Once-daily USL255 as adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures: randomized phase III study

Efficacy and safety of add-on antiseizure medications for focal epilepsy: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several antiseizure medications (ASMs) have been approved for the treatment of focal epilepsy. However, there is a paucity of evidence on direct comparison of ASMs. We evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of all approved add-on ASMs for the treatment of focal epilepsy using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Data through extensive literature search was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrial.gov databases using predefined search terms from inception through March 2023. PRISMA reporting guidelines (CRD42023403450) were followed in this study. Efficacy outcomes assessed were ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% responder rates. Patient retention rate and safety outcomes such as overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and individual TEAEs were assessed. "Gemtc" 4.0.4 package was used to perform Bayesian analysis. Outcomes are reported as relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Literature search retrieved 5807 studies of which, 75 studies were included in the analysis. All ASMs showed significantly higher ≥50% responder rate compared with placebo. Except the ≥75% seizure frequency reduction for zonisamide (2.23; 95% CI: 1.00-5.70) and 100% for rufinamide (2.03; 95% CI: 0.54-11.00), all other interventions showed significantly higher ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared with placebo. Among treatments, significantly higher 100% responder rate was observed with cenobamate compared to eslicarbazepine (10.71; 95% CI: 1.56-323.9) and zonisamide (10.63; 95% CI: 1.37-261.2). All ASMs showed a lower patient retention rate compared to placebo, with the least significant value observed for oxcarbazepine (0.77; 95% CI: 0.7-0.84). Levetiracetam showed a lower risk of incidence (1.0; 95%CI: 0.94-1.1; SUCRA: 0.885067) for overall TEAE compared with other medications.

SIGNIFICANCE

All approved ASMs were effective as add-on treatment for focal epilepsy. Of the ASMs included, cenobamate had the greatest likelihood of allowing patients to attain seizure freedom.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

This article compares the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs) currently available to neurologists in the treatment of epileptic patients. Several newer generation ASMs that have been developed may be as effective or better than the older medications. We included 75 studies in the analysis. In comparison, all drugs improved ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared to control, except for Zonisamide and Rufinamide in the ≥75% and 100% responder rate categories. Retention of patients undergoing treatment was lower in drugs than placebo. All drugs were tolerated, the levetiracetam showed the best tolerability. Cenobamate more likely help completely to reduce seizures.

Efficacy and Safety of Five Broad-Spectrum Antiseizure Medications for Adjunctive Treatment of Refractory Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Overall, up to one-third of epilepsy patients have drug-resistant epilepsy. However, there was previously no meta-analysis to support the guidelines for broad-spectrum antiseizure medication selection for the adjunctive treatment of refractory epilepsy. In the present meta-analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of three second-generation broad-spectrum antiseizure medications, lamotrigine (LTG), levetiracetam (LEV), and topiramate (TPM), and two third-generation broad-spectrum antiseizure medications, perampanel (PER) and lacosamide (LCM), for the adjunctive treatment of refractory epilepsy.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to July 15, 2022. The studies included in the meta-analysis were required to meet the following criteria: (1) be randomized, double-blind clinical trials; (2) include patients aged >2 years with a clinical diagnosis of drug-resistant epilepsy; (3) have at least 8 weeks for the treatment period excluding the titration phase; and (4) report the outcomes of seizure response, seizure freedom and the withdrawal rate due to treatment-emergent adverse effects. Data were extracted, and the risk of bias for each study was assessed by two authors independently using RoB2 tools. We performed the network meta-analysis for each outcome through a group of programs in the mvmeta and network packages in Stata. Relative odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated as the result of the analyses. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and mean ranks were used to rank these treatments.

RESULTS

Forty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (LTG-placebo: n = 6, LEV-placebo: n = 13, TPM-placebo: n = 9, PER-placebo: n = 6, LCM-placebo: n = 7, LEV-TPM: n = 1) with 10257 participants (LTG = 569, LEV = 1626, TPM = 701, PER = 1734, LCM = 1908, placebo = 3719) were included. Levetiracetam had subequal efficacy in 50 % seizure frequency reduction to TPM [odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-1.38], and LEV had a higher rate of ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction than LCM (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.11-2.01) and PER (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.24-2.29). Levetiracetam was also related to a higher proportion of seizure freedom participants than TPM (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.20-2.89), PER (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.12-4.43), and LCM (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.46-6.05). In addition, LEV was associated with a lower risk of experiencing at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) than PER (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46-0.85) and TPM (OR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.36-0.72) and a lower proportion of patients experiencing TEAEs leading to discontinuation than PER (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.97) and TPM (OR 0.50, 95 % CI 0.27-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Third-generation drugs (PER and LCM) had no advantages in terms of efficacy and safety for adjunctive treatment of refractory epilepsy compared with several second-generation drugs (LEV and LTG). Levetiracetam was the priority choice for adjunctive treatment of refractory epilepsy. Perampanel and LCM had no advantages in terms of efficacy and safety among the five drugs.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number, CRD42022344153; last edited on December 23, 2022.

The pharmacokinetics of single oral dose extended-release topiramate and adverse effects after multi-dose administration in healthy cats

Current treatment options for feline epilepsy are limited to medications that require administration of multiple doses per day or administration of a capsule or large tablet. Expanding the current treatment options could improve patient and owner compliance and optimize seizure control. Topiramate has been used sparingly in veterinary medicine, and limited pharmacokinetic studies have focused on immediate release formulations in dogs. If effective and safe, topiramate extended-release (XR) could broaden the current treatment options for feline epilepsy. The aims of this two-phase study were to establish single-dose pharmacokinetics for topiramate XR in cats, identify a dosing regimen that maintains steady-state plasma drug concentrations within a reference range extrapolated from human medicine (5-20 μg/mL), and evaluate the safety of topiramate XR in cats following multidose administration. Topiramate XR administered orally at 10 mg/kg once daily for 30 days was sufficient to achieve the desired concentrations in all cats. While no clinically apparent adverse effects were observed, four out of eight cats developed subclinical anemia, calling into question the safety of topiramate XR with chronic administration. Further studies are necessary to better understand the potential adverse effects and overall efficacy of topiramate XR for the treatment of feline epilepsy.

Usefulness of extended-release topiramate in patients with epilepsy: A two-year retention study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Extended-release topiramate (TPM-XR) was recently approved for the treatment of epilepsy, but there is only limited real-world information on the clinical usefulness of TPM-XR in epilepsy patients. We investigated the usefulness of TPM-XR in clinical practice by analysing the retention of TPM-XR in adult epilepsy patients.

METHODS

We performed a single-centre retrospective study covering two years. Epilepsy patients taking TPM-XR were included in the study and classified into one of three groups: the monotherapy group, in which patients took only TPM-XR; the adjunctive therapy group, in which patients took TPM-XR concomitant with other AEDs; and the switching AED regimen group, in which patient's AED was switched from immediate-release TPM (TPM-IR) to TPM-XR. We evaluated the retention rates of TPM-XR and analysed the differences in retention rate among the three patient groups.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We included 164 epilepsy patients who received TPM-XR for the treatment of epilepsy. The overall retention rate of TPM-XR was generally favourable: 79.1% after one year and 77.7% after two years. The switching AED regimen group had a better retention rate than the other two groups (p = 0.04), with a one-year retention rate of 90.6% and a two-year retention rate of 88.1%.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The favourable retention rate of TPM-XR shows that TPM-XR can be an effective treatment option for epilepsy patients, as either a monotherapy or as an adjunctive therapy. Additionally, switching AED regimen to TPM-XR from TPM-IR can be considered in selected epilepsy patients with poor adherence to TPM-IR.

Randomized phase 2 study of adjunctive cenobamate in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive cenobamate 200 mg/d in patients with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures despite treatment with 1 to 3 antiepileptic drugs.

Methods

In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults 18 to 65 years of age with focal seizures were randomized 1:1 (cenobamate:placebo) after an 8-week baseline period. The 12-week double-blind treatment period consisted of a 6-week titration phase and a 6-week maintenance phase. The primary outcome was percent change in seizure frequency (from baseline) per 28 days during double-blind treatment.

Results

Two hundred twenty-two patients were randomized; 113 received cenobamate and 109 received placebo; and 90.3% and 90.8% of patients, respectively, completed double-blind treatment. Median baseline seizure frequency was 6.5 in 28 days (range 0–237). Compared to placebo, cenobamate conferred a greater median percent seizure reduction (55.6% vs 21.5%; p < 0.0001) The responder rate (≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) was 50.4% for cenobamate and 22.2% for placebo (p < 0.0001). Focal seizures with motor component, impaired awareness, and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures were significantly reduced with cenobamate vs placebo. During maintenance, 28.3% of cenobamate-treated and 8.8% of placebo-treated patients were seizure-free. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in >10% in either group (cenobamate vs placebo) were somnolence (22.1% vs 11.9%), dizziness (22.1% vs 16.5%), headache (12.4% vs 12.8%), nausea (11.5% vs 4.6%), and fatigue (10.6% vs 6.4%).

Conclusion

Adjunctive treatment with cenobamate 200 mg/d significantly improved seizure control in adults with uncontrolled focal seizures and was well tolerated.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT01397968.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class I evidence that, for patients with uncontrolled focal seizures, adjunctive cenobamate reduces seizures.

Safety and efficacy of adjunctive cenobamate (YKP3089) in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-response trial

BACKGROUND

More than a third of patients with epilepsy are treatment resistant, and thus new, more effective therapies to achieve seizure freedom are needed. Cenobamate (YKP3089), an investigational antiepileptic drug, has shown broad-spectrum anticonvulsant activity in preclinical studies and seizure models. We aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate in patients with uncontrolled focal (partial)-onset epilepsy.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-response study at 107 epilepsy and neurology centres in 16 countries. Adult patients (aged 18-70 years) with focal seizures despite treatment with 1-3 antiepileptic drugs were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) via an interactive web response system, by block sizes of 4 within each country, to adjuvant once daily oral cenobamate at dose groups of 100 mg, 200 mg, or 400 mg, or placebo following an 8-week baseline assessment. Patients, investigators, and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The study included a 6-week titration phase and 12-week maintenance phase. The primary efficacy outcomes were percentage change in 28-day focal seizure frequency (focal aware motor, focal impaired awareness, or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures) from baseline analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (≥1 dose and any post-baseline seizure data) and responder rates (≥50% reduction) analysed in the maintenance phase population (≥1 dose in the maintenance phase and any maintenance phase seizure data). The primary efficacy outcomes were analysed using a hierarchal step-down procedure comparing 200 mg versus placebo, 400 mg versus placebo, then 100 mg versus placebo. Safety and tolerability were compared descriptively across treatment groups for all randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866111.

FINDINGS

Between July 31, 2013, and June 22, 2015, 437 patients were randomly assigned to either placebo (n=108) or cenobamate 100 mg (n=108), 200 mg (n=110), or 400 mg (n=111). Of these patients, 434 (106 [98%] in placebo group, 108 [100%] in 100 mg group, 109 [99%] in 200 mg group, and 111 [100%] in 400 mg group) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, and 397 (102 [94%] in placebo group, 102 [94%] in 100 mg group, 98 [89%] in 200 mg group, and 95 [86%] in 400 mg group) were included in the modified intention-to-treat maintenance phase population. Median percentage changes in seizure frequency were -24·0% (IQR -45·0 to -7·0%) for the placebo group compared with -35·5% (-62·5 to -15·0%; p=0·0071) for the 100 mg dose group, -55·0% (-73·0 to -23·0%; p<0·0001) for the 200 mg dose group, and -55·0% (-85·0 to -28·0%; p<0·0001) for the 400 mg dose group. Responder rates during the maintenance phase were 25% (26 of 102 patients) for the placebo group compared with 40% (41 of 102; odds ratio 1·97, 95% CI 1·08-3·56; p=0·0365) for the 100 mg dose group, 56% (55 of 98; 3·74, 2·06-6·80; p<0·0001) for the 200 mg dose group, and 64% (61 of 95; 5·24, 2·84-9·67; p<0·0001) for the 400 mg dose group. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 76 (70%) of 108 patients in the placebo group, 70 (65%) of 108 in the 100 mg group, 84 (76%) of 110 in the 200 mg group, and 100 (90%) of 111 in the 400 mg group. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in five (5%) patients in the placebo group, 11 (10%) in the 100 mg dose group, 15 (14%) in the 200 mg dose group, and 22 (20%) in the 400 mg dose group. One serious case of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms occurred in the 200 mg cenobamate group. No deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION

Adjunctive cenobamate reduced focal (partial)-onset seizure frequency, in a dose-related fashion. Treatment-emergent adverse events were most frequent in the highest dose group. Cenobamate appears to be an effective treatment option in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures.

FUNDING

SK Life Science.

Topiramate add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are controlled by a single antiepileptic drug. However, up to 20% of patients from population-based studies, and up to 30% from clinical series (not population-based), develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially those with focal-onset seizures. In this review, we summarise the current evidence regarding topiramate, an antiepileptic drug first marketed in 1996, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999, and last updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update of this review we searched the following databases on 2 July 2018: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946- ); ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted the manufacturers of topiramate and researchers in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo-controlled add-on trials of topiramate, recruiting people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (2) seizure freedom; (3) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (4) adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT), and summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) are presented. We evaluated dose-response in regression models. We carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment for each included study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials, representing 1650 participants. Baseline phases ranged from four to 12 weeks and double-blind phases ranged from 11 to 19 weeks. The RR for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency with add-on topiramate compared to placebo was 2.71 (95% CI 2.05 to 3.59; 12 studies; high-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis showed increasing effect with increasing topiramate dose demonstrated by an odds ratio (OR) of 1.45 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.64; P < 0.001) per 200 mg/d increase in topiramate dosage. The proportion of participants achieving seizure freedom was also significantly increased with add-on topiramate compared to placebo (RR 3.67, 95% CI 1.79 to 7.54; 8 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Treatment withdrawal was significantly higher for add-on topiramate compared to placebo (RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.37; 12 studies; high-certainty evidence). The RRs for the following adverse effects indicate that they are significantly more prevalent with topiramate, compared to placebo: ataxia 2.29 (99% CI 1.10 to 4.77; 4 studies); concentration difficulties 7.81 (99% CI 2.08 to 29.29; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); dizziness 1.52 (99% CI 1.07 to 2.16; 8 studies); fatigue 2.08 (99% CI 1.37 to 3.15; 10 studies); paraesthesia 3.65 (99% CI 1.58 to 8.39; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); somnolence 2.44 (99% CI 1.61 to 3.68; 9 studies); 'thinking abnormally' 5.70 (99% CI 2.26 to 14.38; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence); and weight loss 3.99 (99% CI 1.82 to 8.72; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence). Evidence of publication bias for the primary outcome was found (Egger test, P = 0.001). We rated all studies included in the review as having either low or unclear risk of bias. Overall, we assessed the evidence as moderate to high certainty due to the evidence of publication bias, statistical heterogeneity and imprecision, which was partially compensated for by large effect sizes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topiramate has efficacy as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy as it is almost three times more effective compared to a placebo in reducing seizures. The trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for the long-term efficacy of topiramate. Short-term use of add-on topiramate was shown to be associated with several adverse events. The results of this review should only be applied to adult populations as only one study included children. Future research should consider further examining the effect of dose.

Practice guideline update summary: Efficacy and tolerability of the new antiepileptic drugs II: Treatment-resistant epilepsy: Report of the American Epilepsy Society and the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Objective: To update the 2004 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline for managing treatment-resistant (TR) epilepsy with second- and third-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Methods: 2004 criteria were used to systematically review literature (January 2003 to November 2015), classify pertinent studies according to the therapeutic rating scheme, and link recommendations to evidence strength. Results: Forty-two articles were included. Recommendations: The following are established as effective to reduce seizure frequency (Level A): immediate-release pregabalin and perampanel for TR adult focal epilepsy (TRAFE); vigabatrin for TRAFE (not first-line treatment; rufinamide for Lennox-Gastuat syndrome (LGS) (add-on therapy). The following should be considered to decrease seizure frequency (Level B): lacosamide, eslicarbazepine, and extended-release topiramate for TRAFE (ezogabine production discontinued); immediate- and extended-release lamotrigine for generalized epilepsy with TR generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures in adults; levetiracetam (add-on therapy) for TR childhood focal epilepsy (TRCFE) (1 month to 16 years), TR GTC seizures, and TR juvenile myoclonic epilepsy; clobazam for LGS (add-on therapy); zonisamide for TRCFE (6-17 years); oxcarbazepine for TRCFE (1 month to 4 years). The text presents Level C recommendations. AED selection depends on seizure/syndrome type, patient age, concomitant medications, and AED tolerability, safety, and efficacy. This evidence-based assessment informs AED prescription guidelines for TR epilepsy and indicates seizure types and syndromes needing more evidence. A recent FDA strategy allows extrapolation of efficacy across populations; therefore, for focal epilepsy, eslicarbazepine and lacosamide (oral only for pediatric use) as add-on or monotherapy in persons ≥4 years of age and perampanel as monotherapy received FDA approval.

Practice guideline update summary: Efficacy and tolerability of the new antiepileptic drugs II: Treatment-resistant epilepsy

Objective

To update the 2004 American Academy of Neurology guideline for managing treatment-resistant (TR) epilepsy with second- and third-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).

Methods

2004 criteria were used to systemically review literature (January 2003 to November 2015), classify pertinent studies according to the therapeutic rating scheme, and link recommendations to evidence strength.

Results

Forty-two articles were included.

Recommendations

The following are established as effective to reduce seizure frequency (Level A): immediate-release pregabalin and perampanel for TR adult focal epilepsy (TRAFE); vigabatrin for TRAFE (not first-line treatment); rufinamide for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) (add-on therapy). The following should be considered to decrease seizure frequency (Level B): lacosamide, eslicarbazepine, and extended-release topiramate for TRAFE (ezogabine production discontinued); immediate- and extended-release lamotrigine for generalized epilepsy with TR generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures in adults; levetiracetam (add-on therapy) for TR childhood focal epilepsy (TRCFE) (1 month–16 years), TR GTC seizures, and TR juvenile myoclonic epilepsy; clobazam for LGS (add-on therapy); zonisamide for TRCFE (6–17 years); oxcarbazepine for TRCFE (1 month–4 years). The text presents Level C recommendations. AED selection depends on seizure/syndrome type, patient age, concomitant medications, and AED tolerability, safety, and efficacy. This evidence-based assessment informs AED prescription guidelines for TR epilepsy and indicates seizure types and syndromes needing more evidence. A recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) strategy allows extrapolation of efficacy across populations; therefore, for focal epilepsy, eslicarbazepine and lacosamide (oral only for pediatric use) as add-on or monotherapy in persons ≥4 years of age and perampanel as monotherapy received FDA approval.

Extended-release drug formulations for the treatment of epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Extended-release (ER) preparations are either available or have been tested for several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Indeed, they may be helpful in improving efficacy, tolerability, adherence, compared to the corresponding immediate release (IR) preparations available. The use of ER preparations has been advocated in women of childbearing age and is - depending on the drug - especially helpful in patients who are treated in combination with enzyme inducing AEDs as well as in children.

AREAS COVERED

Clinical and pharmacokinetic studies on ER formulations of AEDs were identified by a PubMed literature research. Further references were added from the authors' personal knowledge and from the reference lists of the identified studies. Reviews and expert commentaries were included, where necessary.

EXPERT OPINION

Unfortunately, studies providing direct comparisons of ER and IR formulations of a given drug are only available for a handful of drugs. ER preparations are especially helpful in drugs with a short elimination half-life and concentration-depending efficacy and tolerability.

Comprehensive review of visual defects reported with topiramate

Objective

The objective of this study was to analyze clinical patterns of visual field defects (VFDs) reported with topiramate treatment and assess possible mechanism of action (MOA) for antiepileptic drug (AED) associated VFDs.

Methods

A comprehensive topiramate database review included preclinical data, sponsor’s clinical trials database, postmarketing spontaneous reports, and medical literature. All treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) suggestive of retinal dysfunction/damage were summarized. Relative risk (RR) was computed from topiramate double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (DBPCTs) data.

Results

Preclinical studies and medical literature review suggested that despite sharing gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic MOA with other AEDs, topiramate treatment was not associated with VFDs. TEAEs suggestive of retinal dysfunction/damage were observed in 0.3%–0.7% of adults and pediatric patients with topiramate (N=4,679) versus ≤0.1% with placebo (N=1,834) in DBPCTs for approved indications (epilepsy and migraine prophylaxis); open-label trials (OLTs) and DBPCTs for investigational indications had similar incidence. Overall, 88% TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Serious TEAEs were very rare (DBPCTs: 0%; OLTs: ≤0.1%), and most were not treatment limiting, and resolved. The most common visual TEAEs (approved indications) were VFD, scotoma, and optic atrophy. The incidence of TEAEs in DBPCTs (approved and investigational indications) was higher in topiramate-treated (N=9,169) versus placebo-treated patients (N=5,023; 0.36% vs 0.24%), but the RR versus placebo-treated patients was not significant (RR: 1.51 [95% confidence interval: 0.78, 2.91]).

Conclusion

VFDs do not appear to be a class effect for AEDs with GABA-ergic MOA. The RR for VFDs is not significantly different between topiramate and placebo treatment.

Health-related quality of life in double-blind Phase III studies of brivaracetam as adjunctive therapy of focal seizures: A pooled, post-hoc analysis

PURPOSE

The effect of adjunctive brivaracetam on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed in a post-hoc analysis using pooled data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III studies in patients with refractory focal seizures (NCT00490035, NCT00464269, and NCT01261325).

METHODS

The Patient-Weighted Quality of Life in Epilepsy Questionnaire (QOLIE-31-P) was completed at randomization, and weeks 4, 8 (in two of three studies), and 12 (end of the treatment period). Mean change from baseline to week 12 or early discontinuation, and percentage of patients with clinically meaningful improvement were reported for the placebo and brivaracetam 50, 100, and 200mg/day groups.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean QOLIE-31-P scores were similar between treatment groups. At week 12 or early discontinuation, mean (standard deviation) changes from baseline in QOLIE-31-P total score were 2.8 (12.7), 3.0 (14.0), 2.4 (14.0), and 3.0 (12.1) points for the placebo and brivaracetam 50, 100, and 200mg/day groups, respectively, indicating HRQoL improved slightly over time during the treatment period, but was similar for placebo and brivaracetam groups. All subscale score changes were positive, indicating stable or improved HRQoL over time. The brivaracetam 100 and 200mg/day groups showed the largest differences compared with placebo in Seizure Worry subscale scores (7.3 and 8.8 vs. 5.0 points). Approximately 40% of patients had improvements in QOLIE-31-P scores beyond the Minimal Important Change (MIC) thresholds. The subgroup of ≥50% focal seizure frequency responders had higher improvements for all treatment arms and all subscales than for those in the overall pooled population.

CONCLUSION

In this post-hoc analysis, adjunctive brivaracetam treatment was shown to be associated with stable or improving overall HRQoL over time, similar to placebo, with modest improvements in subscales sensitive to efficacy, and no deterioration in subscales sensitive to tolerability. These results reflect the known efficacy and tolerability profile of brivaracetam.

Antiepileptic drugs in development pipeline: A recent update

Epilepsy is the most common neurological disorder which significantly affects the quality of life and poses a health as well as economic burden on society. Epilepsy affects approximately 70 million people in the world. The present article reviews the scientific rationale, brief pathophysiology of epilepsy and newer antiepileptic drugs which are presently under clinical development. We have searched the investigational drugs using the key words ‘antiepileptic drugs,’ ‘epilepsy,’ ‘Phase I,’ ‘Phase II’ and ‘Phase III’ in American clinical trial registers (clinicaltrials.gov), the relevant published articles using National Library of Medicine's PubMed database, company websites and supplemented results with a manual search of cross-references and conference abstracts. This review provides a brief description about the antiepileptic drugs which are targeting different mechanisms and the clinical development status of these drugs. Besides the presence of old as well as new AEDs, still there is a need of new drugs or the modified version of old drugs in order to make affected people free of seizures. An optimistic approach should be used to translate the success of preclinical testing to clinical practice. There is an urgent need to improve animal models and to explore new targets with better understanding in order to develop the novel drugs with more efficacy and safety.

•

This review primarily focused on antiepileptic drugs under clinical development.

•

The more realistic approach is needed to discover and develop the novel antiepileptic drugs.

•

Modification of conventional drugs or search of newer targets can lead to development of promising antiepileptic drugs.

•

To develop more efficacious and safe drugs for treatment of epilepsy and refractory seizures

•

There are a number of novel antiepileptic compounds which are under various stages of drug development.

Long-term safety and sustained efficacy of USL255 (topiramate extended-release capsules) in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term safety, efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) of ≤400-mg/day USL255, Qudexy® XR (topiramate) extended-release capsules, as adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures (POS) in adults.

METHODS

Patients who completed the 11-week double-blind treatment phase of the phase 3 PREVAIL study were eligible to enroll in this 1-year open-label extension (OLE) study (PREVAIL OLE). The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of USL255 (including treatment-emergent adverse events [TEAEs]). The secondary objective was to assess seizure frequency in patients (e.g., median percent reduction from baseline in weekly POS frequency, responder rate [proportion of patients with ≥25%, ≥50%, ≥75%, or 100% reduction from baseline in POS frequency], and seizure-free intervals [proportion of patients who were seizure-free for 4, 12, 24, 36, or 48weeks]). Exploratory clinical-status endpoints included the Global Impression of Change (CGI-C) and Quality of Life in Epilepsy-Problems (QOLIE-31-P) questionnaires. Post hoc analyses evaluated neurocognitive TEAE incidences during the first 11 and entire 55weeks of treatment and efficacy by patient age and drug-resistant status.

RESULTS

Of the 217 patients who completed PREVAIL (USL255, n=103; placebo, n=114), 210 (97%) enrolled in PREVAIL OLE and were included in the ITT population. Across the entire 55-week treatment period, USL255 was generally safe and well tolerated, with low individual neurocognitive TEAE incidences. Seizure reduction was sustained across the year-long study and observed in patient subgroups, including those with highly drug-resistant seizures and those ≥50years of age. Improvements in CGI-C and QOLIE-31-P were also observed.

SIGNIFICANCE

The results of PREVAIL OLE are consistent with those from PREVAIL and demonstrate that adjunctive treatment with up to 400mg/day of USL255 may be a safe and effective treatment option for a variety of adult patients with refractory POS.

Topiramate Extended Release: A Review in Epilepsy

Once-daily oral topiramate extended release (USL255; hereafter referred to as topiramate XR) [QUDEXY(®) XR] is approved in the USA for use as initial monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in patients aged ≥2 years with partial-onset seizures (POS) or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures and as adjunctive therapy in patients aged ≥2 years with seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Compared with twice-daily topiramate immediate release at the same total daily dose, topiramate XR provided bioequivalent exposure, an extended absorption rate (permitting convenient once-daily dosing) and more constant therapeutic plasma concentrations (potentially minimizing topiramate-associated adverse events). Switching between the two formulations did not affect the maintenance of topiramate concentrations. Moreover, the contents of a topiramate XR capsule may be sprinkled on to soft food for patients who have difficulty swallowing. In a multinational phase III study in adults with refractory POS, adjunctive topiramate XR was associated with significantly greater improvements from baseline in weekly median seizure frequency and the proportion of patients achieving a ≥50 % reduction in seizure frequency compared with placebo. These benefits were sustained during a 55-week open-label extension study. Adjunctive topiramate XR was generally well tolerated in these studies, with the majority of treatment-emergent adverse events being mild or moderate in intensity. In conclusion, current evidence suggests once-daily topiramate XR extends the treatment options currently available for patients aged ≥2 years with epilepsy, with its dosing regimen potentially delivering tolerability and adherence advantages over AEDs that require more frequent administration.

Clinical utility of topiramate extended-release capsules (USL255): Bioequivalence of USL255 sprinkled and intact capsule in healthy adults and an in vitro evaluation of sprinkle delivery via enteral feeding tubes

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of these two studies were to determine if beads from extended-release topiramate capsules sprinkled onto soft food are bioequivalent to the intact capsule and if beads from the capsule can be passed through enteral gastrostomy (G-) and jejunostomy (J-) feeding tubes.

METHODS

Bioequivalence of 200-mg USL255 (Qudexy XR [topiramate] extended-release capsules) sprinkled onto soft food (applesauce) versus the intact capsule was evaluated in a phase 1, randomized, single-dose, crossover study (N=36). Pharmacokinetic evaluations included area under the curve (AUC), maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (Tmax), and terminal elimination half-life (t1/2). If 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the ratio of geometric least-squares means were between 0.80 and 1.25, AUC and Cmax were considered bioequivalent. In separate in vitro experiments, 100-mg USL255 beads were passed through feeding tubes using gentle syringe pressure to develop a clog-free bead-delivery method. Multiple tube sizes (14- to 18-French [Fr] tubes), dilutions (5 mg/15 mL-25 mg/15 mL), and diluents (deionized water, apple juice, Ketocal, sparkling water) were tested.

RESULTS

Area under the curve and Cmax for USL255 beads sprinkled onto applesauce were bioequivalent to the intact capsule (GLSM [90% CI]: AUC0-t 1.01 [0.97-1.04], AUC0-∞ 1.02 [0.98-1.05]; Cmax 1.09 [1.03-1.14]). Median Tmax was 4h earlier for USL255 sprinkled versus the intact capsule (10 vs 14 h; p=0.0018), and t1/2 was similar (84 vs 82 h, respectively). In 14-Fr G-tubes, USL255 beads diluted in Ketocal minimized bead clogging versus deionized water. Recovery of USL255 beads diluted in deionized water was nearly 100% in 16-Fr G-, 18-Fr G-, and 18-Fr J-tubes.

SIGNIFICANCE

For patients with difficulty swallowing pills, USL255 sprinkled onto applesauce offers a useful once-daily option for taking topiramate. USL255 beads were also successfully delivered in vitro through ≥14-Fr G- or J-tubes, with tube clogging minimized by portioning the dose and using glidant diluents for smaller tubes.

An open-label, prospective, exploratory study of patients with epilepsy switching from levetiracetam to brivaracetam

We evaluated nonpsychotic behavioral adverse events (BAEs) in patients receiving levetiracetam (LEV) who switched to brivaracetam (BRV). Patients ≥16 years of age, receiving 2-3 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), including LEV 1-3g/day, and experiencing BAEs within 16 weeks of LEV treatment initiation, enrolled in an open-label Phase 3b study (NCT01653262) comprising a ≤1-week screening period, an immediate switch from LEV to BRV 200mg/day (without titration), and a 12-week treatment period. The percentages of patients with investigator-assessed clinically meaningful reduction in BAEs, shift in maximum BAE intensity, and change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (Patient-Weighted Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-Form 31 [QOLIE-31-P]) were assessed. Of 29 patients enrolled, 26 (89.7%) completed the study. At the end of the treatment period, 27/29 (93.1%) patients switched to BRV had clinically meaningful reductions in BAEs. Physicians reported a reduction in the maximum intensity of primary BAEs in 27/29 (93.1%) patients. Mean change from baseline to Week 12 in QOLIE-31-P total score was 12.1, indicating improved HRQoL. During the treatment period, 23/29 (79.3%) patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). One patient reported a serious TEAE (suicidal ideation and suicide attempt). Two patients discontinued BRV because of TEAEs. Findings from this small study suggest that patients experiencing BAEs associated with LEV may benefit from switching to BRV.

Modified-Release Formulations of Second-Generation Antiepileptic Drugs: Pharmacokinetic and Clinical Aspects

Modified-release or extended-release (XR) formulations are used to decrease the frequency of dosing for drugs with rapid elimination, to improve convenience and adherence. Use of a modified-release formulation can decrease the peak to trough fluctuations in serum concentrations and theoretically improve the therapeutic benefit of the drug, by decreasing adverse events associated with the higher peak concentrations. Once-daily formulations of lamotrigine (Lamictal XR(®)), levetiracetam (Keppra XR(®)), oxcarbazepine (Oxtellar XR(®), Apydan(®) extent) and topiramate (Qudexy XR™, Trokendi XR™) are approved for the treatment of focal and/or generalized onset seizures. Other seizure medications have been approved for non-epileptic symptoms. Gabapentin XR (Gralise(®)) is approved for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgias. Gabapentin enacarbil XR (Horizant(®)) is a prodrug of gabapentin and is indicated for treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia and restless leg syndrome, a novel indication. For all but Qudexy XR™, the tablets/capsules must be swallowed whole, without cutting, crushing or chewing, in order to maintain the XR properties of the formulation. Qudexy XR™ can be swallowed intact or the capsules can be opened and sprinkled onto soft food for those with swallowing difficulties, for example, children and the elderly. The bioavailability of Gralise(®) and Horizant(®) is significantly affected by food, specifically fat content, and should be taken with a meal to maximize absorption. Overall, the primary advantage of the newly released XR formulations is the once-daily dosing to improve convenience and adherence, with very limited data suggesting improved tolerability.

A review of the efficacy and safety of extended-release topiramate in the adjunctive treatment for refractory partial-onset seizures

Topiramate has been widely utilized worldwide as an effective medication against partial- and generalized-onset seizures. Extended-release topiramate was developed to provide patients with the convenience of once-daily dosing and potentially improved tolerability by reducing serum concentration fluctuation. USL255 is a once-daily, extended-release formulation of topiramate, which was recently approved in the USA. Compared with immediate-release topiramate taken twice daily, once-daily USL255 provides equivalent topiramate exposure with a 26% reduction in plasma fluctuations. A multinational, phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures demonstrated that USL255 (200 mg/day) significantly improved seizure control and was well tolerated with low overall neuropsychiatric and neurocognitive adverse events.

Efficacy of once-daily extended-release topiramate (USL255): a subgroup analysis based on the level of treatment resistance

Results from a previously conducted global phase III study (PREVAIL; NCT01142193) demonstrate the safety and efficacy of once-daily USL255, Qudexy™ XR (topiramate) extended-release capsules, as adjunctive treatment of drug-resistant partial-onset seizures (POSs). In this study, we report a post hoc analysis of PREVAIL data according to patient level of treatment resistance (based upon the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs [AEDs] and lifetime AEDs) at baseline, with patients defined as either having "highly" drug-resistant seizures (≥ 2 concurrent AEDs and ≥ 4 lifetime AEDs) or having "less" drug-resistant seizures (1 concurrent AED or <4 lifetime AEDs) at baseline. For each subgroup, median percent reduction in POS frequency (primary endpoint), responder rate, Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGI-C), and Quality of Life in Epilepsy--Problems (QOLIE-31-P) survey were assessed. Of 249 PREVAIL patients, 115 were classified as having highly drug-resistant seizures (USL255: n = 52, placebo: n = 63), and 134 were classified as having less drug-resistant seizures (USL255: n = 72, placebo: n = 62) at baseline. For the primary endpoint, USL255 resulted in significantly better seizure outcomes compared with placebo regardless of drug-resistant status (P = .004 and P = .040 for "highly" and "less", respectively). Responder rate was also significantly improved in patients with highly drug-resistant group (P = .023). The CGI-C scores indicated significant improvement in both subgroups (P = .003 and P = .013 for "highly" and "less", respectively). On the QOLIE-31-P, a significant improvement on the seizure worry subscale for the group with less drug-resistant seizures was noted in USL255-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients (P = .003); the overall score and all other subscales were not significantly different for both subgroups. We conclude that USL255 led to significant improvements across multiple outcomes compared with placebo, including in those classified as having highly drug-resistant seizures to prior treatment, making it a valuable treatment option for patients with epilepsy.

USL255 extended-release topiramate for the treatment of epilepsy

USL255 is a once-daily, extended-release formulation of the well-established antiepileptic drug topiramate that was recently approved by the US FDA. As a capsule formulation, USL255 can be swallowed intact or opened and sprinkled onto soft food for patients with swallowing difficulties, including children (≥2 years old) and older patients. USL255 has been evaluated in seven key Phase I and III studies. Compared with immediate-release topiramate taken twice daily, once-daily USL255 provides equivalent topiramate exposure with a 26% reduction in plasma fluctuations. A multinational, Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures (PREVAIL) demonstrated that USL255 (200 mg/day) significantly improved seizure control and clinical outcomes versus placebo. USL255 is generally safe and well-tolerated, with a low incidence of neuropsychiatric and neurocognitive adverse events. These data suggest that USL255 may provide a useful treatment option for seizure control with convenient once-daily dosing.

USL255 extended-release topiramate: dose-proportional pharmacokinetics and tolerability in healthy volunteers

Objective

Evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of single doses of once-daily USL255, Qudexy XR (topiramate) extended-release capsules, over a wide dosing range.

Methods

Two single-dose, phase I studies in healthy adults were used to evaluate the PK profile and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of USL255 from 25–1,400 mg. Standard PK parameters assessed included area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (C_max). Dose proportionality, linearity, and intersubject and intrasubject variability (coefficient of variation [%CV]) of AUC and C_max were evaluated. Investigator-reported adverse events (AEs) were obtained throughout the studies.

Results

After the initial increase in plasma concentration levels immediately following administration of USL255 25–1,400 mg, plasma topiramate concentration-time profiles were flat up to 24 h after dosing. AUC was dose proportional from 25–1,400 mg, and C_max was dose proportional from 50–1,400 mg; both AUC and C_max were linear across the entire dose range. Low intersubject and intrasubject %CV values were observed for AUC_0−t, AUC_0−∞, and C_max (intersubject %CV: 20.2, 19.6, and 22.4%, respectively; intrasubject %CV of dose-normalized mean values: 10.8, 8.2, and 13.2%, respectively). USL255 was generally safe and well tolerated with MTD established at 1,200 mg.

Significance

These results demonstrate that USL255 provides consistent plasma topiramate exposure across an extended-dosing interval and predictable plasma topiramate concentrations over a wide dosing range. Overall, the favorable safety profile and consistency of exposure suggest once-daily USL255 can be a useful treatment option for patients with epilepsy.