of serious skin rash can be minimized with slow titration of the drug and dose adjustment with concomitant medications. Lamotrigine has demonstrated particular benefit in the treatment of women and elderly patients with epilepsy.

Pharmacotherapy of focal epilepsy in children: a systematic review of approved agents

BACKGROUND

Partial-onset seizures contribute the bulk of seizure burden in childhood epilepsy. The therapeutic decision making involves consideration of factors specific to drug, patient and socioeconomic situation.

OBJECTIVES

This paper systematically reviews the available efficacy/effectiveness evidence for various anti-epileptic drugs (AED) as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in children.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified by a structured PubMed search, supplemented by an additional hand search of reference lists and authors' files.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Eligible studies were reviewed and data extracted into tables. Included RCTs were classified based on accepted published criteria.

OUTCOMES

Only efficacy and effectiveness outcome measures were evaluated since there is little scientifically rigorous comprehensive AED adverse effects data.

RESULTS

Oxcarbazepine is the only AED with Class I evidence for efficacy/effectiveness as initial monotherapy for partial-onset seizures in children. Carbamazepine, clobazam, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, topiramate, valproate, vigabatrin and zonisamide have, at best, Class III efficacy/effectiveness evidence for monotherapy of partial-onset seizures in children. For adjunctive therapy, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine and topiramate have Class I efficacy/effectiveness evidence for treatment of pediatric partial-onset seizures.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

This efficacy/effectiveness analysis must not be used in isolation when selecting therapy. AED selection for a specific child needs to integrate a drug's efficacy/effectiveness data with its safety and tolerability profile, pharmacokinetic properties, available formulations, and patient specific characteristics. It is critical that physicians and patients incorporate all these relevant variables when choosing AED therapy.

Population pharmacokinetics of unbound and total drug concentrations following intravenously administered carbamazepine in elderly and younger adult patients with epilepsy

The objective of the study was to investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of unbound and total plasma carbamazepine (CBZ) concentrations following simultaneous administration of intravenous and oral formulations. We tested the hypothesis that age-related alterations in physiology and patient characteristics influence CBZ disposition and protein binding. Patients (n = 113) on maintenance therapy received a 100 mg dose of a novel, intravenous, stable-labeled (SL) CBZ formulation as partial replacement of their morning CBZ dose. A two-compartment model described unbound and total SL-CBZ data. The stable-labeled intravenous dosing methodology enabled the estimation of the CBZ clearance (CL) and volumes of distribution. The CL of CBZ was dependent on race through the model equation unbound CL (L/hour) = 11.2 × (1.30)(Race); where Race = 1 for Caucasian, 0 for African American. Total body weight explained 57% and 70% of the interindividual variability in the central and peripheral volumes of distribution, respectively. Age, sex, smoking, plasma albumin, and alpha 1-acid glycoprotein concentrations had no effect on CL, binding or volumes of distribution. The model was evaluated via bootstrap and predictive check. Results may support race specific dosing for CBZ where an average African-American individual would receive 70% of the standard dose prescribed for the Caucasian person.

Updated ILAE evidence review of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes

The purpose of this report was to update the 2006 International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) report and identify the level of evidence for long-term efficacy or effectiveness for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy. All applicable articles from July 2005 until March 2012 were identified, evaluated, and combined with the previous analysis (Glauser et al., 2006) to provide a comprehensive update. The prior analysis methodology was utilized with three modifications: (1) the detectable noninferiority boundary approach was dropped and both failed superiority studies and prespecified noninferiority studies were analyzed using a noninferiority approach, (2) the definition of an adequate comparator was clarified and now includes an absolute minimum point estimate for efficacy/effectiveness, and (3) the relationship table between clinical trial ratings, level of evidence, and conclusions no longer includes a recommendation column to reinforce that this review of efficacy/evidence for specific seizure types does not imply treatment recommendations. This evidence review contains one clarification: The commission has determined that class I superiority studies can be designed to detect up to a 20% absolute (rather than relative) difference in the point estimate of efficacy/effectiveness between study treatment and comparator using an intent-to-treat analysis. Since July, 2005, three class I randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 11 class III RCTs have been published. The combined analysis (1940-2012) now includes a total of 64 RCTs (7 with class I evidence, 2 with class II evidence) and 11 meta-analyses. New efficacy/effectiveness findings include the following: levetiracetam and zonisamide have level A evidence in adults with partial onset seizures and both ethosuximide and valproic acid have level A evidence in children with childhood absence epilepsy. There are no major changes in the level of evidence for any other subgroup. Levetiracetam and zonisamide join carbamazepine and phenytoin with level A efficacy/effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy for adults with partial onset seizures. Although ethosuximide and valproic acid now have level A efficacy/effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy for children with absence seizures, there continues to be an alarming lack of well designed, properly conducted epilepsy RCTs for patients with generalized seizures/epilepsies and in children in general. These findings reinforce the need for multicenter, multinational efforts to design, conduct, and analyze future clinically relevant adequately designed RCTs. When selecting a patient's AED, all relevant variables and not just efficacy and effectiveness should be considered.

Effects of lamotrigine on cognition and behavior compared to carbamazepine as monotherapy for children with partial epilepsy

To compare the cognitive and behavioral effects of lamotrigine (LTG) to carbamazepine (CBZ) as monotherapy for pediatric epilepsy. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group clinical trial was conducted in children with partial-onset seizures. LTG or CBZ was prescribed as monotherapy for previously untreated children and titrated over 8 weeks, followed by maintenance for 24 weeks. Outcome measures were change in cognition and behavior in a combined analysis of standardized measures from screening to the end of the maintenance phase, as well as antiepileptic efficacy and tolerability. A total of 67 children completed the study, including 32 of 43 (74.4%) treated with LTG and 35 of 41 (85.4%) treated with CBZ. Seizure-free outcomes did not differ between the intent-to-treat populations (53.5% LTG, 56.1% CBZ; p=0.81). There were no statistically significant differences in the intelligence of the two groups after treatment. Externalizing behavior problems improved in the CBZ group (p<0.05). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of externalizing behavior. The parents' report on the Conner scale showed an improvement in the CBZ group compared to the LTG group (p<0.05). LTG and CBZ showed similar efficacy and cognitive effects in treating childhood partial epilepsy. However, CBZ showed more benefits in improving externalizing behaviors.

Specific safety and tolerability considerations in the use of anticonvulsant medications in children

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders in the pediatric age range, and the majority of affected children can be safely and effectively treated with antiepileptic medication. While there are many antiepileptic agents on the market, specific drugs may be more efficacious for certain seizure types or electroclinical syndromes. Furthermore, certain adverse effects are more common with specific classes of medication. Additionally patient-specific factors, such as age, race, other medical conditions, or concurrent medication use may result in higher rates of side effects or altered efficacy. Significant developmental changes in gastric absorption, protein binding, hepatic metabolism, and renal clearance are seen over the pediatric age range, which impact pharmacokinetics. Such changes must be considered to determine optimal dosing and dosing intervals for children at specific ages. Furthermore, approximately one third of children require polytherapy for seizure control, and many more take concurrent medications for other conditions. In such children, drug–drug interactions must be considered to minimize adverse effects and improve efficacy. This review will address issues of antiepileptic drug efficacy, tolerability and ease of use, pharmacokinetics, and drug–drug interactions in the pediatric age range.

Pharmacotherapy for children and adolescents with epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Childhood epilepsies are the most frequent neurological problems that occur in children. Despite the introduction of new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) 25-30% of children with epilepsy remain refractory to medical therapy.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to highlight the main published data on the treatment of childhood epilepsy. The electronic database, PubMed, and abstract proceedings were used to identify studies. The aim of antiepileptic therapy should be to provide complete seizure control, if possible without the burden of any side effect. Since 1993, new agents have been approved for use as an antiepileptic. Although there are few published data (especially in pediatric populations) to establish that the second-generation AEDs are more efficacious than the older AEDs, they appear to have better tolerability.

EXPERT OPINION

Old AEDs are efficacious agents that continue to play a major role in the current treatment of epilepsy. These agents actually remain the first-line treatment for many specific seizure types or epileptic syndromes. The new AEDs were initially approved as adjunct agents and--subsequently--as monotherapy for various seizure types in the adult and children. Despite these improvements, few AEDs are now considered to be a first-choice for the treatment of epilepsy in children.

[Seizures and epilepsies after stroke]

Epilepsies after stroke represent 20% of all adult-onset epilepsies and exhibit special characteristics with respect to diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Patients are frequently amnestic for their seizures the signs of which can be very subtle. Postictal pareses and confusional states can last for days, which further complicate diagnosis. Single seizures after stroke were reported in 2% to 10% of cases, and community-based studies found epilepsies in 3% to 4% of stroke patients. Analyses of subgroups identified epilepsy risks of 3% after ischemic infarction, 6% to 10% after intracerebral hemorrhage, and 9% after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Status epilepticus developed in less than 1% of stroke patients. Besides etiology, further risk factors for epilepsy comprise: remote seizures (latency >2 weeks, risk of recurrence >50%) more than early seizures (latency <2 weeks, risk of recurrence <50%), extent of stroke, cortical involvement, and degree of neurological deficit. The first appearance of seizures in patients older than 60 years represents a risk factor for future stroke with a hazard ratio of 2.89.There is currently no sufficient evidence for starting AED treatment before seizures occur. The benefit is still unclear of starting AED after a single early post-stroke seizure. Most authors recommend AED treatment after the second seizure but also after a first remote seizure because of the high risk of seizure recurrence in these situations. Possible pharmacokinetic interactions should be considered when choosing AED. Especially the first-generation AED carry the potential to interact with comedication, which is usually seen in stroke patients receiving substances such warfarin and salicylates. Only very few studies investigate specific AED exclusively in stroke patients. Lamotrigine and gabapentin have been successfully tested in these patients.

Drug treatment of epilepsy in the century of the ILAE: the second 50 years, 1959-2009

The drug therapy of epilepsy evolved enormously in this 50 year period. Advances in therapeutics included the incorporation of pharmacokinetics into clinical practice, enormous advances in neurochemistry, a trend to antiepileptic drug monotherapy, better drug assessment, better understanding of therapeutic outcomes, and the recognition of the large epilepsy treatment gap in many countries. An unprecedented range of new drugs was introduced in this period. Before 1989, these included carbamazepine, valproate, ethosuximide, and the benzodiazepines. Since 1989, 13 more new drugs have been licensed and marketed and there are others in the pipeline. The International League Against Epilepsy and its leading figures have played an important role in these developments. In this period, too, there has been a rapid expansion in research and development within the pharmaceutical industry and a rise in the value of the antiepileptic drug market. In parallel, governmental regulation of pharmaceuticals has greatly increased. To what extent the overall prognosis of epilepsy has improved as a result of these activities is an interesting and perplexing question.

Efficacy and safety of lamotrigine monotherapy in children and adolescents with epilepsy

Lamotrigine (LTG) has shown to confer broad-spectrum, well-tolerated control of epilepsy. Monotherapy is preferable over polytherapy because of better compliance, fewer adverse events, less interactions, lower teratogenicity and lower cost. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LTG monotherapy on seizure control in a cohort of children and adolescents with epilepsy. We retrospectively reviewed the records of children and adolescents treated with LTG monotherapy at our institution between 2001 and 2006. Data collected included demographics, seizure type, etiology of seizures, age at onset of seizures and at initiation of LTG treatment, number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) prior to LTG, dose of LTG, length of follow-up, treatment response, and adverse events. Seventy-two children and adolescents were identified (mean age 12.1 years); 37.5% had mental retardation. Age at onset of epilepsy was 5.7 years (0-16). Twenty three percent had symptomatic focal epilepsy, 15.5% idiopathic focal epilepsy, 19.4% symptomatic generalized epilepsy and 41.6% idiopathic generalized epilepsy. LTG was used as first-line monotherapy in 26.4% of patients and as a second-line monotherapy in 73.6%. Age at initiation of LTG therapy was 10 years (2.8-19). Mean number of AEDs tried prior to LTG was 1.3 (0-6). Mean dose of LTG was 5.5mg/kg/day (1.1-13.7). Mean follow-up period was 33 months (3 weeks to 11.5 years). The degree of seizure reduction was as follows: seizure free in 42%, 75-90% reduction in 17.4%, 50-74% in 11.6%, 25-49% in 10%. Sixteen percent had no change in seizure control and 3% became worse. The most common adverse event was rash (6.9%). Six (8.3%) patients discontinued LTG because of the adverse events. No patient had Stevens-Johnson syndrome. In conclusion, LTG was effective and well-tolerated as monotherapy in children and adolescents for both focal and generalized epilepsies.

[Specificity of epileptic seizures in the elderly: A proposed electro-clinical scale]

Diagnosis of epileptic seizure may be difficult in older patients because seizure manifestations are often unusual: confusion, paresis... and because there are multiple differential diagnoses (syncope, transient ischemic attack, transient global amnesia...). To promote and facilitate the diagnosis of seizures in the elderly, neurologists and gerontologists must work together and focus their strategy on two points: firstly, the knowledge of the specific presentation of seizures in elderly patients, and secondly, the adoption of a reasoning based on seizures and not epileptic syndromes. A multidisciplinary group worked on epilepsy of the elderly to elaborate an electro-clinical score which aims to help establish the diagnosis of epilepsy in elderly patients in different clinical settings. This electro-clinical score is based on a systematic review of scientific literature and the recommendations are explicitly linked to supporting evidence. Further, clinical validation of the electro-clinical score is required.

Multiple treatment comparisons in epilepsy monotherapy trials

BACKGROUND

The choice of antiepileptic drug for an individual should be based upon the highest quality evidence regarding potential benefits and harms of the available treatments. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials should be a major source of evidence supporting this decision making process. We summarise all available individual patient data evidence from randomised controlled trials that compared at least two out of eight antiepileptic drugs given as monotherapy.

METHODS

Multiple treatment comparisons from epilepsy monotherapy trials were synthesized in a single stratified Cox regression model adjusted for treatment by epilepsy type interactions and making use of direct and indirect evidence. Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure and time to 12 month remission from seizures. A secondary outcome was time to first seizure.

RESULTS

Individual patient data for 6418 patients from 20 randomised trials comparing eight antiepileptic drugs were synthesized. For partial onset seizures (4628 (72%) patients), lamotrigine, carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine provide the best combination of seizure control and treatment failure. Lamotrigine is clinically superior to all other drugs for treatment failure but estimates suggest a disadvantage compared to carbamazepine for time to 12 month remission [Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) = 0.87(0.73 to 1.04)] and time to first seizure [1.29(1.13 to 1.48)]. Phenobarbitone may delay time to first seizure [0.77(0.61 to 0.96)] but at the expense of increased treatment failure [1.60(1.22 to 2.10)]. For generalized onset tonic clonic seizures (1790 (28%) patients) estimates suggest valproate or phenytoin may provide the best combination of seizure control and treatment failure but some uncertainty remains about the relative effectiveness of other drugs.

CONCLUSION

For patients with partial onset seizures, results favour carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine. For generalized onset tonic clonic seizures, results favour valproate and phenytoin.

Lamotrigine therapy in elderly patients with epilepsy, bipolar disorder or dementia

INTRODUCTION

In spite of circumstances that precipitate high use of anticonvulsants in geriatric populations, there is a paucity of data on the use of antiepileptic drugs in elderly patients with psychiatric and neurological disorders.

METHODS

Reports of lamotrigine therapy in elderly patients with epilepsy, bipolar disorder (BD), or dementia were identified by conducting an electronic search of major publication databases. Abstracts and presentations from professional meetings were searched as were the bibliographies of relevant articles.

RESULTS

Fourteen reports were identified, and included well-controlled prospective trials, retrospective analyses, and case reports of lamotrigine treatment. Controlled trials in elderly patients with epilepsy demonstrate efficacy and tolerability comparable to gabapentin. Improvement in bipolar depressive symptoms, improvement in core manic symptoms, and delay in mood relapse was reported in geriatric patients with BD. Preliminary case studies in patients with dementia note improvement in cognition and symptoms of agitation and depression.

CONCLUSION

Review of the available literature suggests lamotrigine is effective and well tolerated in elderly patients with epilepsy and relatively well-tolerated and may be effective in delaying mood relapse, particularly in the depressive pole, in patients with BD. While very limited literature suggests that lamotrigine may be effective and relatively well-tolerated in patients with dementia, further studies are needed.

Monotherapy of lamotrigine versus carbamazepine in patients with poststroke seizure

OBJECTIVES

The incidence of seizures is known to be high in the elderly. The most common cause of an unprovoked seizure in the elderly population is stroke. These patients require effective and well-tolerated antiepileptic treatment because they frequently experience other medical conditions and use other medications that can interact with the antiepileptic treatment. The aim of the study was to analyze the tolerability and efficacy of lamotrigine (LTG) versus sustained-release carbamazepine (CBZ) treatment in newly diagnosed symptomatic poststroke seizure.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients with a first post episode of seizures were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either LTG or CBZ treatment and were followed up prospectively for up to 12 months for efficacy and tolerability of the drugs.

RESULTS

More patients in the LTG group were seizure-free (72%) versus those in the CBZ group (44%; P = 0.06), but the numbers did not reach statistical significance because of a relative small number of study patients. The number of patients who withdraw from the study because of adverse events was statistically significantly less in the LTG group (3%) compared with the CBZ group (31%; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The LTG treatment in poststroke seizures versus CBZ treatment is a relatively better-tolerated drug and can be acceptable as initial treatment in this specific group of patients.

Sodium valproate versus lamotrigine: A randomised comparison of efficacy, tolerability and effects on circulating androgenic hormones in newly diagnosed epilepsy

We have performed a randomised, prospective study to compare the efficacy and tolerability of sodium valproate (VPA) and lamotrigine (LTG) monotherapy, and their effects on circulating androgenic hormones, in newly diagnosed epilepsy. A total of 225 patients (116 male; median age 35 years, range 13-80 years) were followed-up at 6-weekly intervals until they reached an end-point (12 months' seizure freedom; withdrawal due to intolerable side-effects; lack of efficacy despite adequate dosing). Twelve month seizure-free rates were identical (47%) in the VPA (n=111) and LTG (n=114) treatment arms. More patients taking VPA withdrew from the study due to adverse events (26 VPA versus 15 LTG; p=0.046). Eight patients, all taking VPA, dropped out during the first 6 months due to weight gain. There were no changes in mean serum concentrations of testosterone, sex-hormone binding globulin and androstenedione or in the free androgen index after 6 or 12 months' treatment with either drug in 112 patients who fulfilled the criteria for hormone analysis. No difference in efficacy was found between VPA and LTG in our patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. LTG appeared to be better tolerated. Neither drug appeared to alter the circulating levels of androgenic hormones.

A cost-effectiveness decision model for antiepileptic drug treatment in newly diagnosed epilepsy patients

OBJECTIVE

To establish cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment strategies of newly diagnosed patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

A decision analysis was carried out comparing effectiveness and treatment cost of six treatment strategies comprising carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), and valproate (VPA) as first-line and second-line drugs. Three outcome groups were defined: complete success, partial success, and failure. Data on seizure control and failure due to adverse effects were derived from the literature. Data on resource use and costs were collected for each outcome group by means of a patient survey.

RESULTS

Cost data were obtained from 71 patients. Cost increased from complete success to failure outcome groups. The probability of obtaining complete success varied from 64% (VPA-CBZ strategy) to 74% (LTG-VPA strategy). The strategy LTG-VPA was more effective than the least expensive strategy CBZ-VPA, but at higher costs per additional effectively treated patient. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings to be robust. Subsequent analysis showed that changing inclusion criteria used in the selection of the studies from the literature had a major effect on cost-effectiveness ratios of the various strategies. The probability that LTG first-line therapy is the most cost-effective option remains small, even defining a high cost-effectiveness threshold. Nevertheless, LTG second-line strategies can be cost-effective depending on the willingness to pay for patient improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a few studies satisfied our inclusion criteria for employment in our decision model. Our model supports the use of conventional AEDs as first-line options for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. LTG second-line therapy is likely to be the most cost-effective option in case society is willing to pay more than Euro 6000 for an additional successfully treated patient. This study also illustrates that, with the data presently available, the outcome of decision analysis for AED treatment choice depends on the inclusion criteria used to select trials. Prospective real-life studies are needed in which first- and second-line treatment strategies are compared with respect to both effectiveness and costs.

Importance of competing risks in the analysis of anti-epileptic drug failure

BACKGROUND

Retention time (time to treatment failure) is a commonly used outcome in antiepileptic drug (AED) studies.

METHODS

Two datasets are used to demonstrate the issues in a competing risks analysis of AEDs. First, data collection and follow-up considerations are discussed with reference to information from 15 monotherapy trials. Recommendations for improved data collection and cumulative incidence analysis are then illustrated using the SANAD trial dataset. The results are compared to the more common approach using standard survival analysis methods.

RESULTS

A non-significant difference in overall treatment failure time between gabapentin and topiramate (logrank test statistic = 0.01, 1 degree of freedom, p-value = 0.91) masked highly significant differences in opposite directions with gabapentin resulting in fewer withdrawals due to side effects (Gray's test statistic = 11.60, 1 degree of freedom, p = 0.0007) but more due to poor seizure control (Gray's test statistic = 14.47, 1 degree of freedom, p-value = 0.0001). The significant difference in overall treatment failure time between lamotrigine and carbamazepine (logrank test statistic = 5.6, 1 degree of freedom, p-value = 0.018) was due entirely to a significant benefit of lamotrigine in terms of side effects (Gray's test statistic = 10.27, 1 degree of freedom, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Treatment failure time can be measured reliably but care is needed to collect sufficient information on reasons for drug withdrawal to allow a competing risks analysis. Important differences between the profiles of AEDs may be missed unless appropriate statistical methods are used to fully investigate treatment failure time. Cumulative incidence analysis allows comparison of the probability of failure between two AEDs and is likely to be a more powerful approach than logrank analysis for most comparisons of standard and new anti-epileptic drugs.

The cost-effectiveness of newer drugs as add-on therapy for children with focal epilepsies

PURPOSE

Epilepsies in children are complex diseases. Guidelines are needed on the appropriate use of newer versus older anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs). This paper presents an individual patient-sampling model to assess the cost-effectiveness of using newer AEDs as add-on therapy in line with UK prescribing guidance.

METHODS

Identification of the relevant parameters and treatment pathways for the model were achieved by a systematic review of the literature and discussions with clinical experts. Data were obtained from the literature and supplemented with data elicited from paediatric neurologists. The model considered paediatric patients over the period of childhood from the age of diagnosis to 18 years.

RESULTS

The results suggest that the older and newer AEDs are similar in terms of drug retention rates and the average time in 'good' treatment outcomes. In terms of cost, the results indicate a consistent increase in cost (compared to older AEDs) when all of the newer AEDs are considered. The decision analysis results indicate that there are no important health benefits from the use of newer AEDs when used as add-on therapy. However, the analysis also reveals that the uncertainties in the model are greater than the differences between the drug strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

To develop guidelines on the appropriate use of newer AEDs, better information is required from randomised controlled trials as there is insufficient data available in the public domain to accurately estimate the nature of the trade off between older versus newer AEDs.

ILAE treatment guidelines: evidence-based analysis of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes

PURPOSE

To assess which antiepileptic medications (AEDs) have the best evidence for long-term efficacy or effectiveness as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy.

METHODS

A 10-member subcommission of the Commission on Therapeutic Strategies of The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE), including adult and pediatric epileptologists, clinical pharmacologists, clinical trialists, and a statistician evaluated available evidence found through a structured literature review including MEDLINE, Current Contents and the Cochrane Library for all applicable articles from 1940 until July 2005. Articles dealing with different seizure types (for different age groups) and two epilepsy syndromes were assessed for quality of evidence (four classes) based on predefined criteria. Criteria for class I classification were a double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, >or=48-week treatment duration without forced exit criteria, information on >or=24-week seizure freedom data (efficacy) or >or=48-week retention data (effectiveness), demonstration of superiority or 80% power to detect a <or=20% relative difference in efficacy/effectiveness versus an adequate comparator, and appropriate statistical analysis. Class II studies met all class I criteria except for having either treatment duration of 24 to 47 weeks or, for noninferiority analysis, a power to only exclude a 21-30% relative difference. Class III studies included other randomized double-blind and open-label trials, and class IV included other forms of evidence (e.g., expert opinion, case reports). Quality of clinical trial evidence was used to determine the strength of the level of recommendation.

RESULTS

A total of 50 RCTs and seven meta-analyses contributed to the analysis. Only four RCTs had class I evidence, whereas two had class II evidence; the remainder were evaluated as class III evidence. Three seizure types had AEDs with level A or level B efficacy and effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy: adults with partial-onset seizures (level A, carbamazepine and phenytoin; level B, valproic acid), children with partial-onset seizures (level A, oxcarbazepine; level B, None), and elderly adults with partial-onset seizures (level A, gabapentin and lamotrigine; level B, None). One adult seizure type [adults with generalized-onset tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures], two pediatric seizure types (GTC seizures and absence seizures), and two epilepsy syndromes (benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes and juvenile myoclonic epilepsy) had no AEDs with level A or level B efficacy and effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This evidence-based guideline focused on AED efficacy or effectiveness as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy. The absence of rigorous comprehensive adverse effects data makes it impossible to develop an evidence-based guideline aimed at identifying the overall optimal recommended initial-monotherapy AED. There is an especially alarming lack of well-designed, properly conducted RCTs for patients with generalized seizures/epilepsies and for children in general. The majority of relevant existing RCTs have significant methodologic problems that limit their applicability to this guideline's clinically relevant main question. Multicenter, multinational efforts are needed to design, conduct and analyze future clinically relevant RCTs that can answer the many outstanding questions identified in this guideline. The ultimate choice of an AED for any individual patient with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy should include consideration of the strength of the efficacy and effectiveness evidence for each AED along with other variables such as the AED safety and tolerability profile, pharmacokinetic properties, formulations, and expense. When selecting a patient's AED, physicians and patients should consider all relevant variables and not just efficacy and effectiveness.

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

The choice of an antiepileptic drug (AED) for any individual should take into account reliable information about seizure control, adverse effects and cost. Carbamazepine is the usual drug of choice for people with newly-diagnosed partial onset seizures. Lamotrigine is a relatively new AED which is licensed in many countries for use as an initial monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To review the best evidence comparing carbamazepine and lamotrigine when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures, or generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalized seizure types.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (July 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (TheCochraneLibrary Issue 2, 2005), and MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005). No language restrictions were imposed. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials, blinded or unblinded, in which children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures were randomized to monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual patient data review. Outcomes were (1) time to treatment withdrawal, (2) time to first seizure post randomization, and (3) seizure freedom at six months. Time to event data were analysed using a stratified logrank analysis with results expressed as hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI); binary data were expressed as relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). A HR or a RR greater than 1 indicated an event was more likely on lamotrigine than carbamazepine.

MAIN RESULTS

Individual patient data were available for 1384 participants (100% of total randomized) from the five trials that met our inclusion criteria. The main results (HR (95% CI)) were (1) time to treatment withdrawal 0.55 (0.35 to 0.84) (random-effects), (2) time to first seizure post randomization 1.14 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.43), and (3) seizure freedom at six months RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.04). The review suggested that time to treatment withdrawal was significantly improved with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine, while time to first seizure and seizure freedom at six months favoured carbamazepine although the results were not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lamotrigine was significantly less likely to be withdrawn than carbamazepine but results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. Trials were of too short a duration to measure important seizure outcomes such as time to 12 month remission. Further trials are needed in which longer-term outcome is assessed as well as measures such as psychosocial outcome and quality of life.

Prescribing Antiepileptics for the Elderly

The incidence of epilepsy in patients aged >60 years is higher than in any other period of life. Yet, until recently, what was known about the treatment of older patients with epilepsy has been inferred from studies in younger patients. A growing body of clinical evidence focused exclusively on the elderly suggests that, while some issues are similar for older and younger adults, older patients with epilepsy may require even more attention regarding antiepileptic drug (AED) selection than younger patients. This article reviews published guidelines and recommendations to identify explicit recommendations for use of specific AEDs in the elderly, and assesses the extent to which those recommendations have been adopted in clinical practice. We found that while one systematically derived guideline stated that lamotrigine may be a good choice for older patients because of its favourable adverse effect profile, only clinical recommendations based on expert opinion explicitly identified AEDs that are more and less appropriate for use in the elderly. Examination of published studies describing recent AED-prescribing patterns suggests that clinical recommendations have been, at best, slowly adopted. This observation is exemplified by the fact that older patients newly diagnosed with epilepsy are still prescribed phenobarbital--a drug identified as suboptimal in 1985. In order to better understand the delay in adopting clinical recommendations, we examine these findings in light of diffusion of innovations theory, a theory that has been used to understand dissemination of other new medical technologies. According to this theory, while it is too early to suggest that use of second-generation AEDs in the elderly has been delayed, the continued use of phenobarbital in older patients newly diagnosed with epilepsy represents a serious delay in adoption of recent guidelines. Delays may be related to lack of knowledge by primary care clinicians and emergency room physicians (who frequently treat older patients with epilepsy), lack of 'opinion leaders' in primary care and perhaps general neurology, clinicians' focus on seizure control as the primary endpoint in treating patients with epilepsy, and difficulties in changing long-standing prescribing patterns. Research targeting barriers to more appropriate prescribing is needed to determine appropriate strategies for changing AED prescribing practices in the elderly.

Long-term safety and tolerability of oxcarbazepine in children: a review of clinical experience

Relatively few well-designed studies have demonstrated the long-term safety and tolerability of newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in a large group of children. Extensive clinical data from the worldwide Clinical Development Program (CDP) and a compassionate use program on the safety and tolerability of oxcarbazepine in children are presented. Oxcarbazepine is a newer AED that is indicated for use as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in children (United States 4 years of age, Europe 6 years of age) with partial epilepsy. The most common adverse events (10%) in the CDP were headache (32.5%), somnolence (31.5%), vomiting (27.6%), and dizziness (23.1%), whereas in the compassionate use program (clinical practice situation), the most common adverse events (1%) reported were rash (2.7%), fatigue (1.6%), nausea (1.2%), and somnolence (1.2%). These data indicate that oxcarbazepine has a good long-term safety and tolerability profile, whether given as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, in children with partial seizures.