Comparison of levetiracetam and oxcarbazepine monotherapy among Korean patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: A long-term, randomized, open-label trial

Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of perampanel and oxcarbazepine as monotherapy in children and adolescents with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy

Objective: This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of perampanel and oxcarbazepine as monotherapy in children with focal epilepsy (FE). Methods: This is an ambispective, single-center, non-inferiority study comparing the effectiveness and safety of perampanel (PER) monotherapy and oxcarbazepine (OXC) monotherapy in children with newly diagnosed FE. The primary endpoint was a six-month seizure freedom rate. The secondary endpoints included retention, responder, and seizure freedom rates at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were also recorded for both groups. Results: One hundred and thirty children and adolescents aged from 4 to 18years newly diagnosed with FE between May 2020 and November 2022 in Wuhan Children's Hospital were included. There were 71 patients in the PER group and 59 patients in the OXC group. In the per protocol set (PPS), 50 (78.1%) in the PER group and 43 (78.2%) in the OXC group completed six months of treatment without seizures. The lower 95% CI (66.0%-87.5%) limit of PER was higher than the non-inferiority margin of 62.4% (80% of the 6-month seizure freedom rate in the OXC group); PER was non-inferior to OXC. The 3-month and 12-month seizure freedom rates were 77.1% and 82.9% for the PER group, respectively, while they were 80.4% and 75.8% for the OXC group. There were no serious adverse events in both groups. Conclusion: PER showed comparable effectiveness and safety compared with OXC in children with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, which might be an effective and safe treatment for children and adolescents with newly diagnosed FE. Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier ChiCTR2300074696.

Levetiracetam versus Oxcarbazepine as monotherapy in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of Levetiracetam (LEV) and Oxcarbazepine (OXC) as monotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar from January 1, 2000 to May 11, 2022, with no language restrictions along with The ClinicalTrials.gov website and the WHO International Controlled Trials Registry platforms. We pooled the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the efficacy and safety outcomes. The quality of included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.

RESULTS

Two RCTs included a total of 574 newly diagnosed focal epilepsy patients (the LEV group [282 patients] and the OXC group [292 patients]). LEV group when compared with the OXC group had no significant difference in the pooled estimate of seizure freedom at week 24. (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.62-1.05, p = .11). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the pooled estimate of withdrawal due to adverse events (AEs) (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.34-2.23, p = .77). The commonly reported AEs in both trials were dizziness, headache, rash, somnolence, and nasopharyngitis with zero medication-related death and few serious AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

LEV is noninferior to OXC in terms of seizure freedom at week 24 and treatment withdrawal rate due to AEs among adults but long-term treatment data is still missing. Future multicentric double-blinded RCTs and real-world studies are of great need.

Efficacy comparison of oxcarbazepine and levetiracetam monotherapy among patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy in China: A multicenter, open-label, randomized study

Aims

This multicenter, open‐label, randomized study (Registration No. ChiCTR‐OCH‐14004528) aimed to compare the efficacy and effects of oxcarbazepine (OXC) with levetiracetam (LEV) as monotherapies on patient quality of life and mental health for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy from China.

Methods

Patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy who had experienced 2 or more unprovoked seizures at greater than a 24‐h interval during the previous year were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to the OXC group or LEV group. Efficacy, safety, quality of life, and mental health were evaluated over 12‐week and 24‐week periods.

Results

In total, we recruited 271 newly diagnosed patients from 23 centers. Forty‐four patients were excluded before treatment for reasons. The rate of seizure freedom of OXC was significantly superior to that of LEV at 12 weeks and 24 weeks (p < 0.05). The quality of life (except for the seizure worry subsection) and anxiety scale scores also showed significant differences from before to after treatment in the OXC and LEV groups.

Conclusions

OXC monotherapy may be more effective than LEV monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Both OXC and LEV could improve the quality of life and anxiety state in adult patients with focal epilepsy.

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, eventrate, 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: eventrate 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 eventrate 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 eventrate 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), eventrate 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, eventrate, 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 eventrate, 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 eventrate 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.

Tolerability of antiseizure medicines using Lithuanian version of the Liverpool Adverse Events Profile

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a Lithuanian version of the Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (LT-LAEP), and to evaluate the main demographic, clinical, and pharmacological determinants of its score.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed the LT-LAEP and examined its psychometric properties. People with epilepsy (PWE) were asked to fill in the LT-LAEP, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale-7 (GAD-7), the Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy (NDDI-E), and a questionnaire addressing key demographic and clinical information. Antiseizure medicine (ASM) burden was expressed as a number of ASM and total drug load. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine the influence of various variables on LAEP results.

RESULTS

The data of 157 participants with the established diagnosis of epilepsy and stable ASM regimen were included in the final analysis. The mean LT-LAEP score was 48.72 ± 13.65. High internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.912) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.801) were demonstrated. The most common adverse effects (AEs) were tiredness (24.8%) and memory problems (23.6%). Lithuanian version of the Liverpool Adverse Events Profile score significantly correlated with NDDI-E (r = 0.635, p < 0.001) and GAD-7 (r = 0.640, p < 0.001) scores. The correlation between LT-LAEP score and total drug load was weak (r = 0.243, p = 0.002). The significant predictors of higher LT-LAEP score were female sex (β = -4.768, p = 0.003), higher seizure frequency (β = 4.757, p < 0.001), and higher NDDI-E (β = 1.457, p < 0.001) and GAD-7 scores (β = 0.610, p = 0.007) (F(4,152) = 43.975, R2 = 0.536, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The LT-LAEP is a reliable and valid instrument for the evaluation of the AEs of ASM. A higher score of LT-LAEP is predicted by female sex, seizure frequency, and anxiety and depression levels rather than total drug load.

Effects of levetiracetam and oxcarbazepine monotherapy on intellectual and cognitive development in children with benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes

Levetiracetam (LEV) and oxcarbazepine (OXC) are commonly used in the treatment of epilepsy, but their efficacy and safety have seldom been compared for the treatment of children with benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (BECTS). We thus assessed the efficacy of LEV and OXC monotherapy in the treatment of children with BECTS, and the effect of this treatment on children’s intelligence and cognitive development. This was a randomized, single-center trial. Children with BECTS were randomized (1:1) into LEV and OXC groups, and were assessed at 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment. The primary outcomes were the frequency of seizures and changes in intelligence and cognitive function. Secondary outcomes were electroencephalogram (EEG) results and safety. Seventy children were enrolled and randomized to the LEV group or the OXC group, and 32 of the 35 children in each group completed the study. After 6 months, the effective treatment rate of the OXC group was significantly higher than that of the LEV group (78.12 vs. 53.12%, p = 0.035). However, no significant inter-group difference was observed in EEG improvement (p = 0.211). In terms of intelligence and cognitive development, children in the OXC group exhibited significantly improved choice reaction time, mental rotation, and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test results (all p < 0.05). Both LEV and OXC were well tolerated, with 18.75 and 21.88% of children reporting mild adverse events (p = 0.756). OXC monotherapy was more effective than LEV for children with BECTS. In addition, children with OXC monotherapy had higher improvements in children’s intelligence and cognitive function than those with LEV monotherapy.

Response to first antiseizure medication in patients diagnosed with epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the interaction among the efficacy, tolerability and overall effectiveness of the first antiseizure medication in patients 16 years or older with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 584 patients who were referred to the Tampere University Hospital between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2005 and were diagnosed with epilepsy. All individuals were retrospectively followed up until 31 December 2006, until reaching at least one year of seizure freedom, or until death if before the cut-off date.

RESULTS

Overall, after thorough validation of the epilepsy diagnosis 459 patients comprised the study cohort; among these patients, 73% of males and 60% of females became seizure-free for at least one year with the first antiseizure medication. The seizure freedom rate for focal epilepsy was 67%. There was no significant difference in focal epilepsy to achieve seizure freedom between oxcarbazepine, carbamazepine or valproic acid. The seizure freedom rate among patients above 60 years of age was 67%. For patients with structural and unknown aetiology, seizure freedom rates were 61.5% and 75.3%, respectively. Additionally, epileptiform activity on EEG in patients with focal epilepsy decreased odds of seizure freedom in adjusted logistic regression models (OR 0.55, p=0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a more positive prediction of seizure freedom compared with previous studies with the onset of epilepsy at 16 years or older with an overall estimation that two-thirds of patients with new-onset epilepsy obtain seizure freedom with the first antiseizure medication.

A meta-analysis: efficacy and safety of anti-epileptic drugs prescribed in Korea as monotherapy and adjunctive treatment for patients with focal epilepsy

Focal epilepsy is the most common type of epilepsy in Korea, and anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) are the main treatment option for patients. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of AEDs for focal epilepsy through a meta-analysis. The AEDs prescribed in Korea as monotherapy and adjunctive treatment for patients with focal epilepsy were included for analysis. Relevant articles were searched for randomized clinical trials of AEDs and treatment outcomes were analyzed on the basis of the 50% responder rate, seizure-free rate, treatment withdrawal rate, and emergence rates of adverse events (AEs). The odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) of study outcome were calculated using combined data from multiple studies. A total of 47 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The seizure-free rate, treatment withdrawal rate, and AE rate were not significantly different among the AEDs recommended for monotherapy. Among the AEDs recommended for adjunctive treatment, topiramate and oxcarbazepine yielded the highest OR in comparison with placebo for each efficacy parameter: the 50% responder rate for topiramate = 6.42 (3.76–11.6) and the seizure-free rate for oxcarbazepine = 32.7 (6.05–899). The third-generation AEDs (brivaracetam and perampanel) yielded relatively better safety outcomes than other AEDs. In general, the 50% responder rate and treatment withdrawal rate tended to increase as the dose of the AEDs increased. The results from the current meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety data of various AEDs may provide insight into optimal pharmacotherapy for the treatment of focal epilepsy.

Levetiracetam for epilepsy: an evidence map of efficacy, safety and economic profiles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and economics of levetiracetam (LEV) for epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, OpenGrey.eu and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case reports and economic studies published from January 2007 to April 2018. We used a bubble plot to graphically display information of included studies and conducted meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesize the evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 14,803 records were obtained. We included 30 SRs/meta-analyses, 34 RCTs, 18 observational studies, 58 case reports and 2 economic studies after the screening process. The included SRs enrolled patients with pediatric epilepsy, epilepsy in pregnancy, focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy and refractory focal epilepsy. Meta-analysis of the included RCTs indicated that LEV was as effective as carbamazepine (CBZ; treatment for 6 months: 58.9% vs 64.8%, OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.50-1.16; 12 months: 54.9% vs 55.5%, OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.79-1.93), oxcarbazepine (57.7% vs 59.8%, OR=1.34, 95% CI: 0.34-5.23), phenobarbital (50.0% vs 50.9%, OR=1.20, 95% CI: 0.51-2.82) and lamotrigine (LTG; 61.5% vs 57.7%, OR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.90-1.66). SRs and observational studies indicated a low malformation rate and intrauterine death rate for pregnant women, as well as low risk of cognitive side effects. But psychiatric and behavioral side effects could not be ruled out. LEV decreased discontinuation due to adverse events compared with CBZ (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.65), while no difference was found when LEV was compared with placebo and LTG. Two cost-effectiveness evaluations for refractory epilepsy with decision-tree model showed US$ 76.18 per seizure-free day gained in Canada and US$ 44 per seizure-free day gained in Korea.

CONCLUSION

LEV is as effective as CBZ, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital and LTG and has an advantage for pregnant women and in cognitive functions. Limited evidence supports its cost-effectiveness.

REGISTERED NUMBER

PROSPERO (No CRD 42017069367).