Monotherapy antiepileptic drug trials in patients undergoing presurgical assessment: methodological problems and possibilities

Designing clinical trials to assess antiepileptic drugs as monotherapy : difficulties and solutions

Designing monotherapy trials in epilepsy is fraught with many hurdles, including diagnostic and classification difficulties, sparse information regarding the natural history of the disorder, and ethical objections to the use of placebo or a suboptimal comparator in a condition where the consequences of therapeutic failure can be serious. These issues are further complicated by regulatory differences between the US and the EU.In the US, the FDA considers that evidence of efficacy requires demonstration of superiority to a comparator. Because available antiepileptic drugs possess relatively high efficacy, in most settings it is unrealistic to expect that a new treatment will be superior to a standard treatment used at optimized dosages. To circumvent this problem, trial designs have been developed whereby patients in the control group are assigned to receive a suboptimal comparator and are required to exit from the trial if seizure deterioration occurs. This allows demonstration of a between-group difference in efficacy endpoints, such as time to exit or time to first seizure. Although these trials have come under increasing criticism because of ethical concerns, extensive information is now available on the outcome of patients with chronic epilepsy randomized to suboptimal treatment in similarly designed conversion to monotherapy trials. This has allowed the construction of a dataset of historical controls against which response to a fully active treatment can be compared. A number of studies using this novel approach are now in progress.In the EU, in addition to requiring data on conversion to monotherapy in refractory patients, the European Medicines Agency stipulates that a monotherapy indication in newly diagnosed epilepsy can only be granted if a candidate drug has shown at least a similar benefit/risk balance compared with an acknowledged standard at its optimal use during an assessment period of no less than 1 year. This has led to the implementation of noninferiority trials, one of which has been completed and which led to approval of the monotherapy indication for levetiracetam in the EU. Noninferiority trials provide valuable data in a setting that most closely resembles routine clinical practice, but their interpretation can be complicated by uncertainties on assay sensitivity.Major evidence gaps in the treatment of epilepsy still remain and it is hoped that these will be addressed in the near future. High quality monotherapy trials are particularly needed to assess the comparative efficacy of older and newer drugs in less common epilepsy syndromes, including most generalized epilepsies, and to investigate the different treatment options in populations homogeneous not only in terms of syndromic classification, but also in terms of underlying aetiology and associated phenotypes.

Monotherapy trials: presurgical studies

Presurgical evaluation of patients with refractory partial seizures provides a unique opportunity to perform a placebo-controlled, monotherapy trial. Some patients undergoing presurgical evaluations must have all of their antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) tapered in order to induce seizures and therefore such patients are possible candidates for a placebo-controlled monotherapy trial. Often, EEG monitoring is continued throughout the trial period, thus patients either receiving placebo or whose seizures do not completely respond to the active drug are still evaluated to determine whether or not surgery is feasible, supporting the validity of a trial in this setting. In addition, all patients are, in general, eligible to receive the study drug after the blinded period of the trial, and can therefore be assured of the possible therapeutic benefits of the study. Presurgical inpatients studies have been carried out using felbamate, gabapentin and oxcarbazepine. All patients randomised in these trials were refractory to previous treatment and the studies themselves were short-term and placebo-controlled. These presurgical studies are designed to elucidate AED activity and show statistically significant differences between active and control treatments during short-term therapy, and are therefore of use in fulfilling regulatory requirements. However, these measures of efficacy are distinctly different from those determined during chronic treatment and are therefore not necessarily predictive of clinical usefulness.

Monotherapy trials with the new antiepileptic drugs: study designs, practical relevance and ethical implications

Traditional randomized clinical trials for the monotherapy assessment of antiepileptic drugs (AED) involve allocation of newly diagnosed patients to long-term treatment with different AEDs in order to determine remission rates and side effect profile. Apart from being time-consuming, however, these trials are unlikely to show significant differences in seizure control between the various drugs, which may lead some regulatory agencies to argue that remission rates could be related to the natural history of the disease rather than to efficacy of the administered drugs. To circumvent this problem, a number of innovative designs for the monotherapy assessment of new AEDs have been developed in recent years. They all share the common feature of being aimed at demonstrating a difference in response rate over a short treatment period between a high dosage of a new AED and some form of suboptimal treatment (placebo or low-dose active control). Patients allocated to suboptimal treatment show unacceptable seizure control more rapidly than patients on high-dose active treatment and therefore they exit the trial at a faster rate: evidence of antiepileptic activity is therefore based on demonstration of differences in rate of deterioration rather than improvement. These trials are conducted with titration schedules, dosages and durations of treatment which are totally unrelated to optimal use of the same AEDs in routine clinical practice. No comparative data with an established reference agent are provided, and allocation of patients to suboptimal treatment raises serious ethical concerns. For these reasons, justification for the continued implementation of these trials is questionable. Randomized long-term comparative trials should be considered the gold-standard for the monotherapy assessment of new AEDs. A review of the literature, however, reveals that long-term trials with new AEDs completed to date had significant shortcomings in their design, including excessively rigid or inappropriate dosing schedules, enrollment of patients with heterogeneous seizure disorders, low statistical power and insufficient duration of follow-up. Because these studies are usually aimed at addressing regulatory requirements, the information obtained cannot be meaningfully applied to routine clinical practice. Large longer-term randomized comparative trials using more pragmatic approaches are highly needed to determine the real value of first-line therapy with new AEDs in patients with well defined seizure disorders.

Tiagabine. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic potential in the management of epilepsy

Tiagabine is a gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) uptake inhibitor which is structurally related to nipecotic acid but has an improved ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Clinical trials have shown that tiagabine is effective as add-on therapy in the management of patients with refractory partial epilepsy. In short term studies of this indication, tiagabine < or = 64 mg/day for 7 to 12 weeks reduced the complex partial and simple partial seizure frequency by > or = 50% in 8 to 31 and 28.2 to 37% of patients, respectively. Tiagabine appeared to produce a sustained reduction in seizure frequency in studies of up to 12 months' duration. Data from preliminary studies are currently insufficient to confirm the usefulness of tiagabine when used as monotherapy or in the treatment of children with epilepsy. Further studies are, therefore, necessary to more fully elucidate the efficacy of the drug in these settings. Adverse events associated with tiagabine are primarily CNS-related and include dizziness, asthenia, nonspecific nervousness and tremor. Skin rash or psychosis occurred with similar frequencies among tiagabine- and placebo-treated patients. With long term administration (> or = 1 year for many patients), the profile and incidence of adverse events was similar to that for short term therapy. Tiagabine does not appear to affect the hepatic metabolism of other drugs such as carbamazepine and phenytoin. Possible disadvantages of tiagabine include its short plasma elimination half-life, necessitating 2 to 4 times daily administration, and its inducible hepatic metabolism. Thus, tiagabine is a new antiepileptic agent with a novel mechanism of action, which has demonstrated efficacy in the adjunctive treatment of patients with refractory partial epilepsy. Further investigation of the efficacy of tiagabine is expected to provide a clearer definition of its place in the treatment of epilepsy and its relative merits in relation to other antiepileptic drugs.

Tiagabine

Tiagabine is a novel antiepileptic drug that was designed to block gamma-aminobutyric acid uptake by presynaptic neurons and glial cells. It has been shown to be effective against partial seizures in adults and adolescents. Preliminary pediatric data are also encouraging. This article reviews the available animal and human data on the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of tiagabine.