Innovative designs of controlled clinical trials in epilepsy

Use of a placebo in clinical trials

The use of a placebo control group in the evaluation of a new product is today considered by most as a necessary condition of experimental drug research. Placebo response is an essential consideration in all clinical trials. If not properly controlled, incorrect and dangerous conclusion may be inferred for a product efficacy and safety profile. However, the inclusion of a placebo group in clinical trials in neuropsychiatric research raises several ethical and scientific questions. Whereas in certain indications, such as suicidal patients and severe and psychotic depression, the use of a placebo is generally not accepted, it is difficult to assess drug efficacy. This article discusses the concept of placebo in clinical trials, the occurrence of adverse events after placebo treatment and the high response rate of placebo in neuropsychiatric clinical research. The experimental methodology to adequately control all the factors involved is also analysed and discussed.

Emotional trauma and abuse in patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

A history of childhood trauma and the presence of dissociative phenomena are considered to be the most important risk factors for psychogenic nonepileptic seizure disorder (PNESD). This case-control study investigated 20 patients with PNESD and 20 with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) diagnosed by video/EEG monitoring who were matched for gender and age. Patients with both conditions were not included in the study. Groups were evaluated for age at onset and at diagnosis, worst lifetime weekly seizure frequency, trauma history, and presence of dissociative phenomena. Age at onset (P=0.007) and age at diagnosis (P<0.001) were significantly higher in the PNESD group than the control group, as were the scores on the Dissociative Experiences Scale (P<0.001) and Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (P=0.014). Only the differences in scores on the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire subscales Emotional Neglect (P=0.013) and Emotional Abuse (P=0.014) reached statistical significance. Dissociative phenomena and a reported history of childhood trauma are more common in patients with PNESD than in those with TLE. However, only emotional neglect and abuse were associated with PNESD in this study.

Comparative bioethics in bipolar and epilepsy research

RATIONALE

AEDs are increasingly evaluated for efficacy in bipolar disorders utilizing double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as required by the FDA. However, the risk to patients is under-estimated in trial design. Bipolar depression has a significant risk for suicide; bipolar episodes can lead to kindling with increased long-term morbidity; rapid regression may occur during the placebo phase or during dose ranging trials with resultant active suicide status. The associated risks mandate that the ethics of FDA-required protocols are addressed.

METHOD

Comparative analysis and literature review of bipolar and epilepsy research designs.

RESULTS

In psychiatry, all INDs require RCTs for approval. In epilepsy, AEDs are initially approved as add-on agents only. Once AEDs have demonstrated add-on efficacy, cross-over studies comparing active AEDs, sub-optimal dosing paradigms, new-onset, and pre-surgical inpatient placebo trials are utilized to prove efficacy of the new AED in monotherapy. Ethical considerations to avoid seizures and to minimize risks to subjects have led to newer clinical trial designs.

CONCLUSIONS

The FDA initially requires add-on studies with new AEDs due to the risk of seizures during the placebo phase. The author argues that bipolar research warrants similar add-on studies to prove efficacy because the risk of suicide and increased long-term morbidity in the bipolar population is as significant as the risk of seizures in the epilepsy population. Although the number of patients needed to prove statistical efficacy would increase, the safety of such research would also markedly increase. The author further concludes that with the risk of suicide during bipolar research, ethical considerations require increased frequency of patient contact with a significant other co-signing the informed consent for research and serving as a contact for the coordinator.

An introduction to contingent (closed-loop) brain electrical stimulation for seizure blockage, to ultra-short-term clinical trials, and to multidimensional statistical analysis of therapeutic efficacy

Automated seizure blockage is a top research priority of the American Epilepsy Society. This delivery modality (referred to herein as contingent or closed loop) requires for implementation a seizure detection algorithm for control of delivery of therapy via a suitable device. The authors address the many potential advantages of this modality over conventional alternatives (periodic or continuous), and the challenges it poses in the design and analysis of trials to assess efficacy and safety-in the particular context of direct delivery of electrical stimulation to brain tissue. The experimental designs of closed-loop therapies are currently limited by ethical, technical, medical, and practical considerations. One type of design that has been used successfully in an in-hospital "closed-loop" trial using subjects undergoing epilepsy surgery evaluation as their own controls is discussed in detail. This design performs a two-way comparison of seizure intensity, duration, and extent of spread between the control (surgery evaluation) versus the experimental phase, and, within the experimental phase, between treated versus untreated seizures. The proposed statistical analysis is based on a linear model that accounts for possible circadian effects, changes in treatment protocols, and other important factors such as change in seizure probability. The analysis is illustrated using seizure intensity as one of several possible end points from one of the subjects who participated in this trial. In-hospital ultra-short-term trials to assess safety and efficacy of closed-loop delivery of electrical stimulation for seizure blockage are both feasible and valuable.

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.

Statistical approaches to trial durations in episodic affective illness

In light of the high variability in illness characteristics and patterns among patients with bipolar illness, parallel group designs present severe methodologic difficulties. Crossover, off-on-off-on (B-A-B-A), and other individualized designs may be a useful substitute, but no consensus exists about how to estimate the individual trial durations required in these instances. Several methods for determining optimum trial lengths in crossover designs are presented, illustrated, and discussed. These include: chi-square (chi2) for the expected versus observed number of either episodes or days well; exceeding two standard deviations for average duration of episodes or euthymic intervals; or the Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT), which detects when mean values differ from prior statistical expectations. Each method was applied to three demonstration cases using data from actual clinical trials of three patients with different patterns of recurrent affective illness. Each method detected changes in illness severity, although different tests appeared to be sensitive to differing cycle patterns in the patients illustrated. We suggest that these types of analyses and others can be used as indicator statistics to augment global impressions and clinical judgment, and to assist in determining individualized trial durations, both in formal clinical trials and in clinical treatment settings. Once individual responsivity is confirmed with an appropriate interplay of trial design and statistical analysis, the percentage response in a given population can then be compared to other agents or in other populations. Moreover, meta-analytic techniques based on addition of z scores from individuals' effect sizes can then be used to assess overall significance of a drug effect in a given population or subpopulation. The need for further development of appropriate and alternate study designs and analysis methods for bipolar illness is highlighted. Approaches to estimating required trial durations in individuals with different cycle frequencies in crossover and B-A-B-A designs constitute one element of that exploration.

Evaluation of drug treatment outcome in epilepsy: a clinical perspective

This article provides a comprehensive discussion of clinical outcome measures used in trials aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of antiepileptic drugs. For efficacy, assessment still relies on careful documentation of changes in ictal activity as determined by seizure counts based on patients recall, direct clinical observation and (for absence seizures) EEG monitoring. In selected cases, assessment of seizure severity may also be indicated. The precise choice of outcome measures is largely dependent upon the specific trial design. In short-term regulatory trials, parameters such as time to nth seizure after randomization (or after achievement of target dosage) may be used as an index of antiepileptic efficacy, but the clinical relevance of such measures is questionable. In add-on trials in refractory patients, changes, in seizure counts and proportion of patients achieving 50%, 75% and 100% reduction in seizure frequency may be appropriate. For long-term monotherapy trials in newly diagnosed patients, proportion of patients achieving prolonged remission (1-year or longer) usually represents the most clinically meaningful efficacy outcome. Retention of patients on the allocated treatment over time is also a valuable measure, but it should be regarded as a composite endpoint because decision to continue treatment is dependent on both efficacy and tolerability. At present, there is no universally accepted method for evaluating side effects, particularly those which can not be documented objectively. Spontaneous reports of symptoms or use of specific checklists have advantages and disadvantages. Studies aimed at ensuring greater standardization in safety assessment should be encouraged, especially with respect to need of obtaining quantitative estimates, and information on both prevalence and incidence of side effects should be reported in all trials.

A survey comparing lamotrigine and vigabatrin in everyday clinical practice

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two new antiepileptic drugs, lamotrigine (LTG) and vigabatrin (GVG) in everyday clinical practice. A comprehensive retrospective survey of a computerized data base and hospital case notes was carried out at the Mersey Regional Epilepsy Clinic (MREC), Liverpool, which services a population of 3 million in the North West of England. The study comprised 333 out-patients with refractory epilepsy exposed to LTG and GVG forming a subset in a total population of 2250 patients with epilepsy held on a comprehensive database. The main outcome measures were duration of treatment with each drug described by a Kaplan-Meier survival curve, seizure control determined by a 50% decrease in seizure frequency and freedom from seizures, and incidence of adverse drug effects leading to discontinuation. The Kaplan-Meier curve indicated a 57% probability of patients continuing to take LTG and 43% GVG after 40 months. A 50% improvement in seizure control followed the addition of LTG in 45% of patients, with 10% seizure free, compared with 32% and 6%, respectively after the addition of GVG. LTG was discontinued because of adverse events (most frequently skin rash) in 15% of patients compared to GVG in 25% (particularly because of personality disturbance and psychiatric disorder). Both LTG and GVG are effective new AEDs in patients with refractory epilepsy, treated in a tertiary referral out-patient setting. LTG has a broader spectrum of antiepileptic efficacy for patients with both partial and idiopathic generalized seizures, whereas GVG should be reserved for patients with partial seizures at low risk of psychiatric disorder.

Placebos in clinical practice and research

The main current application of placebo is in clinical research. The term placebo effect refers to diverse non-specific, desired or non-desired effects of substances or procedures and interactions between patient and therapist. Unpredictability of the placebo effect necessitates placebo-controlled designs for most trials. Therapeutic and diagnostic use of placebo is ethically acceptable only in few well-defined cases. While "therapeutic" application of placebo almost invariably implies deception, this is not the case for its use in research. Conflicts may exist between the therapist's Hippocratic and scientific obligations. The authors provide examples in neuropsychiatry, illustrating that objective scientific data and well-considered guidelines may solve the ethical dilemma. Placebo control might even be considered an ethical obligation but some provisos should be kept in mind: (a) no adequate therapy for the disease should exist and/or (presumed) active therapy should have serious side-effects; (b) placebo treatment should not last too long; (c) placebo treatment should not inflict unacceptable risks, and (d) the experimental subject should be adequately informed and informed consent given.

Felbamate: successful development of a new compound for the treatment of epilepsy

Felbamate (FBM) is an effective and safe novel antiepileptic drug (AED) for add-on treatment in adults with refractory partial seizures as shown in three pivotal controlled trials. In addition, FBM is effective and safe in monotherapy in adults with refractory partial seizures. FBM is also effective and safe as add-on therapy for children and adults with refractory Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. The effective daily dosage is approximately 30-45 mg/kg divided into three or four doses with resulting plasma concentrations of 50-80 mg/L. The safety profile of FBM is limited to mild gastrointestinal complaints, insomnia, and nonspecific CNS symptoms. Six pivotal controlled trials, with both classic and innovative design, showed that FBM is a useful AED.