Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of rapid initiation of topiramate versus phenytoin in patients with new-onset epilepsy: A randomized double-blind clinical trial

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, levetiracetam, 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: levetiracetam 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 levetiracetam 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 levetiracetam 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), levetiracetam 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, levetiracetam, 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 levetiracetam, 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 levetiracetam 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.

Evaluation and Management of First-Time Seizure in Adults

First seizures are often perceived as devastating events by patients and their families due to the fear of having a life-long disease. One in 10 people experiences one or more seizures during their lifetime, while 1 in 26 people develops epilepsy. Acute symptomatic seizures are often related to a provoking factor or an acute brain insult and typically do not recur. Careful history and clinical examination should guide clinicians' management plans. Electroencephalography and brain imaging, preferably with epilepsy-specific magnetic resonance imaging, may help characterize both etiology and risk of seizure recurrence. Antiepileptic drugs should be initiated in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. In patients without an epilepsy diagnosis, the decision to prescribe drugs depends on individual risk factors for seizure recurrence and possible complications from seizures, which should be discussed with the patient. Counseling about driving and lifestyle modifications should be provided early, often at the first seizure encounter.

Efficacy and tolerability of antiseizure drugs

Drug-resistant epilepsy occurs in 25-30% of patients. Furthermore, treatment with a first-generation antiseizure drug (ASD) fails in 30-40% of individuals because of their intolerable adverse effects. Over the past three decades, 20 newer- (second- and third-)generation ASDs with unique mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetic profiles have been introduced into clinical practice. This advent has expanded the therapeutic armamentarium of epilepsy and broadens the choices of ASDs to match the individual patient's characteristics. In recent years, research has been focused on defining the ASD of choice for different seizure types. In 2017, the International League Against Epilepsy published a new classification for seizure types and epilepsy syndrome. This classification has been of paramount importance to accurately classify the patient's seizure type(s) and prescribe the ASD that is appropriate. A year later, the American Academy of Neurology published a new guideline for ASD selection in adult and pediatric patients with new-onset and treatment-resistant epilepsy. The guideline primarily relied on studies that compare the first-generation and second-generation ASDs, with limited data for the efficacy of third-generation drugs. While researchers have been called for investigating those drugs in future research, epilepsy specialists may wish to share their personal experiences to support the treatment guidelines. Given the rapid advances in the development of ASDs in recent years and the continuous updates in definitions, classifications, and treatment guidelines for seizure types and epilepsy syndromes, this review aims to present a complete overview of the current state of the literature about the efficacy and tolerability of ASDs and provide guidance to clinicians about selecting appropriate ASDs for initial treatment of epilepsy according to different seizure types and epilepsy syndromes based on the current literature and recent US and UK practical guidelines.

Neuropharmacology of Antiseizure Drugs

BACKGROUND

Antiseizure drugs (ASDs) are the primary therapy for epilepsy, with more than 20 drugs introduced into clinical practice to date. These drugs are typically grouped by their mechanisms of action and therapeutic spectrum. This article aims to educate non-neurologists and medical students about the new frontiers in the pharmacology of ASDs and presents the current state of the literature on the efficacy and tolerability of these agents.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and evidence-based meta-analyses of ASD efficacy and tolerability as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier Clinical Pharmacology.

RESULTS

The choice of ASD varies primarily according to the seizure type. Practical guidelines for ASD selection in patients with new-onset and drug-resistant epilepsy were recently published. The guidelines have shown that the newer-generation drugs, which have unique mechanistic and pharmacokinetic properties, are better tolerated but have similar efficacy compared with the older drugs. Several ASDs are effective as first-line monotherapy in focal seizures, including lamotrigine, carbamazepine, phenytoin, levetiracetam, and zonisamide. Valproate remains the first-line drug for many patients with generalized and unclassified epilepsies. However, valproate should be avoided, if possible, in women of childbearing potential because of teratogenicity. Toxicity profile precludes several drugs from use as first-line treatment, for example, vigabatrin, felbamate, and rufinamide.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiseizure drugs have different pharmacologic profiles that should be considered when selecting and prescribing these agents for epilepsy. These include pharmacokinetic properties, propensity for drug-drug interactions, and adverse effects.

Comparative effectiveness of add-on therapy with newer-generation antiepileptic drugs in Bulgarian patients with refractory epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to perform an open, prospective study on various aspects of comparative effectiveness of newer-generation antiepileptic drugs as add-on therapy in Bulgarian patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.

METHODS

The study was performed with the participation of 1259 patients with epilepsy who attended the Clinic of Neurology at the University Hospital in Plovdiv, Bulgaria for regular visits and completed diaries about seizure frequency, severity, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Oxcarbazepine was used in 82 patients, topiramate in 120 patients, lamotrigine in 73 patients, levetiracetam in 135 patients, pregabalin in 47 patients, tiagabine in 43 patients, gabapentin in 18 patients, lacosamide in 12 patients, and retigabine in 6 patients. During the first 24 months of study, improvement of seizure severity and frequency was most frequent in patients on treatment with pregabalin and levetiracetam and rarest in those on treatment with oxcarbazepine. The retention rate of patients on pregabalin and tiagabine was significantly lower compared to the retention rate of patients on most of the other antiepileptic drugs. The frequency of adverse events was higher in patients on treatment with tiagabine and pregabalin.

CONCLUSION

Despite some similar characteristics of newer-generation antiepileptic drugs' effectiveness, levetiracetam stands out with better dynamic improvement of seizure severity and frequency and satisfactory tolerability; typical for pregabalin is a very good dynamic improvement of seizure severity and frequency mainly in patients with focal seizures, but a lower tolerability, and the main advantage of oxcarbazepine is a good tolerability, efficacy, however, is less satisfactory.

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

Objective: To update the 2004 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline for treating new-onset focal or generalized epilepsy (GE) with second- and third-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Methods: The 2004 AAN criteria was used to systematically review literature (January 2003 to November 2015), classify pertinent studies according to the therapeutic rating scheme, and link recommendations to evidence strength. Results: Several second-generation AEDs are effective for new-onset focal epilepsy. Data are lacking on efficacy in new-onset generalized tonic-clonic seizures, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, or juvenile absence epilepsy, and on efficacy of third-generation AEDs in new-onset epilepsy. Recommendations: Lamotrigine (LTG) should (Level B) and levetiracetam (LEV) and zonisamide (ZNS) may (Level C) be considered in decreasing seizure frequency in adults with new-onset focal epilepsy. LTG should (Level B) and gabapentin (GBP) may (Level C) be considered in decreasing seizure frequency in patients ≥60 years with new-onset focal epilepsy. Unless there are compelling adverse-effect-related concerns, ethosuximide (ETS) or valproic acid (VPA) should be considered before LTG to decrease seizure frequency in treating absence seizures in childhood absence epilepsy (Level B). No high-quality studies suggest clobazam, eslicarbazepine, ezogabine, felbamate, GBP, lacosamide, LEV, LTG, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, pregabalin, rufinamide, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, or ZNS is effective in treating new-onset epilepsy because no high-quality studies exist in adults of various ages. A recent FDA strategy allows extrapolation of efficacy across populations; therefore, for focal epilepsy, eslicarbazepine and lacosamide (oral only for pediatric use) as add-on or monotherapy in persons ≥4 years old and perampanel as monotherapy received FDA approval.

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

Objective

To update the 2004 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline for treating new-onset focal or generalized epilepsy with second- and third-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).

Methods

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

Results

Several second-generation AEDs are effective for new-onset focal epilepsy. Data are lacking on efficacy in new-onset generalized tonic-clonic seizures, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, or juvenile absence epilepsy, and on efficacy of third-generation AEDs in new-onset epilepsy.

Recommendations

Lamotrigine (LTG) should (Level B) and levetiracetam (LEV) and zonisamide (ZNS) may (Level C) be considered in decreasing seizure frequency in adults with new-onset focal epilepsy. LTG should (Level B) and gabapentin (GBP) may (Level C) be considered in decreasing seizure frequency in patients ≥60 years of age with new-onset focal epilepsy. Unless there are compelling adverse effect–related concerns, ethosuximide or valproic acid should be considered before LTG to decrease seizure frequency in treating absence seizures in childhood absence epilepsy (level B). No high-quality studies suggest clobazam, eslicarbazepine, ezogabine, felbamate, GBP, lacosamide, LEV, LTG, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, pregabalin, rufinamide, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, or ZNS is effective in treating new-onset epilepsy because no high-quality studies exist in adults of various ages. A recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) strategy allows extrapolation of efficacy across populations; therefore, for focal epilepsy, eslicarbazepine and lacosamide (oral only for pediatric use) as add-on or monotherapy in persons ≥4 years old and perampanel as monotherapy received FDA approval.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

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 partial 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 withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial 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) review and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 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.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than current first-line treatment carbamazepine and other current first-line treatment lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam); carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Antiepileptic Drugs in Patients with Focal Epilepsy: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analyses

Several newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been introduced into clinical practice, offering choices for individualizing the treatment of epilepsy since AEDs have different efficacy and tolerability profiles. In particular, questions exist regarding which AEDs are the best options for the monotherapy of focal epilepsy. Is carbamazepine (CBZ), which is considered the standard treatment for focal epilepsy, still the best option for monotherapy of focal epilepsy, despite the emergence of new AEDs? In this systematic review, we compared the relative tolerability of all available AEDs for monotherapy of all types of epilepsy as well as their efficacy in the monotherapy of focal epilepsy. In addition, we compared CBZ with other AEDs for the monotherapy of focal epilepsy. We performed a search of the MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases for randomized controlled clinical trials. To compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of the AEDs, we performed network meta-analyses using a Bayesian random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the robustness of the results. A total of 65 studies were included in this review, composing 16,025 patients. Clobazam, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, sulthiame, topiramate, and valproate had the best efficacy profiles and demonstrated no evidence of superiority or inferiority compared with CBZ. However, CBZ showed the greatest risk of patient discontinuation due to intolerable adverse reactions, whereas lamotrigine had the best safety profile and an 81% probability of being the best for the tolerability outcome of patient withdrawals from the study due to intolerable adverse reactions, followed by sulthiame (60%) and clobazam (51%). The newer AEDs-levetiracetam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, sulthiame, and topiramate-should be considered for monotherapy of focal epilepsy because they were demonstrated to be as effective as the older ones (CBZ, clobazam, and valproate) for the treatment of focal epilepsy and were more tolerable. Lamotrigine was the AED with the best tolerability profile, suggesting that it may be the best option for the treatment of focal epilepsy in children and adults.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

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 partial 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 withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial 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) review and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 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.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam), and carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.

Classical neurotransmitters and neuropeptides involved in generalized epilepsy in a multi-neurotransmitter system: How to improve the antiepileptic effect?

Here, we describe in generalized epilepsies the alterations of classical neurotransmitters and neuropeptides acting at specific subreceptors. In order to consider a network context rather than one based on focal substrates and in order to make the interaction between neurotransmitters and neuropeptides and their specific subreceptors comprehensible, neural networks in the hippocampus, thalamus, and cerebral cortex are described. In this disease, a neurotransmitter imbalance between dopaminergic and serotonergic neurons and between presynaptic GABAergic neurons (hypoactivity) and glutaminergic neurons (hyperactivity) occurs. Consequently, combined GABA_A agonists and NMDA antagonists could furthermore stabilize the neural networks in a multimodal pharmacotherapy. The antiepileptic effect and the mechanisms of action of conventional and recently developed antiepileptic drugs are reviewed. The GASH:Sal animal model can contribute to examine the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs. The issues of whether the interaction of classical neurotransmitters with other subreceptors (5-HT₇, metabotropic 5 glutaminergic, A_2A adenosine, and alpha nicotinic 7 cholinergic receptors) or whether the administration of agonists/antagonists of neuropeptides might improve the therapeutic effect of antiepileptic drugs should be addressed. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Genetic and Reflex Epilepsies, Audiogenic Seizures and Strains: From Experimental Models to the Clinic".

Investigator-initiated randomized controlled trials in children with epilepsy: Mission impossible?

Objective

In children many antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are prescribed off‐label due to a lack of well‐designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a multicenter RCT in the Netherlands to compare levetiracetam and valproic acid as monotherapy in children with newly diagnosed epilepsy. After 2 years, we had to stop this investigator‐initiated trial prematurely because the inclusion rate was too low. We analyzed the reasons for this failure, assessed the various issues involved in performing RCTs in children, and now give recommendations for future studies.

Methods

A questionnaire was completed by all investigators involved in the study. It included questions about the motivation to participate and the perceived reasons for recruitment failure. We also studied literature about financial, logistic, legal, and ethical aspects of RCTs in children.

Results

Main reasons for recruitment failure were overestimation of the number of eligible AED‐naive children referred by general pediatricians; personal preferences of investigators for specific antiepileptic drugs; and the extensive administrative load due to extra regulations and guidelines for children. Fundraising for investigator‐initiated trials is difficult and the majority of RCTs concerning AEDs are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Involving children requires balancing between protection and participation; the randomization procedure and obtaining informed consent are complex for both children and parents.

Significance

Performing RCTs with AEDs in children is important but complicated by logistic, regulatory, legal, and ethical restrictions. Based on our recent experience, our advice to colleagues who are planning a similar trial would be to perform a feasibility pilot study; to set up intensive collaboration with referring pediatricians; to arrange support of a clinical trials unit and a local research nurse during the complete trial period; and to incorporate the possibility of extending the recruitment period. Major investments, both financially from governmental organizations and in time, are imperative for independent RCTs in children.

Therapeutic Index Estimation of Antiepileptic Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review Approach

OBJECTIVES

Our study aimed to determine whether data obtained from the medical literature can be used to estimate the therapeutic index of 5 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs): carbamazepine, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and valproate.

METHODS

We performed a literature search using PubMed and EMBASE to collect published safety, efficacy, and therapeutic monitoring data for 5 AEDs and extracted all relevant information into a drug- and study-specific drug database. For each AED, we summarized (1) type, severity, and incidence of toxicity-related adverse events and toxicity-associated range of drug doses or concentrations; (2) effective versus toxic concentration and dose (therapeutic range); and (3) therapeutic drug monitoring practices. We defined therapeutic index as the ratio of the minimum toxic concentration to the minimum effective concentration.

RESULTS

We reviewed a total of 810 full-text articles and extracted data from 163. The literature suggests that the therapeutic index of phenytoin is 2. The therapeutic indices of phenobarbital and valproate exceed 2. There were insufficient data to precisely quantify the therapeutic indices of carbamazepine and lamotrigine.

CONCLUSIONS

For some drugs, this approach offers a low-cost method of therapeutic index estimation. Our results can serve as preliminary data for future trials and as guidance for US Food and Drug Administration decision making regarding narrow therapeutic index classification.

Evidence-based guideline: Management of an unprovoked first seizure in adults: Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations for treatment of adults with an unprovoked first seizure.

METHODS

We defined relevant questions and systematically reviewed published studies according to the American Academy of Neurology's classification of evidence criteria; we based recommendations on evidence level.

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Adults with an unprovoked first seizure should be informed that their seizure recurrence risk is greatest early within the first 2 years (21%-45%) (Level A), and clinical variables associated with increased risk may include a prior brain insult (Level A), an EEG with epileptiform abnormalities (Level A), a significant brain-imaging abnormality (Level B), and a nocturnal seizure (Level B). Immediate antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy, as compared with delay of treatment pending a second seizure, is likely to reduce recurrence risk within the first 2 years (Level B) but may not improve quality of life (Level C). Over a longer term (>3 years), immediate AED treatment is unlikely to improve prognosis as measured by sustained seizure remission (Level B). Patients should be advised that risk of AED adverse events (AEs) may range from 7% to 31% (Level B) and that these AEs are likely predominantly mild and reversible. Clinicians' recommendations whether to initiate immediate AED treatment after a first seizure should be based on individualized assessments that weigh the risk of recurrence against the AEs of AED therapy, consider educated patient preferences, and advise that immediate treatment will not improve the long-term prognosis for seizure remission but will reduce seizure risk over the subsequent 2 years.

Zonisamide, topiramate, and levetiracetam: efficacy and neuropsychological effects in alcohol use disorders

The anticonvulsant topiramate not only decreases ethanol consumption in alcohol dependence (AD) but also may produce several adverse events including cognitive impairment. Zonisamide is a structurally related anticonvulsant that is a promising agent for the treatment of AD and may have greater tolerability than topiramate. This study evaluated the effects of zonisamide (400 mg/d) on alcohol consumption and its neurotoxic effects in subjects with AD. A double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted using 2 comparator anticonvulsant drugs, topiramate (300 mg/d) and levetiracetam (2000 mg/d), which does not impair cognition. Study medications were administered for 14 weeks, including a 2-week taper period. Medication adherence was facilitated using Brief Behavioral Compliance Enhancement Treatment. The neurotoxicity of the study drugs was assessed using neuropsychological tests and the AB-Neurotoxicity Scale. Compared with placebo, both zonisamide and topiramate produced significant reductions in the drinks consumed per day, percent days drinking, and percent days heavy drinking. Only the percent days heavy drinking was significantly decreased in the levetiracetam group. The topiramate cell was the only group that had a significant increase on the mental slowing subscale of the Neurotoxicity Scale compared with placebo at study weeks 11 and 12. Topiramate and zonisamide both produced modest reductions in verbal fluency and working memory. These findings indicate that zonisamide may have efficacy in the treatment of AD, with effect sizes similar to topiramate. Both of these drugs produced similar patterns of cognitive impairment, although only the topiramate group reported significant increases in mental slowing.

Antiepileptic Drug Treatment in Children with Epilepsy

Most children with new-onset epilepsy achieve seizure freedom with appropriate antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). However, nearly 20 % will continue to have seizures despite AEDs, as either monotherapy or in combination. Despite the growing market of new molecules over the last 20 years, the proportion of drug-resistant epilepsies has not changed. In this review, we report the evidence of efficacy and safety based on phase III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of AEDs currently used in the paediatric population. We conducted a literature search using the PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also analysed the RCTs of newer AEDs whose efficacy in adolescents and adults might suggest possible use in children. Most of the phase III trials on AEDs in children have major methodological limitations that considerably limit meaningful conclusions about comparative efficacy between old and new molecules. Since the efficacy of new drugs has only been reported versus placebo, the commonly held opinion that new and newer AEDs have a better safety profile than old ones does not appear to be supported by evidence. Despite limited solid evidence, pharmacological management has improved over the years as a consequence of increased awareness of some degree of specificity of treatment in relation to different epilepsy syndromes and attention to adverse events. Future research should be directed taking these factors, as well as the diversity of epilepsy, into consideration.

Topiramate and cognitive impairment: evidence and clinical implications

Topiramate is an antiepileptic drug (AED) with multiple mechanisms of action that has been shown to be effective in a number of neuropsychiatric disorders. However, cognitive dysfunction is frequently observed in such patients, often representing a relevant challenge in their management. Moreover, there is a long-held recognition that AEDs may profoundly affect cognitive functions. This paper reviews available data on cognitive adverse events in patients with neurological disorders treated with topiramate, discussing the role of different contributing factors such as the pharmacological properties of the drug, the specific features of the brain disorder, and other variables pertinent to the discussion. All studies agree that up to 10% of patients may complain of treatment-emergent adverse events on cognition. Such problems occur early during treatment (i.e. within 6 weeks) and emerge in a dose-dependent fashion, suggesting that such prevalence may be significantly reduced using the drug in monotherapy and adopting individualized doses and titration schedules. The magnitude of the problem is generally mild to moderate and the subjective perception of the patient needs to be taken into account. In fact, apart from language problems, data are not conclusive. Comparisons with new AEDs are limited to levetiracetam and lamotrigine, in both cases generally disfavoring topiramate, while data regarding first-generation AEDs show clear differences only for verbal fluency.

Pharmacotherapy of focal epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy is the most common neurological condition worldwide with significant psychosocial and physical morbidity. Its management requires expertise and good pharmacological knowledge of the available options.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the management of focal epilepsy addressing the common questions arising through the patients' journey, including timing of starting initial treatment, monotherapy options, add-on treatment for refractory cases and withdrawal of medication during remission.

EXPERT OPINION

Initiating anti-epileptic drug (AED) treatment requires assessment of patient preferences and of evidence of benefit and harm. Evidence of benefit will come primarily from randomised controlled trials, although in epilepsy, most trials are undertaken to inform regulatory decision and have important limitations for informing clinical decisions. Evidence about harm may come not only from randomised trials but also from other sources. Most patients will start treatment following a second focal seizure. Carbamazepine and lamotrigine are good initial monotherapy options. Newer AEDs have proof of efficacy as monotherapy but evidence is insufficient to recommend them as first-line treatments. For refractory cases, there are an increasing number of AEDs available, but evidence of efficacy is primarily from placebo-controlled trials, and there is no robust evidence to inform a choice among treatments.

Pharmacotherapy for tonic-clonic seizures

INTRODUCTION

Occurrence of generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) is one of the most important risk factors of seizure-related complications and comorbidities in patients with epilepsy. Their prevention is therefore an important aspect of therapeutic management both in idiopathic generalized epilepsies and in focal epilepsies.

AREAS COVERED

It has been shown that the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) varies across epilepsy syndromes, with some AEDs efficacious against focal seizures with secondary GTCS (sGTCS) but aggravating primary GTCS (pGTCS). In patients with pGTCS, evidence-based data support the preferential use of valproic acid, lamotrigine, levetiracetam and topiramate. In patients with sGTCS, all AEDs approved in the treatment of focal epilepsies might be used.

EXPERT OPINION

Both in pGTCS and sGTCS, additional data are required, specifically to inform about the relative efficacy of AEDs in relation to each other. Although valproic acid might be the most efficacious drug in idiopathic generalized epilepsies, it should be avoided in women of childbearing age due to its safety profile. In patients with sGTCS, AEDs for which the impact on this seizure type has been formally evaluated and which have demonstrated greater efficacy than placebo might preferentially be used, such as lacosamide, perampanel and topiramate.

Updated ILAE evidence review of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes

The purpose of this report was to update the 2006 International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) report and identify the level of evidence for long-term efficacy or effectiveness for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy. All applicable articles from July 2005 until March 2012 were identified, evaluated, and combined with the previous analysis (Glauser et al., 2006) to provide a comprehensive update. The prior analysis methodology was utilized with three modifications: (1) the detectable noninferiority boundary approach was dropped and both failed superiority studies and prespecified noninferiority studies were analyzed using a noninferiority approach, (2) the definition of an adequate comparator was clarified and now includes an absolute minimum point estimate for efficacy/effectiveness, and (3) the relationship table between clinical trial ratings, level of evidence, and conclusions no longer includes a recommendation column to reinforce that this review of efficacy/evidence for specific seizure types does not imply treatment recommendations. This evidence review contains one clarification: The commission has determined that class I superiority studies can be designed to detect up to a 20% absolute (rather than relative) difference in the point estimate of efficacy/effectiveness between study treatment and comparator using an intent-to-treat analysis. Since July, 2005, three class I randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 11 class III RCTs have been published. The combined analysis (1940-2012) now includes a total of 64 RCTs (7 with class I evidence, 2 with class II evidence) and 11 meta-analyses. New efficacy/effectiveness findings include the following: levetiracetam and zonisamide have level A evidence in adults with partial onset seizures and both ethosuximide and valproic acid have level A evidence in children with childhood absence epilepsy. There are no major changes in the level of evidence for any other subgroup. Levetiracetam and zonisamide join carbamazepine and phenytoin with level A efficacy/effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy for adults with partial onset seizures. Although ethosuximide and valproic acid now have level A efficacy/effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy for children with absence seizures, there continues to be an alarming lack of well designed, properly conducted epilepsy RCTs for patients with generalized seizures/epilepsies and in children in general. These findings reinforce the need for multicenter, multinational efforts to design, conduct, and analyze future clinically relevant adequately designed RCTs. When selecting a patient's AED, all relevant variables and not just efficacy and effectiveness should be considered.

Tolerability, safety, and side effects of levetiracetam versus phenytoin in intravenous and total prophylactic regimen among craniotomy patients: a prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

Practical choice in parenteral antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) remains limited despite formulation of newer intravenous agents and requirements of special patient groups. This study aims to compare the tolerability, safety, and side effect profiles of levetiracetam (LEV) against the standard agent phenytoin (PHT) when given intravenously and in total regimen for seizure prophylaxis in a neurosurgical setting.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, single-center study with appropriate blinding comprised evaluation pertaining to intravenous use 3 days following craniotomy and at discharge, and to total intravenous-plus-oral AED regimen at 90 days. Primary tolerability end points were discontinuation because of side effect and first side effect. Safety combined end point was major side effect or seizure. Seizure occurrence and side effect profiles were compared as secondary outcomes.

KEY FINDINGS

Of 81 patients randomized, 74 (36 LEV, 38 PHT) received parenteral AEDs. No significant difference attributable to intravenous use was found between LEV and PHT in discontinuation because of side effect (LEV 1/36, PHT 2/38, p = 1.00) or number of patients with side effect (LEV 1/36, PHT 4/38, p = 0.36). No significant difference was found between LEV and PHT total intravenous-plus-oral regimen in discontinuation because of side effect (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-2.92, p = 0.72) or number of patients with side effect (HR 1.51, 95% CI 0.77-2.98, p = 0.22). More patients assigned PHT reached the undesirable clinical end point for safety of major side effect or seizure (HR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.70, p = 0.002). Seizures occurred only in patients assigned PHT (n = 6, p = 0.01). Although not significant, trends were observed for major side effect in more patients assigned PHT (p = 0.08) and mild side effect in more assigned LEV (p = 0.09).

SIGNIFICANCE

Both LEV and PHT are well-tolerated perioperatively in parenteral preparation, and in total intravenous-plus-oral prophylactic regimen. Comparative safety and differing side effect profile of intravenous LEV supports use as an alternative to intravenous PHT.