Multicenter double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of levetiracetam as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with refractory partial-onset seizures

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.

Development of SV2A Ligands for Epilepsy Treatment: A Review of Levetiracetam, Brivaracetam, and Padsevonil

Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder that is primarily treated with antiseizure medications (ASMs). Although dozens of ASMs are available in the clinic, approximately 30% of epileptic patients have medically refractory seizures; other limitations in most traditional ASMs include poor tolerability and drug-drug interactions. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop alternative ASMs. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a first-line ASM that is well tolerated, has promising efficacy, and has little drug-drug interaction. Although it is widely accepted that LEV acts through a unique therapeutic target synaptic vesicle protein (SV) 2A, the molecular basis of its action remains unknown. Even so, the next-generation SV2A ligands against epilepsy based on the structure of LEV have achieved clinical success. This review highlights the research and development (R&D) process of LEV and its analogs, brivaracetam and padsevonil, to provide ideas and experience for the R&D of novel ASMs.

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.

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.

Levetiracetam add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Drug resistance is common in focal epilepsy. In this update, we summarised the current evidence regarding add-on levetiracetam in treating drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The original review was published in 2001 and last updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of levetiracetam when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to November 2018. We contacted the manufacturers of levetiracetam and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of add-on levetiracetam treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for bias, extracted data, and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency (response), treatment withdrawal, adverse effects (including a specific analysis of changes in behaviour), cognitive effects, and quality of life (QoL). Primary analysis was intention-to-treat. We performed meta-analysis for all outcomes using a Mantel-Haenszel approach and calculated risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all estimates apart from adverse effects (99% CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using a Chi² test and the I² statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

This update included 14 trials (2455 participants), predominantly possessing low risks of bias. Participants were adults in 12 trials (2159 participants) and children in the remaining two (296 participants). The doses of levetiracetam tested were 500 mg/day to 4000 mg/day in adults, and 60 mg/kg/day in children. Treatment ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. When individual doses were examined, levetiracetam at either 500 mg/day or 4000 mg/day did not perform better than placebo for the 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency outcome (500 mg: RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.62; P = 0.26; 4000 mg: RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.57; P = 0.34). Levetiracetam was significantly better than placebo at all other individual doses (1000 mg to 3000 mg). RR was significantly in favour of levetiracetam compared to placebo when results were pooled across all doses (RR 2.37, 95% CI 2.02 to 2.78; 14 studies, 2455 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose-response analysis demonstrated that the odds of achieving response (50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency) were increased by nearly 40% (odds ratio (OR) 1.39, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.58) for each 1000 mg increase in dose of levetiracetam. There were important levels of heterogeneity across multiple comparisons. Participants were not significantly more likely to experience treatment withdrawal with levetiracetam than with placebo (pooled RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 13 studies, 2428 participants; high-certainty evidence). Somnolence was the most common adverse effect, affecting 13% of participants, and it was significantly associated with levetiracetam compared to placebo (pooled RR 1.62, 99% CI 1.19 to 2.20; 13 studies, 2423 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Changes in behaviour were negligible in adults (1% affected; RR 1.79, 99% CI 0.59 to 5.41), but significant in children (23% affected; RR 1.90, 99% CI 1.16 to 3.11). Levetiracetam had a positive effect on some aspects of cognition and QoL in adults and worsened certain aspects of child behaviour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this review update finds that in both adults and children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, levetiracetam added on to usual care is more effective than placebo at reducing seizure frequency, it is unlikely to be stopped by patients, and it has minimal adverse effects outside of potential worsening behaviour in children. These findings are unchanged from the previous review update in 2012. This review update contributes two key additional findings: 1. a 500 mg daily dose of levetiracetam is no more effective than placebo at reducing seizures; and 2. the odds of response (50% reduction in seizure frequency) are increased by nearly 40% for each 1000 mg increase in dose of levetiracetam. It seems reasonable to continue the use of levetiracetam in both adults and children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

Levetiracetam efficacy in PCDH19 Girls Clustering Epilepsy

BACKGROUND

PCDH19 Girls clustering epilepsy (GCE) has a phenotypic spectrum that includes developmental and epileptic encephalopathy. PCDH19-GCE presents with clusters of seizures in the first years of life. Although patients typically outgrow their seizures, many are left with intellectual disability. Here we retrospectively assess the effect of levetiracetam in two independent cohorts of females with PCDH19-GCE.

METHODS

Cohort A was identified by searching our epilepsy genetics research database for girls with PCDH19-GCE who had trialled levetiracetam. Cohort B consisted of girls aged 2 years or older, including women, participating in an international online questionnaire. Information regarding seizure frequency and levetiracetam use was obtained by in-person patient interview and review of clinical records for cohort A, and by patient report for cohort B.

RESULTS

Cohort A consisted of 17 females, aged 3-37 years, who had a trial of levetiracetam at an average age of 10.7 years. 13/17 females became seizure free for >12 months; while 10/17 remained seizure free for >24 months. Cohort B comprised 62 females, aged 1.5-41 years. 26/62 became seizure free for >12 months, and 19/62 for >24 months on levetiracetam therapy.

DISCUSSION

Levetiracetam was effective in two cohorts of females with PCDH19-GCE where 42% and 76% of females became seizure free for >12 months, respectively. Levetiracetam is an effective therapy for females with PCDH19-GCE and should be considered early in the management of the highly refractory clusters of seizures that characterise this genetic disease.

A meta-analysis of levetiracetam for randomized placebo-controlled trials in patients with refractory epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety profile of levetiracetam as add-on therapy in patients with refractory epilepsy.

METHODS

Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify potential eligible randomized controlled trials by two reviewers independently. Pooled estimates of risk ratios (RRs) for 50%, 75%, and 100% reduction from baseline were calculated using the fixed-effect model or random-effect model. Quality of included studies was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Serious adverse events and withdrawals induced by interventions and the most common side effects were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials with a total of 3,205 participants were included in this meta-analysis, including 14 trials for adulthood and three trials for children. Pooled estimates suggested that levetiracetam was an effective anti-epileptic drug at 1,000-3,000 mg/day (RR =2.00 for 1,000 mg/day, RR =2.68 for 2,000 mg/day, RR =2.18 for 3,000 mg/day) for adults and 60 mg/kg/day (RR =2.00) for children compared to placebo in terms of 50% reduction from baseline. Likewise, as for seizure freedom rate, levetiracetam had an advantage over placebo at 1,000-3,000 mg/day (RR =5.84 for 1,000 mg/day, RR =4.55 for 2,000 mg/day, RR =4.57 for 3,000 mg/day, respectively) for adults and 60 mg/kg/day (RR =4.52) for children. Regarding safety profile, patients treated with levetiracetam had significantly higher occurrence than placebo for somnolence, asthenia, dizziness, infection, nasopharyngitis, anxiety, and irritability; however, most studies reported that these adverse events were mild and transient.

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam is an effective anti-epileptic drug for both adults and children with generalized or partial-onset refractory seizures at 1,000-3,000 or 60 mg/kg/day, with a favorable adverse event profile.

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).

Adjunctive levetiracetam in the treatment of Chinese and Japanese adults with generalized tonic-clonic seizures: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Objective

To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive levetiracetam (LEV) in Chinese and Japanese adults with generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures (N01159; NCT01228747).

Methods

This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III trial comprised: 4-week retrospective and 4-week prospective baseline, 12-week dose-adjustment, and 16-week evaluation periods. Chinese and Japanese patients ≥16 years old with idiopathic generalized, symptomatic generalized, or undetermined epilepsy with GTC seizures received a single-blind placebo during the prospective baseline, and then were randomized 1:1 to placebo or LEV 1,000 mg/day administered twice daily. Patients reporting GTC seizures up to week 8 had the LEV dosage increased to 3,000 mg/day. The primary efficacy variable was percent reduction from combined baseline in GTC seizures/week during the 28-week treatment period.

Results

Overall, 251 patients were randomized (208 from China; 43 from Japan); 141 (56.2%) completed the 28-week treatment period. Least-squares mean percent reduction from combined baseline in GTC seizures/week (treatment period) was placebo 12.6% versus LEV 68.8% (95% confidence interval, 44.0-68.2; p < 0.0001). GTC seizure frequency reduction occurred in both patients with idiopathic and symptomatic generalized epilepsy. The 50% responder rate (treatment period) was placebo 28.4% versus LEV 77.8%. Freedom from GTC seizures (evaluation period) was placebo 3.1% versus LEV 29.6%. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; treatment period) was placebo 52.0% versus LEV 57.1%; most frequently nasopharyngitis, protein in urine, decreased platelet count, and pyrexia. Incidence of TEAEs leading to discontinuation was 4.8% versus 3.2%; incidence of serious TEAEs was 3.2% versus 0.8% for placebo and LEV, respectively; 3 patients taking placebo died versus none taking LEV.

Significance

In this trial, adjunctive LEV 1,000-3,000 mg/day was effective in reducing GTC seizure frequency in Chinese and Japanese patients ≥16 years old with GTC seizures. Seizure reduction occurred in both patients with idiopathic and symptomatic generalized epilepsy. LEV was well tolerated in this population.

Newer antiepileptic drugs compared to levetiracetam as adjunctive treatments for uncontrolled focal epilepsy: An indirect comparison

PURPOSE

Newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), such as Eslicarbazepine (ESL), Lacosamide (LAC), Perampanel (PER) and Brivaracetam (BRV), have been marketed as adjunctive treatments for partial-onset seizures. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of newer AEDs with Levetiracetam (LEV), when used as add-on treatments for uncontrolled focal epilepsy.

METHOD

We conducted an online database search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Online Library and Clinicaltrials.gov for all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the therapeutic effects of newer AEDs or LEV vs placebo. Indirect comparisons for clinical efficacy and tolerability at different doses between the newer AEDs and LEV were then performed using Indirect Treatment Comparison (ITC) software.

RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs with a total of 8540 patients were included. Compared to LEV, ESL, LAC and BRV did not showed significant difference in efficacy at all dose level. PER showed lower 50% response rates and seizure-free rates at the highest effective recommended dosages. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and withdrawal rates due to adverse events (AEs) of LAC and PER were higher than LEV at the highest effective recommended dosages, and overall AE rates from ESL were higher than LEV.

CONCLUSIONS

Indirect comparisons suggested that ESL, LAC and BRV were not inferior to LEV in efficacy. ESL, LAC and PER may have a possible worse tolerability profile compared to LEV at high dose. But BRV may exhibit a similar tolerability to LEV. Newer AEDs cannot exceed the LEV on efficacy and tolerability.

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

This open-label, multicenter, randomized phase IV trial (NCT01498822) of noninferiority design compared the long-term effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of levetiracetam (LEV) monotherapy with those of oxcarbazepine (OXC) monotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Korean patients (16-80 years), with ≥2 unprovoked focal seizures in the year preceding the trial, who had not taken any antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the last 6 months, were randomized to receive LEV or OXC (1:1). Effectiveness, safety, and tolerability were assessed over a 50-week period. Treatment failure rates (per protocol set) were 15/118 (12.7%) in the LEV-treated group and 30/128 (23.4%) in the OXC-treated group, an absolute difference of -10.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] -20.2, -1.2). Because the upper 95% CI limit was less than the pre-specified noninferiority margin of 15%, LEV was considered noninferior to OXC. Twenty-four-week and 48-week seizure freedom rates were 53.8% and 34.7% for LEV vs. 58.5% and 40.9% for OXC. Both LEV and OXC were well tolerated, with 8.7% and 8.6% of patients reporting serious treatment-emergent adverse events, respectively. By comparing LEV with OXC, another newer AED, LEV can be considered a useful option as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Second and Third Generation Anti-epileptic Drugs in Refractory Epilepsy: A Network Meta-Analysis

This study was proposed to compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of the second and third generation AEDs for refractory epilepsy. The 50% responder rate (RR) was selected as the efficacy outcome whereas the incidence of dizziness and somnolence were considered to evaluate the tolerability of AEDs. Odds ratio (OR) and their 95% credible interval (CrI) were obtained using a consistency model and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value was calculated to rank AEDs. Topiramate appeared to be significantly more effective than placebo, eslicarbazepine acetate, perampanel, pregabalin, zonisamide, gabapentin and lamotrigine with respect to the 50% RR (all OR > 1). Patients who were managed by eslicarbazepine acetate, perampanel, oxcarbazepine, topiramate and pregabalin were more likely to suffer from dizziness compared to those who receive placebo (all OR > 1). Perampanel, topiramate and pregabalin were related to elevated risks of somnolence compared to placebo (all OR > 1). Moreover, topiramate ranked highest with respect to 50% RR (SUCRA = 0.968) whereas levetiracetam appeared to have balanced efficacy and tolerability (SUCRA = 0.769, 0.743, 0.604 and 0.659). In conclusion, topiramate was the most efficacious AED, while levetiracetam was able to provide patients with balanced efficacy and tolerability.

Can Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Methods Mitigate Placebo Response Differences Among Patient Populations in Adjunctive Trials of Brivaracetam and Levetiracetam?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Patients with focal seizures recruited into adjunctive antiepileptic drug (AED) trials have become more refractory and severe over time; concurrently, placebo responses have increased. To attempt to account for heterogeneity among trials, propensity-score weighted patient-level data were used to indirectly compare placebo responses reported in brivaracetam and levetiracetam trials.

METHODS

Patient-level data from randomised, placebo-controlled brivaracetam (recruited 2007-2014) and levetiracetam (1993-1998) trials were pooled. Consistent inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied and outcomes were defined consistently. Potentially confounding baseline characteristics were adjusted for using propensity score weighting. Weighting success was assessed using placebo response.

RESULTS

In total, 707 and 473 active drug and 399 and 253 placebo patients comprised the brivaracetam and levetiracetam groups, respectively. Before weighting, several baseline variables were significantly different between groups; after weighting, prior vagal nerve stimulation, co-morbid depression and co-morbid anxiety remained different. Before weighting, median seizure frequency reduction was 21.7 and 3.9% in the brivaracetam and levetiracetam placebo arms, respectively; after weighting, median reduction was 15.0 and 6.0%. The comparison of non-randomised groups could be biased by unobserved confounding factors and region of residence. Lifetime AED history was unavailable in the brivaracetam trials and excluded from analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Placebo responses remained different between brivaracetam and levetiracetam trials after propensity score weighting, indicating the presence of residual confounding factors associated with placebo response in these trials. It therefore remains problematic to conduct reliable indirect comparisons of brivaracetam and levetiracetam given the current evidence base, which may apply to comparisons between other AED trials.

Efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam as adjunctive therapy in Japanese patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures

AIMS

The aim of this study was to confirm the efficacy and safety of adjunctive levetiracetam in adult Japanese patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures.

METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, confirmatory trial, eligible patients were randomized to receive levetiracetam 500, 1000, 2000, or 3000 mg/day or placebo for 16 weeks. The primary end-point was percentage reduction from baseline in seizure frequency/week over a 12-week evaluation period. Tolerability assessments were also conducted. Findings of this and a previous randomized, double-blind trial were compared.

RESULTS

Of 401 patients screened, 352 were randomized and 316 completed the study. Median percentage reduction in seizure frequency/week from baseline was 12.92%, 18.00%, 11.11% and 31.67% in the levetiracetam 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000-mg groups, respectively, compared with 12.50% in the placebo group. Unlike the previous trial, the primary efficacy analysis between the levetiracetam 1000 and 3000-mg and placebo groups did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.067). Exploratory analyses demonstrated that the difference in seizure reduction versus placebo was 14.93% (95% confidence interval, 1.98-27.64; P = 0.025) for the levetiracetam 3000-mg group. All levetiracetam doses were well tolerated. The main difference between the two trials was a high placebo response in the present trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary efficacy analysis did not reach statistical significance, a finding that could be attributed to an unexpectedly high placebo response. Nonetheless, exploratory analysis suggests that levetiracetam at 3000 mg/day may, at least marginally, be beneficial for patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials on First Line and Adjunctive Levetiracetam

Context:

New evidence suggests that levetiracetam may be as effective as traditional agents, with better safety profile.

Objective:

To synthesize evidence regarding efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam as first line, adjunctive or prophylactic antiepileptic agent.

Study Selection & Data Extraction:

Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of levetiracetam used in adults with epilepsy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL, PAPERSFIRST, PROCEEDINGSFIRST, PROQUEST and conference proceedings identified studies (to September 30, 2010). Two investigators independently selected, appraised studies, collected and analyzed data.

Results:

Of ten eligible randomized trials, eight investigated adjunctive levetiracetam for refractory seizures, one as monotherapy for newly diagnosed seizures, one as monotherapy for prophylaxis. Eight RCTs of adjunctive levetiracetam were of moderate quality (GRADE criteria), with two showing lack of allocation concealment. Meta-analyses showed adjunctive levetiracetam was more effective than placebo in achieving at least 50% reduction of seizure frequency, when added to baseline antiepileptic regimen (pooled RR 2.15 [1.65,2.82], I2 = 45%, p value (heterogeneity) = 0.08, p value (overall effect) < 0.01). Likelihood of serious adverse events necessitating withdrawal from study was not significantly different between levetiracetam and control (pooled RR 1.37 [0.88,2.13], I2 = 0%, p value (heterogeneity) = 0.84, p value (overall effect) = 0.17). Subgroup analyses suggested similar effects across different dosages. Sensitivity analysis of studies with adequate concealment showed similar effects.

Conclusions:

Levetiracetam is an effective adjunctive agent for refractory epilepsy. More studies are needed to establish whether it is effective as monotherapy for newly diagnosed seizures, and for prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury.

The adverse effects profile of levetiracetam in epilepsy: a more detailed look

The adverse effects profile of levetiracetam in epilepsy is still being fully described. We recently published a Cochrane Review evaluating the effectiveness of levetiracetam, added on to usual care, in treating drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The five most common adverse effects were reported and analysed with no scope for reporting any less common adverse effects than those. Here, we report and analyse the remaining adverse effects (including the five most common). These were (in decreasing order of frequency) somnolence; headache; asthenia; accidental injury; dizziness; infection; pharyngitis; pain; rhinitis; abdominal pain; flu syndrome; vomiting; diarrhoea; convulsion; nausea; increased cough; anorexia; upper respiratory tract infection; hostility; personality disorder; urinary tract infection; nervousness; depression; aggression; back pain; agitation; emotional liability; psychomotor hyperactivity; pyrexia; rash; ECG abnormalities; decreased appetite; nasal congestion; irritability; abnormal behaviour; epistaxis; insomnia; altered mood; anxiety; bloody urine; diplopia; dissociation; memory impairment; pruritis; increased appetite; acne; and stomach discomfort. Only somnolence and infection were significantly associated with levetiracetam. When adverse effects pertaining to infection were combined, these affected 19.7% and 15.1% of participants on levetiracetam and placebo (relative risk 1.16, CI 0.89-1.50, Chi(2) heterogeneity p = 0.13). Somnolence and infection further retained significance in adults while no single adverse effect was significant in children. This review updates the adverse effects profile data on levetiracetam use by empirically reporting its common and uncommon adverse effects and analysing their relative importance statistically using data from a group of trials that possess low Risk of Bias and high Quality of Evidence GRADE scores.

Investigation of influencing factors on higher placebo response in East Asian versus Western clinical trials for partial epilepsy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Placebo response in clinical trials for anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) has been examined and a recent meta-analysis revealed that East Asian trials showed unexpectedly higher placebo response. As multi-national trials have become common, it is important to understand placebo response in different settings, including regions/countries for future clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

The present meta-analysis aims to investigate the potential factors that contribute to higher placebo response in clinical trials for add-on therapy to adult patients with refractory partial epilepsy in East Asian and Western populations.

METHODS

A database was established based on published clinical trials conducted in East Asian and Western countries. The relationship between the degree of placebo response and potential influencing factors was examined by logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The database included 33 trials from five AEDs: gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, pregabalin, and zonisamide. Placebo response was associated with patient characteristics such as disease duration, percentage of patients with complex partial seizure (CPS) at baseline, percentage of patients treated with two AEDs, protocol-required seizure frequency at baseline, and year of publication. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the placebo response in East Asian trials was statistically higher than that in Western trials.

CONCLUSION

Patient characteristics such as longer disease duration and CPS at baseline contribute to a reduction in placebo response in clinical trials of AEDs for partial epilepsy. While the reasons for the geographical difference in placebo response are not clear, these and other patient characteristics contributing to placebo response should be carefully considered in the design of future clinical trials of AEDs for partial epilepsy.

Levetiracetam add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy: an updated Cochrane Review

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is an important neurological condition and drug resistance in epilepsy is particularly common in individuals with focal seizures. In this review, we summarise the current evidence regarding a new antiepileptic drug, levetiracetam, when used as add-on treatment for controlling drug-resistant focal epilepsy. This is an update to a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2001.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of levetiracetam, added on to usual care, in treating drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (August 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 7, 2012), and MEDLINE (1946 to August week 1, 2012). We also contacted the manufacturers of levetiracetam and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of add-on levetiracetam treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for bias, extracted data, and evaluated the overall quality of evidence. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency (response); less than 50% reduction in focal seizure frequency (non-response); treatment withdrawal; adverse effects (including a specific analysis of changes in behaviour); cognitive effects and quality of life (QoL). Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as measures of effect (99% CIs for adverse effects). Primary analyses were Intention-to-Treat (ITT). Dose response and inter-trial heterogeneity were evaluated in regression models.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials (1861 participants) were included. They predominantly possessed low risks of bias. Participants were adults in nine trials (1565 participants) and children in the remaining two trials (296 participants). The dose of levetiracetam tested was 1000 to 4000 mg/day in adults, and 60 mg/kg/day in children. Treatment ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. For the 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency outcome, the RR was significantly in favour of levetiracetam at all doses. The naive estimates, ignoring dose, showed children (52% responded) as better responders than adults (39% responded) on levetiracetam. 25% of children and 16% of adults responded to placebo. The Number Needed to Treat for an additional beneficial outcome for children and adults was four (95% CI three to seven) and five (95% CI four to six), respectively. The significant levels of statistical heterogeneity between trials on adults precluded valid provision of an overall RR (ignoring dose). Results for the two trials that tested levetiracetam 2000 mg on adults were sufficiently similar to be combined to give an RR for 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency of 4.91 (95% CI 2.75 to 8.77), with an RR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.77) for non-response. At this dose, 37% and 8% of adults were responders in the levetiracetam and placebo groups, respectively. Regression analysis demonstrated that much of the heterogeneity between adult trials was likely to be explained by different doses of levetiracetam tested and different years of trial publication. There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity between trials on children. For these trials, the RR for 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency was 1.91 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.63), with an RR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.81) for non-response. 27% of children responded. Participants were not significantly more likely to have levetiracetam withdrawn (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.32 and RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.46 for adults and children, respectively). For adults, somnolence (RR 1.51; 99% CI 1.06 to 2.17) and infection (RR 1.76; 99% CI 1.03 to 3.02) were significantly associated with levetiracetam. Accidental injury was significantly associated with placebo (RR 0.60; 99% CI 0.39 to 0.92). No individual adverse effect was significantly associated with levetiracetam in children. Changes in behaviour were negligible in adults (1% affected; RR 1.79; 99% CI 0.59 to 5.41) but significant in children (23% affected; RR 1.90; 99% CI 1.16 to 3.11). Cognitive effect and QoL outcomes suggested that levetiracetam had a positive effect on cognition and some aspects of QoL in adults. In children, levetiracetam did not appear to alter cognitive function but there was evidence of worsening in certain aspects of child behaviour. The overall quality of evidence used was high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update adds seven more trials to the original review, which contained four trials. At every dose analysed, levetiracetam significantly reduced focal seizure frequency relative to placebo. This indicates that levetiracetam can significantly reduce focal seizure frequency when it is used as an add-on treatment for both adults and children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. As there was evidence of significant levels of statistical heterogeneity within this positive effect it is difficult to be precise about the relative magnitude of the effect. At a dose of 2000 mg, levetiracetam may be expected to be 3.9 times more effective than placebo; with 30% of adults being responders at this dose. At a dose of 60 mg/kg/day, levetiracetam may be expected to be 0.9 times more effective than placebo; with 25% of children being responders at this dose. When dose was ignored, children were better responders than adults by around 4% to 13%. The results grossly suggest that one child or adult may respond to levetiracetam for every four or five children or adults, respectively, that have received levetiracetam rather than placebo. The drug seems to be well tolerated in both adults and children although non-specific changes in behaviour may be experienced in as high as 20% of children. This aspect of the adverse-effect profile of levetiracetam was analysed crudely and requires further investigation and validation. It seems reasonable to continue the use of levetiracetam in both adults and children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The results cannot be used to confirm longer-term or monotherapy effects of levetiracetam or its effects on generalised seizures. The conclusions are largely unchanged from those in the original review. The most significant contribution of this update is the addition of paediatric data into the analysis.

The effect of levetiracetam on focal nocturnal epileptiform activity during sleep--a placebo-controlled double-blind cross-over study

Electric Status Epilepticus during Sleep (ESES) occurs in children with and without epilepsy. It may be related to disturbances as autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and acquired aphasia (Landau-Kleffner syndrome). Antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment has been reported in small studies without placebo control. This study was designed to assess AED effect in a placebo-controlled double-blind cross-over study. Levetiracetam (LEV) was chosen based on clinical evidence. Eighteen patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The mean spike index at baseline was 56, falling to a mean of 37 at the end of the LEV treatment period. Assessed with a 2-way ANOVA, there is a significant treatment effect (p<0.0002). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first placebo-controlled double-blind cross-over study for any AED in patients with ESES. The effect of LEV is comparable with its effect in treatment of epileptic seizures.

Treatment of epilepsy in adults: expert opinion in China

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to survey a group of epileptologists in China regarding the treatment of adult epilepsy.

METHODS

A questionnaire on treatment of adult epilepsy was sent to a group of opinion leaders in the field of epilepsy.

RESULTS

For initial monotherapy for idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE), valproate was rated as the treatment of choice. In symptomatic localization-related epilepsy (SLRE)/simple partial seizures and SLRE/complex partial seizures, carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine were the respective treatments of choice, whereas in SLRE/secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and oxcarbazepine were treatments of choice. For women who were pregnant or trying to conceive, lamotrigine was the treatment of choice for both IGE and SLRE. In people with epilepsy who were HBsAg positive, whether liver function was normal or not, topiramate and levetiracetam were treatments of choice for IGE. Valproate and levetiracetam were treatments of choice for seizures in the emergency department.

CONCLUSION

A high level of consensus was reached on most treatments of choice and first-line treatments for patients with epilepsy, which were in accordance with published US expert opinion.

Review of therapeutic options for adjuvant treatment of focal seizures in epilepsy: focus on lacosamide

Epilepsy is one of the most common serious neurological conditions worldwide, with an age-adjusted incidence of approximately 50 per 100,000 persons per year in developed countries. Antiepileptic therapy can result in long-term remission in 60-70% of patients, but many patients will require combination treatment to achieve optimal seizure control, as monotherapy is ineffective at controlling seizures in 30-53% of patients. Despite the increase in available treatment options, patient outcomes have not improved significantly and there is still a need for more effective therapies. Drugs used in the treatment of focal-onset seizures are a diverse range of compounds, and in most cases their mechanism of action is unknown or poorly defined. This review discusses the efficacy and safety of the newer adjuvant antiepileptic therapies that may improve outcomes in patients unresponsive to monotherapy, including clobazam, vigabatrin, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, tiagabine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, pregabalin, zonisamide and eslicarbazepine, with focus on lacosamide. Lacosamide has been shown to exert its anticonvulsant effects predominantly by enhancement of the slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels. Lacosamide is indicated for use as adjuvant treatment of focal-onset seizures in patients with epilepsy, and there is some evidence that it may also be of use in patients with status epilepticus and cancer patients with epilepsy. The efficacy of lacosamide has been assessed in three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials, all of which have shown lacosamide to be effective at reducing seizure frequency and increasing 50% responder rates in patients with focal-onset seizures. Long-term lacosamide treatment is generally well tolerated and is not associated with significant drug interactions; the availability of an intravenous form of the drug also makes it particularly useful for a broad range of patients.

Spotlight on levetiracetam in epilepsy

Levetiracetam (Keppra®, E Keppra®) is an established second-generation antiepileptic drug (AED). Worldwide, levetiracetam is most commonly approved as adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization; other approved indications include monotherapy treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization, and adjunctive treatment of myoclonic seizures associated with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy and primary generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures associated with idiopathic generalized epilepsy. Levetiracetam has a novel structure and unique mechanisms of action. Unlike other AEDs, the mechanisms of action of levetiracetam appear to involve neuronal binding to synaptic vesicle protein 2A, inhibiting calcium release from intraneuronal stores, opposing the activity of negative modulators of GABA- and glycin-gated currents and inhibiting excessive synchronized activity between neurons. In addition, levetiracetam inhibits N-type calcium channels. Levetiracetam is associated with rapid and complete absorption, high oral bioavailability, minimal metabolism that consists of hydrolysis of the acetamide group and primarily renal elimination. It lacks cytochrome P450 isoenzyme-inducing potential and is not associated with clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs, including other AEDs. The efficacy of oral immediate-release levetiracetam in controlling seizures has been established in numerous randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trials in patients with epilepsy. Adjunctive levetiracetam reduced the frequency of seizures in paediatric and adult patients with refractory partial-onset seizures to a significantly greater extent than placebo. Monotherapy with levetiracetam was noninferior to that with carbamazepine controlled release in controlling seizures in patients with newly diagnosed partial-onset seizures. Levetiracetam also provided seizure control relative to placebo as adjunctive therapy in patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy with myoclonic seizures or GTC seizures. In addition, patients receiving oral levetiracetam showed improvements in measures of health-related quality of life relative to those receiving placebo. Although treatment-emergent adverse events were commonly reported in the clinical trials of levetiracetam, the overall proportion of patients who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event was broadly similar in the levetiracetam and placebo treatment groups, with most events being mild to moderate in severity. Levetiracetam is not associated with cognitive impairment or drug-induced weight gain, but has been associated with behavioural adverse effects in some patients.

Levetiracetam: a review of its use in epilepsy

Levetiracetam (Keppra®, E Keppra®) is an established second-generation antiepileptic drug (AED). Worldwide, levetiracetam is most commonly approved as adjunctive treatment of partial onset seizures with or without secondary generalization; other approved indications include monotherapy treatment of partial onset seizures with or without secondary generalization, and adjunctive treatment of myoclonic seizures associated with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy and primary generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures associated with idiopathic generalized epilepsy. Levetiracetam has a novel structure and unique mechanisms of action. Unlike other AEDs, the mechanisms of action of levetiracetam appear to involve neuronal binding to synaptic vesicle protein 2A, inhibiting calcium release from intraneuronal stores, opposing the activity of negative modulators of GABA- and glycin-gated currents and inhibiting excessive synchronized activity between neurons. In addition, levetiracetam inhibits N-type calcium channels. Levetiracetam is associated with rapid and complete absorption, high oral bioavailability, minimal metabolism that consists of hydrolysis of the acetamide group, and primarily renal elimination. It lacks cytochrome P450 isoenzyme-inducing potential and is not associated with clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs, including other AEDs. The efficacy of oral immediate-release levetiracetam in controlling seizures has been established in numerous randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trials in patients with epilepsy. Adjunctive levetiracetam reduced the frequency of seizures in paediatric and adult patients with refractory partial onset seizures to a significantly greater extent than placebo. Monotherapy with levetiracetam was noninferior to that with carbamazepine controlled release in controlling seizures in patients with newly diagnosed partial onset seizures. Levetiracetam also provided seizure control relative to placebo as adjunctive therapy in patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy with myoclonic seizures or GTC seizures. In addition, patients receiving oral levetiracetam showed improvements in measures of health-related quality of life relative to those receiving placebo. Although treatment-emergent adverse events were commonly reported in the clinical trials of levetiracetam, the overall proportion of patients who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event was broadly similar in the levetiracetam and placebo treatment groups, with most events being mild to moderate in severity. Levetiracetam is not associated with cognitive impairment or drug-induced weight gain, but has been associated with behavioural adverse effects in some patients.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive zonisamide in adult patients with refractory partial-onset epilepsy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Clinical studies have reported that zonisamide is effective for a wide range of seizure types, including refractory partial-onset seizures. However, there have been no reported studies of the efficacy of zonisamide in the Chinese population to date. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zonisamide in the treatment of adult Chinese patients with refractory partial-onset epilepsy.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted over a 16-week period. 104 patients with refractory partial-onset epilepsy were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to receive add-on zonisamide or placebo. Zonisamide was titrated to a target dosage of 300 or 400 mg/day. Seizure frequency and adverse effects were documented.

RESULTS

102 patients completed the trial. Zonisamide showed significantly greater efficacy compared with placebo (responder rate 55.8% vs 36.0%, p<0.05), including 55.2% (16 of 29 patients) in the zonisamide 300 mg/day arm and 56.5% (13 of 23 patients) in the zonisamide 400 mg/day arm. Zonisamide 300 and 400 mg/day showed similar efficacy (p>0.05). Moreover, similar efficacy of zonisamide was found in the control of complex partial seizures, simple partial seizures and secondary generalized seizures. There was no difference in the incidence of adverse effects between zonisamide and placebo. Reported adverse effects in the zonisamide group involved the digestive system (32.5% of total adverse effects in the group) [including transient increases in liver enzymes (27.8%)], weight changes (30.2%), the haematological system (15.1%), neurological/psychiatric effects (10.3%), the urinary system (7.9%) and the cardiovascular system (4.0%). Only digestive system adverse effects constituted a significantly higher proportion of adverse effects in the zonisamide group than in the placebo group (32.5% vs 30.2%, p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Zonisamide 300-400 mg/day is effective and well tolerated as an adjunctive drug in adult Chinese patients with refractory partial-onset epilepsy.

Levetiracetam in children and adolescents with epilepsy and hemiplegic cerebral palsy

AIM

To monitor the effect of adding levetiracetam in paediatric patients with hemiplegic cerebral palsy and uncontrolled epilepsy.

METHODS

A case series of eight patients with hemiplegic cerebral palsy whose focal seizures were not adequately controlled by their current anticonvulsants were monitored after levetiracetam was added to their medications. If there was a 50% reduction in seizure frequency, then the other anticonvulsants were discontinued. Prolonged follow-up occurred for a minimum of 2 years.

RESULTS

There were seven males and one female whose ages ranged from 4 years to 17 years. All had focal onset seizures, while seven also had secondarily generalised tonic clonic seizures. Levetiracetam resulted in at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency in seven, with no change in one. Three were able to wean successfully to monotherapy and remained seizure free for over 2 years. They had a prior history of infrequent seizures, one to six per year. Those who continued to require multiple anticonvulsants had a prior history of more frequent seizures, 6-50/year. Levetiracetam was well tolerated, and none ceased this because of side effects.

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam is likely to be an effective anticonvulsant in children and adolescents with hemiplegic cerebral palsy and infrequent but persistent focal seizures.

Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam as adjunctive therapy in adult patients with uncontrolled partial epilepsy: the Asia SKATE II Study

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of levetiracetam as adjunctive therapy for partial seizures in everyday clinical practice in Asian populations. Patients aged > or =16 years (N=251) with inadequately controlled partial epilepsy were recruited from 29 centers across Asia. Levetiracetam was added to existing antiepileptic medication for 16 weeks at a starting dose of 500 or 1000 mg/day and titrated to a maximum of 3000 mg/day according to clinical response. The study completion rate was 86.9%. Adverse events were reported by 73.3% of patients and were generally mild, leading to treatment withdrawal in only 7.2%. The most common adverse events were somnolence (30.3%) and dizziness (14.7%). Compared with pretreatment baseline, 44.0% of patients had a > or =50% reduction in seizure frequency, with a median reduction of 46.4%, and 17.7% became seizure free during the treatment period. Levetiracetam was well tolerated and efficacious as adjunctive therapy for partial epilepsy in clinical practice among Asian populations.

Clinical efficacy and cognitive and neuropsychological effects of levetiracetam in epilepsy: an open-label multicenter study

The aim of this prospective, multicenter, open-label study was to investigate the efficacy of levetiracetam (LEV) and determine its effects on cognitive and neuropsychological function. Sixty-nine patients were evaluated for effects of LEV on seizure control, cognitive (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]) and neuropsychological (Symptom Checklist-90 Revised [SCL-90-R]) functions, and quality of life (Quality of Life in Epilepsy--10 [QOLIE-10]) assessments at 3 and 12 months of follow-up. Thirty-nine percent of patients achieved seizure freedom, and 68% had a > or =50% seizure frequency reduction after 1 year of LEV (1235.5+/-392.7 mg/day). There were also significant improvements in mean MMSE score and in the recall and language items of MMSE. There were modest improvements in interpersonal sensitivity and paranoid ideation scales of the SCL-90-R, and improvements in cognition and medication effect items of the QOLIE-10. The results demonstrate that LEV not only effectively reduces seizure frequency, but also possibly contributes to improvements in neuropsychological functions such as recall, language, interpersonal sensitivity, and paranoid ideation.

Levetiracetam add-on for drug-resistant localization related (partial) epilepsy

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug. However, up to 30% develop refractory seizures, particularly those with partial seizures. In this review, we summarise the current evidence regarding a new antiepileptic drug, levetiracetam, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant localization related (partial) epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of levetiracetam on seizures, side effects, quality of life and cognition, when used as an add-on treatment for patients with a drug-resistant localization related (partial) epilepsy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2000). In addition, we contacted UCB SA (makers of levetiracetam) and experts in the field to seek any ongoing studies or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized placebo controlled add-on trials of levetiracetam in patients with a drug-resistant localization related (partial) epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted relevant data. The following outcomes were assessed: (a) 50% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency; (b) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (c) side effects; (d) cognitive effects; (e) quality of life. Primary analyses were intention to treat. Sensitivity best and worst case analyses were also undertaken. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated for each outcome. Dose response was evaluated in regression models.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials (1023 patients) were included. All four trials had data for treatment withdrawal and side effect outcomes. Three trials (904 patients) had data for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Three trials (595 patients) had data for quality of life and cognitive outcomes. The overall Odds Ratio (OR) (95% Confidence Interval (CI)) for 50% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency outcome was 3.81 (2.78,5.22). Dose regression analysis shows clear evidence that levetiracetam reduces seizure frequency with an increase in efficacy with increasing dose of levetiracetam. Approximately 15% of patients taking 1000 mg and 20-30% of patients taking 3000 mg levetiracetam per day have a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Patients were not significantly more likely to have levetiracetam withdrawn, OR (95% CI) 1.25 (0.87,1.80). The following side effects were significantly associated with levetiracetam: dizziness 2.36 (1.21, 4.61) and infection 1.82 (1.05, 3.14) whereas accidental injury was significantly associated with placebo 0.55 (0.32, 0.93). Quality of life and cognitive effect outcomes suggest that levetiracetam has a positive effect on cognition and some aspects of quality of life.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Levetiracetam reduces seizure frequency when used as an add-on treatment for patients with a drug-resistant localization related (partial) epilepsy, and seems well tolerated. Minimum effective and maximum tolerated doses have not been identified. The trials reviewed were of 16-24 weeks duration and results cannot be used to confirm longer term effects. Our results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to patients with other seizure types or epilepsy syndromes. Great care should also be taken with any attempt to apply these results to children.