KOMET: an unblinded, randomised, two parallel-group, stratified trial comparing the effectiveness of levetiracetam with controlled-release carbamazepine and extended-release sodium valproate as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy

Long-term outcomes of treatment with levetiracetam and valproate in idiopathic generalized epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of valproate and levetiracetam monotherapy in patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy and epilepsy with generalized tonic-clonic seizure alone.

METHODS

This retrospective-prospective cohort study was conducted on 170 adult patients who commenced monotherapy with valproate or levetiracetam between March 2019 and March 2023. The study outcomes were seizure-free rate, time to first seizure, retention rate, time to withdrawal and adverse events, which were registered following a one-to-five-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

The seizure-free rates of levetiracetam and valproate were comparable in the one-year follow-up (65.9 % vs. 62.4 %, p:0.74) and in favor of levetiracetam in the five-year follow-up (90.9 % vs. 44.4 %, p:0.05). The retention rate of levetiracetam was higher than valproate (97.6 % vs. 82.4 % in the first year and 55.2 % vs. 21.6 % in the fifth year). The time to first seizure was found to be similar between the two groups (p = 0.43), but the time to withdrawal was significantly longer in patients on levetiracetam (p < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two groups. However, the withdrawal rate due to adverse events was significantly higher in the valproate group. Levetiracetam demonstrated a higher occurrence of psychiatric adverse events, which were addressed with dose adjustments and psychiatric intervention in 37.6 % of patients but resulted in drug discontinuation in 3.5 % of cases.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicate that levetiracetam monotherapy may represent an efficacious alternative to valproate in patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy and epilepsy with generalized tonic-clonic seizure alone, particularly in women of reproductive age.

Trends in antiseizure medication prescription in Idiopathic generalized epilepsy over the last 10 years

BACKGROUND

Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsies (IGE) are a subset of syndromes defined by the International League against Epilepsy (ILAE) with the particularity to respond to a narrow number of ASMs and particularly to valproic acid (VPA). Recommendations have changed in the last decade. We aimed to describe changes in antiseizure medication (ASM) in adult IGE over the last 10 years.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study comparing two cohorts of patients ≥ 16 years receiving ASM for IGE in a tertiary center (year 2013 and 2023). We collected clinical-demographic variables and ASM, analysing diagnosis and ASM prescription.

RESULTS

249 patients were included in 2013 (53.8 % women; mean age 35.6 years ±14.6 standard deviation [SD]) and 278 in 2023 (61.2 % women, mean age 38.1 years ±16.1 SD). In 2023, the most frequent IGE subtype syndrome was juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) (39.6 % vs 33.3 % in 2013), followed by epilepsy with generalized tonic-clonic seizures alone (28.4 % vs 42.6 %). Valproic acid (VPA) was the most used ASM in both periods, although it was prescribed less frequently in 2023 compared to 2013 (49.3 % vs. 69.1 %; p < 0.001). Lamotrigine (LTG) was the second most used ASM in 2013 (14.1 %), followed by levetiracetam (LEV) (12.4 %). By contrast, in 2023 LEV was the second most used ASM (29.5 %), followed by LTG (21.6 %) (LEV p < 0.001; LTG p = 0.025). VPA use decreased in women under 45 years (57.9 % vs 20.3 %, p < 0.001), with a subsequent increase of LEV (19.6 % vs 45.8 %, p < 0.001). In men we observed no significant differences in the use of VPA (80.0 % vs 75.9 %, p = 0.463).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of VPA has decreased during the last decade for all IGEs and particularly in women of childbearing potential, along with an increase in the use of LEV and LTG.

BRIVA-ONE study: 12-month outcomes of brivaracetam monotherapy in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) monotherapy in a large series of patients with epilepsy.

METHOD

This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational, non-interventional study in 24 hospitals across Spain. Patients aged ≥18 years who started on BRV monotherapy, either as first-line or following conversion, at least 1 year before database closure were included. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months after initiation of BRV monotherapy, in accordance with usual clinical practice at these centers. Data were collected retrospectively from patients' individual charts by participating physicians. The primary effectiveness and safety endpoints were the percentage of seizure-free patients 1 year after initiation of BRV monotherapy and the proportion of patients reporting adverse events (AEs) over the complete follow-up period. Retention rates and subpopulation analysis (levetiracetam switchers, elderly and different etiologies) were also investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients were included (48 with BRV as first-line monotherapy and 228 who converted to BRV monotherapy). The overall retention rate in monotherapy at 12 months was 89.9% (87.5% for first-line monotherapy group; 90.4% for conversion-to-monotherapy group). Seizure-freedom rates at 12 months were 77.8% (75% for first-line monotherapy group; 78.4% for conversion-to-monotherapy group). AEs occurred in 39.5% of patients at 12 months (35.4% for first-line monotherapy group; 40.4% for conversion-to-monotherapy group). Most AEs were mild-to-moderate. The most frequent AEs were irritability (12.3%) and dizziness (10.1%). The most frequent AEs leading to BRV withdrawal were dizziness (1.8%) and memory problems (1.4%). Similar outcomes in terms of effectiveness and tolerability of BRV monotherapy were observed in patients switching from levetiracetam, those with different epilepsy etiologies, and elderly patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

BRV was effective and well tolerated both as first-line monotherapy and following conversion to monotherapy in a real-world setting of patients with epilepsy.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The goal of the medical treatment of epilepsy is to ensure best possible patient quality of life, by maximizing seizure control and minimizing medication toxicity. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a new-generation epilepsy treatment that is well tolerated by patients. In our study, monotherapy with BRV reduced seizures in patients who had not received other treatments and in patients who switched from a previous treatment to BRV monotherapy. BRV was well tolerated and also effective in sensitive patients (i.e., the elderly and those who had epilepsy caused by a brain tumor or a brain injury).

An epilepsy type algorithm developed in India is accurate in Sudan: A prospective validation study

PURPOSE

The effects of epilepsy are worse in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where most people with epilepsy live, and where most are untreated. Correct treatment depends on determining whether focal or generalised epilepsy is present. EEG and MRI are usually not available to help so an entirely clinical method is required. We applied an eight-variable algorithm, which had been derived from 503 patients from India using naïve-Bayesian methods, to an adult Sudanese cohort with epilepsy.

METHODS

There were 150 consecutive adult patients with known epilepsy type as defined by two neurologists who had access to clinical information, EEG and neuroimaging ("the gold standard"). We used seven of the eight variables, together with their likelihood ratios, to calculate the probability of focal as opposed to generalised epilepsy in each patient and compared that to the "gold standard". Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and Cohen's kappa statistic were calculated.

RESULTS

Mean age was 28 years (range 17-49) and 53% were female. The accuracy of an algorithm comprising seven of the eight variables was 92%, with sensitivity of 99% and specificity of 72% for focal epilepsy. Cohen's kappa was 0.773, indicating substantial agreement. Ninety-four percent of patients had probability scores either less than 0.1 (generalised) or greater than 0.9 (focal).

CONCLUSION

The results confirm the high accuracy of this algorithm in determining epilepsy type in Sudan. They suggest that, in a clinical condition like epilepsy, where a history is crucial, results in one continent can be applied to another. This is especially important as untreated epilepsy and the epilepsy treatment gap are so widespread. The algorithm can be applied to patients giving an individual probability score which can help determine the appropriate anti-seizure medication. It should give epilepsy-inexperienced doctors confidence in managing patients with epilepsy.

Perampanel for the treatment of people with idiopathic generalized epilepsy in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to evaluate perampanel (PER) when used under real-world conditions to treat people with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) included in the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study.

METHODS

The multinational, retrospective, pooled analysis PERMIT explored the use of PER in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice across 17 countries. This subgroup analysis included PERMIT participants with IGE. Time points for retention and effectiveness measurements were 3, 6, and 12 months (last observation carried forward, defined as "last visit," was also applied to effectiveness). Effectiveness was evaluated by seizure type (total seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS], myoclonic seizures, absence seizures) and included ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom rate (defined as no seizures since at least the previous visit). Safety/tolerability was monitored throughout PER treatment and evaluated by documenting the incidence of adverse events (AEs), including psychiatric AEs and those leading to treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

The Full Analysis Set included 544 people with IGE (51.9% women, mean age = 33.3 years, mean epilepsy duration = 18.1 years). At 3, 6, and 12 months, 92.4%, 85.5%, and 77.3% of participants were retained on PER treatment, respectively (Retention Population, n = 497). At the last visit, responder and seizure freedom rates were, respectively, 74.2% and 54.6% (total seizures), 81.2% and 61.5% (GTCS), 85.7% and 66.0% (myoclonic seizures), and 90.5% and 81.0% (absence seizures) (Effectiveness Population, n = 467). AEs occurred in 42.9% of patients and included irritability (9.6%), dizziness/vertigo (9.2%), and somnolence (6.3%) (Tolerability Population, n = 520). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs was 12.4% over 12 months.

SIGNIFICANCE

This subgroup analysis of the PERMIT study demonstrated the effectiveness and good tolerability of PER in people with IGE when administered under everyday clinical practice conditions. These findings are in line with clinical trial evidence, supporting PER's use as broad-spectrum antiseizure medication for the treatment of IGE.

Levetiracetam, from broad-spectrum use to precision prescription: A narrative review and expert opinion

Levetiracetam (LEV) is an antiseizure medication (ASM) whose mechanism of action involves the modulation of neurotransmitters release through binding to the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A. It is a broad-spectrum ASM displaying favorable pharmacokinetic and tolerability profiles. Since its introduction in 1999, it has been widely prescribed, becoming the first-line treatment for numerous epilepsy syndromes and clinical scenarios. However, this might have resulted in overuse. Increasing evidence, including the recently published SANAD II trials, suggests that other ASMs are reasonable therapeutic options for generalized and focal epilepsies. Not infrequently, these ASMs show better safety and effectiveness profiles compared to LEV (partially due to the latter's well-known cognitive and behavioral adverse effects, present in up to 20% of patients). Moreover, it has been shown that the underlying etiology of epilepsy is significantly linked to ASMs response in particular scenarios, highlighting the importance of an etiology-based ASM choice. In the case of LEV, it has demonstrated an optimal effectiveness in Alzheimer's disease, Down syndrome, and PCDH19-related epilepsies whereas, in other etiologies such as malformations of cortical development, it may show negligible effects. This narrative review analyzes the current evidence related to the use of LEV for the treatment of seizures. Illustrative clinical scenarios and practical decision-making approaches are also addressed, therefore aiming to define a rational use of this ASM.

Pharmacological treatment for older adults with epilepsy and comorbid neurodegenerative disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

An increased interest in epilepsy in older adults has emerged as the global population ages. The purpose of this article is to review the literature regarding the pharmacological treatment of epilepsy in older adults, highlighting issues specifically pertinent to those living with comorbid neurodegenerative disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although new original research remains sparse, in the last 5 years, there has been a growing number of studies addressing the relationship between epilepsy and neurodegenerative disorders. Accurate diagnosis is incredibly challenging with electroencephalogram findings often requiring circumspect interpretation. Older individuals are often excluded from or under-represented in clinical trials, and there are sparse guidelines offered on the management of these patients, with even less available in reference to those with neurodegenerative comorbidities.

SUMMARY

We propose that seizures occurring earlier in the neurodegenerative process should be treated aggressively, with the goal to inhibit neuro-excitotoxicity and the associated neuronal loss. By strategically choosing newer antiseizure medications with less adverse effects and a holistic approach to treatment, a patient's time living independently can be conserved. In addition, we advocate for original, multinational collaborative research efforts.

Perampanel Monotherapy for Focal and Generalized Epilepsy in Clinical Practice

Objectives. To investigate the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used as monotherapy to treat focal or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice, using data from the PERMIT study. Methods. PERMIT was a pooled analysis of 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which people with focal and generalized epilepsy were treated with PER. This post hoc analysis included people with epilepsy (PWE) from PERMIT who were treated with PER monotherapy at baseline. Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months. Effectiveness assessments included ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit). Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. Results. Overall, 268 PWE were treated with PER monotherapy at baseline. Retention was assessed for 168 PWE, effectiveness for 183 PWE, and safety and tolerability for 197 PWE. Retention rates were 91.1%, 87.3%, and 73.3% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. At 12 months, responder rates were 84.2% overall, 82.9% in PWE with only focal-onset seizures at baseline, and 88.0% in those with only generalized-onset seizures at baseline; corresponding freedom rates were 62.9%, 57.7%, and 80.0%, respectively. AEs were reported for 45.2% of PWE. The most frequently reported AEs (≥5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (16.8%), irritability (11.2%), somnolence (9.1%), and depression (6.6%). Over 12 months, 13.7% discontinued due to AEs. Conclusions. PER was effective when used as monotherapy in clinical practice, particularly in those with generalized-onset seizures, and was generally well tolerated.

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.

Treatment and care of women with epilepsy before, during, and after pregnancy: a practical guide

Women with epilepsy (WWE) wishing for a child represent a highly relevant subgroup of epilepsy patients. The treating epileptologist needs to delineate the epilepsy syndrome and choose the appropriate anti-seizure medication (ASM) considering the main goal of seizure freedom, teratogenic risks, changes in drug metabolism during pregnancy and postpartum, demanding for up-titration during and down-titration after pregnancy. Folic acid or vitamin K supplements and breastfeeding are also discussed in this review. Lamotrigine and levetiracetam have the lowest teratogenic potential. Data on teratogenic risks are also favorable for oxcarbazepine, whereas topiramate tends to have an unfavorable profile. Valproate needs special emphasis. It is most effective in generalized seizures but should be avoided whenever possible due to its teratogenic effects and the negative impact on neuropsychological development of in utero-exposed children. Valproate still has its justification in patients not achieving seizure freedom with other ASMs or if a woman decides to or cannot become pregnant for any reason. When valproate is the most appropriate treatment option, the patient and caregiver must be fully informed of the risks associated with its use during pregnancies. Folate supplementation is recommended to reduce the risk of major congenital malformations. However, there is insufficient information to address the optimal dose and it is unclear whether higher doses offer greater protection. There is currently no general recommendation for a peripartum vitamin K prophylaxis. During pregnancy most ASMs (e.g. lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, and levetiracetam) need to be increased to compensate for the decline in serum levels; exceptions are valproate and carbamazepine. Postpartum, baseline levels are reached relatively fast, and down-titration is performed empirically. Many ASMs in monotherapy are (moderately) safe for breastfeeding and women should be encouraged to do so. This review provides a practically oriented overview of the complex management of WWE before, during, and after pregnancy.

Evaluation of one-year effectiveness of clobazam as an add-on therapy to anticonvulsant monotherapy in participants with epilepsy having uncontrolled seizure episodes: An Indian experience

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively study the effectiveness and safety of clobazam as an add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy whose seizures are not adequately controlled with antiseizure medicine (ASM) monotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, observational study at 28 neurology outpatient clinics in India from June 2017 to October 2019. Consecutive patients with epilepsy (older than 3 years) with inadequate seizure control with ASM monotherapy were initiated on clobazam. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Seizure control and adverse events were assessed through personal interviews and seizure diaries.

RESULTS

Out of 475 eligible patients, data of 429 patients (men: 65.5%) were evaluated (46 excluded due to protocol deviations). The median age was 25 (range, 3-80 years) years and the median duration of epilepsy was 3 (0.1-30) years. The majority of patients had focal epilepsy (55.0%) and genetic generalized epilepsy (40.1%). The one-year follow-up was completed by 380 (88.5%) patients. At one-year follow-up, 317 (83.4%; N = 380) patients in the study remained seizure free. These 317 patients who were seizure free at 12 months comprised 73.9% of the evaluable population (N = 429). In 98.8% of patients, the primary reason for adding clobazam was inadequate control of seizures with treatment. During one-year follow-up, a total of 113 (22.6%) patients experienced at least one adverse event which included 103 (20.6%) patients who experienced 386 episodes of seizures.

CONCLUSION

The study provides preliminary evidence that clobazam is effective and well-tolerated as add-on therapy for a period of one year among patients with epilepsy inadequately stabilized with monotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2017/12/010906.

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.

Current Concepts in the Management of Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsies

Idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs) are a group of epilepsies characterized by an underlying genetic predisposition and a good response to antiseizure medicines (ASMs) in the majority of the patients. Of the various broad-spectrum ASMs, valproate is the most effective medicine for the control of seizures in IGEs. However, with the availability of many newer ASMs and evidence showing the high teratogenic potential of valproate, the choice of ASMs for IGEs has become increasingly difficult, especially in women of the child-bearing age group. In this article, we review the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of various ASMs in patients with IGEs and provide practical guidelines for choosing appropriate ASMs in various subgroups of patients with IGEs.

Seizures and epilepsy in patients with ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

With the increased efficacy of stroke treatments, diagnosis and specific treatment needs of patients with post-stroke seizures (PSS) and post-stroke epilepsy have become increasingly important. PSS can complicate the diagnosis of a stroke and the treatment of stroke patients, and can worsen post-stroke morbidity. This narrative review considers current treatment guidelines, the specifics of antiseizure treatment in stroke patients as well as the state-of-the-art in clinical and imaging research of post-stroke epilepsy. Treatment of PSS needs to consider indications for antiseizure medication treatment as well as individual clinical and social factors. Furthermore, potential interactions between stroke and antiseizure treatments must be carefully considered. The relationship between acute recanalizing stroke therapy (intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy) and the emergence of PSS is currently the subject of an intensive discussion. In the subacute and chronic post-stroke phases, important specific interactions between necessary antiseizure and stroke treatments (anticoagulation, cardiac medication) need to be considered. Among all forms of prevention, primary prevention is currently the most intensively researched. This includes specifically the repurposing of drugs that were not originally developed for antiseizure properties, such as statins. PSS are presently the subject of extensive basic clinical research. Of specific interest are the role of post-stroke excitotoxicity and blood-brain barrier disruption for the emergence of PSS in the acute symptomatic as well as late (> 1 week after the stroke) periods. Current magnetic resonance imaging research focussing on glutamate excitotoxicity as well as diffusion-based estimation of blood-brain barrier integrity aim to elucidate the pathophysiology of seizures after stroke and the principles of epileptogenesis in structural epilepsy in general. These approaches may also reveal new imaging-based biomarkers for prediction of PSS and post-stroke epilepsy.

CONCLUSION

PSS require the performance of individual risk assessments, accounting for the potential effectiveness and side effects of antiseizure therapy. The use of intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy is not associated with an increased risk of PSS. Advances in stroke imaging may reveal biomarkers for PSS.

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy.

DESIGN

Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel.

SETTING

Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Focal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions.

FUTURE WORK

SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-Effectiveness of Zonisamide Versus Levetiracetam in Newly Diagnosed Focal Onset Epilepsy in Serbia

OBJECTIVES

When choosing initial therapy for epilepsy, the decision should be supported by studies that include both treatment outcome and costs. This is especially important for developing countries with restricted budgets because such circumstances are also characterized by higher epilepsy prevalence rates. The aim of this study was to compare cost-utility of zonisamide (ZNS) and levetiracetam (LEV) in patients with newly diagnosed focal-onset epilepsy in the Republic of Serbia.

METHODS

A 5-state, 3-month-cycle Markov model was created to compare ZNS and LEV. The model assumed that patients whose seizures were not controlled by treatment with either ZNS or LEV would be continued on carbamazepine in controlled-release form in the second cycle and would then be treated with a pregabalin add-on if still not adequately controlled. The perspective of the Serbian Republic Health Insurance Fund was chosen, and the time horizon was 15 years. Model results were obtained after Monte Carlo microsimulation of a sample with 1000 virtual patients. Both multiple one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

After base-case analysis, LEV was dominated by ZNS because the net monetary benefit was positive (16 940.78 ± 22 572.26 Serbian dinars; €144.09 ± €191.99) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 Serbian gross domestic products per capita per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Multiple one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the results of the base-case simulation.

CONCLUSIONS

ZNS has a more beneficial cost-effectiveness ratio than LEV for the treatment of newly diagnosed focal epilepsy in Serbian milieu.

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.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64).

FINDINGS

990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs.

INTERPRETATION

These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy.

METHODS

We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64).

FINDINGS

520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years.

INTERPRETATION

Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Levetiracetam as first-line monotherapy for Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy in women

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam (LEV) is effective in Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy (IGE) and seems to be a good alternative to valproic acid in women of childbearing age. However, there is lack of approval for this indication as monotherapy. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of LEV as a first-line therapy in this population.

METHODS

The study is a descriptive analysis of women aged between 16 and 45 years old diagnosed with IGE and treated with LEV as first-line monotherapy. Minimum follow-up was 24 months.

RESULTS

26 women. Mean age: 25.4 years (17-43). 14 Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy; 8 Tonic-Clonic Seizures Alone; 4 Juvenile Absence. Mean follow-up: 68.3 months (24-120). 11 patients (40.7%) continued to take LEV as monotherapy, of which 10 were seizure-free, and three (11.5%) continue to be seizure-free after withdrawing LEV. 12 patients (46.2%) required a change of treatment: 25% (3/12) due to lack of efficacy, 42% (5/12) due to adverse effects and 33% (4/12) due to both. Irritability was the most frequent adverse effect. At the last assessment, three patients (11.5%) continued to have seizures despite polytherapy. Estimated retention rates were 78.1% at one year (SE 7.3%) and 51% at 5 years (SE 9.8%). Estimated median retention time is 72 months (CI 95%: 50.9-93.1).

CONCLUSION

LEV could be an effective drug as first-line treatment for IGE in women of childbearing potential. The adverse effects are its main limitation. Comparative studies are needed in order to establish it for this indication.

Effects of the noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist perampanel on thalamo-cortical excitability: A study of high-frequency oscillations in somatosensory evoked potentials

OBJECTIVE

Wedesignedalongitudinalcohortstudyon People with Epilepsy (PwE) with the aimofassessingthe effect of Perampanel (PER) oncortico-subcortical networks, as measured by high-frequency oscillations of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP-HFOs). SEP-HFOs measure the excitability of both thalamo-corticalprojections(early HFOs) and intracortical GABAergic synapses (late HFOs), thus they could be used to study the anti-glutamatergic action of PER, a selective antagonist of the AMPA receptor.

METHODS

15 PwE eligible for PER add-on therapy, were enrolled prospectively. Subjects underwent SEPs recording from the dominant hand at two times: PwE_T0 (baseline, before PER titration) and PwE_T1 (therapeutic dose of 4 mg). HFOs were obtained by filtering N20 scalp response in the 400-800 Hz range. Patients were compared with a normative population of 15 healthy controls (HC) matched for age and sex.

RESULTS

We found a significant reduction ofTotal HFOs and mostly early HFOs area between PwE_T0 and PwE_T1 (p = 0.05 and p = 0.045 respectively) and between HC and PwE_T1 (p = 0.01). Furthermore, we found a significant reduction of P24/N24 Amplitude between PwE_T0 and HC and between PwE_T0 and PwE_T1 (p = 0.006 and p = 0.032, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of PER as add-on therapy reduced the area of total HFOs, acting mainly on the early burst, related to thalamo-cortical pathways. Furthermore P24/N24 amplitude, which seems to reflect a form of cortico-subcortical integration, resulted increased in PwE at T0 and normalized at T1.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our findings suggest that PER acts on cortico-subcortical excitability. This could explain the broad spectrum of PER and its success in forms of epilepsy characterized by thalamo-cortical hyperexcitability.

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

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

Initiating antiepilepsy treatment: An update of expert consensus in Spain

Following publication in 2014 of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) official report changing the definition of epilepsy, a number of questions remain unresolved in regard to deciding when to start treatment and to the choice of a particular antiseizure medication (ASM). This study uses a Delphi method to update consensus among a panel of experts on the initiation of epilepsy treatment in order to provide insight regarding those questions. The study was undertaken in four phases. Firstly, a multi-center steering committee met to review relevant bibliography and to draft a questionnaire. Secondly, a panel of neurologists specialized in epilepsy was selected and convened. Thirdly, an online survey was carried out in two rounds. Fourthly, the final results were discussed at a face-to-face meeting of the steering committee to draw conclusions. The final questionnaire focused on three independent sections: the decision to commence ASM in different clinical situations, the choice of initial monotherapy depending on the type of epilepsy and the patient's age/sex (including childbearing potential), and the choice of initial monotherapy depending on comorbidity. In these two latter sections, fourteen ASMs approved for monotherapy use by the EMA and available in Spain were considered. Regarding the decision as to when to commence treatment, the results show agreement exists to initiate treatment following a first generalized tonic-clonic seizure or a focal seizure if the electroencephalography (EEG) reveals epileptiform activity, if the MRI reveals a lesion, or when it occurs in elderly patients. With respect to the choice of initial monotherapy depending on the type of epilepsy and the patient's age/sex profile, it is agreed to avoid valproic acid (VPA) in women with childbearing potential, with levetiracetam (LEV) and lamotrigine (LTG) being the preferable options in generalized epilepsy. In focal epilepsy, the options are broader, particularly in men, and include the most recent ASMs approved for monotherapy. In the elderly, LEV, lacosamide (LCM), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) and LTG are considered the most suitable drugs for initiating treatment. With regard to comorbidities, the recommendation is to avoid enzyme inducing ASMs, with LEV, the most recent ASMs approved for monotherapy and LTG being the preferred options. In conclusion, as the ILAE definition states, there are different situations that lead to treatment initiation after a first seizure. When choosing the first ASM, the type of epilepsy, childbearing potential and drug-drug interaction are key factors.

Alternatives to valproate in girls and women of childbearing potential with Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsies: state of the art and guidance for the clinician proposed by the Epilepsy and Gender Commission of the Italian League Against Epilepsy (LICE)

Following recent European Medication Agency restrictions on valproate (VPA) use in girls and women of childbearing potential (WOCP), the Commission on Epilepsy and Gender of the Italian League against Epilepsy integrated current literature and legislative data in order to provide clinicians with guidance on antiseizure medication (ASM) prescription for Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsies (IGEs) in this population, avoiding VPA. We reviewed the updated literature on ASMs and examined the teratogenicity of those showing efficacy in IGEs. For all relevant ASMs, we considered the indications for use and the pregnancy and contraception-related recommendations given in the Italian Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and on the websites of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and other European Union (EU) countries' regulatory agencies. With the exception of absence seizures, the literature lacks high quality studies on ASMs in IGEs. In girls and WOCP, levetiracetam and lamotrigine should be considered the first-choice drugs in Generalized Tonic-Clonic Seizures Alone and in Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy, lamotrigine in Juvenile Absence Epilepsy, and ethosuximide in Childhood Absence Epilepsy. Although supported by the literature, several ASMs are off label, contraindicated or burdened by special warnings in pregnancy. Some discrepancies emerged between the various SmPC warnings for different brands of the same active principle. We provided a therapeutic algorithm for each IGE syndrome and highlighted the need for revised prescription rules, consistent with the latest literature data, uniformity of SmPC warnings for the same active principle, and more data on the efficacy of new ASMs in IGEs and their safety in pregnancy.

New anti-seizure medication for elderly epilepsy patients - a critical narrative review

Introduction: The number of elderly patients with epilepsy is growing in resource rich countries due to demographic changes and increased longevity. Management in these patients is challenging as underlying etiology, co-morbidities, polypharmacy, age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes need to be considered.Areas covered: Lacosamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, brivaracetam, and perampanel have been approved in the USA and Europe for monotherapy and/or adjunctive treatment of seizures in the last few years. The authors review the pharmacological properties and safety profile of these drugs and provide recommendations for their use in in the elderly.Expert opinion: There are only limited data available on more recent antiseizure medications (ASMs). Drugs with a low risk of interaction (lacosamide, brivaracetam) are preferred choices. Once daily formulations (perampanel and eslicarbazepine acetate) have the advantage of increased compliance. Intravenous formulations (brivaracetam and lacosamide) are useful in emergency situations and in patients who have difficulties to swallow. Dose adjustments are necessary for all ASMs used in the elderly with slow titration and lower target doses than in the regulatory trials. The adverse event profile does not significantly differ from that found in the general adult population.

Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide versus standard treatments for epilepsy: a comparison of standard and new antiepileptic drugs (SANAD-II)

INTRODUCTION

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Over the past 20 years, a number of new drugs have been approved for National Health Service (NHS) use on the basis of information from short-term trials that demonstrate efficacy. These trials do not provide information about the longer term outcomes, which inform treatment policy. This trial will assess the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the newer treatment levetiracetam and zonisamide.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing new and standard treatments for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Arm A of the trial randomised 990 patients with focal epilepsy to standard AED lamotrigine or new AED levetiracetam or zonisamide. Arm B randomised 520 patients with generalised epilepsy to standard AED sodium valproate or new AED levetiracetam. Patients are recruited from UK NHS outpatient epilepsy, general neurology and paediatric clinics. Included patients are aged 5 years or older with two or more spontaneous seizures requiring AED monotherapy, who are not previously treated with AEDs. Patients are followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is time to 12-month remission from seizures. Secondary outcomes include time to treatment failure (including due to inadequate seizure control or unacceptable adverse reactions); time to first seizure; time to 24-month remission; adverse reactions and quality of life. All primary analyses will be on an intention to treat basis. Separate analyses will be undertaken for each arm. Health economic analysis will be conducted from the perspective of the NHS to assess the cost-effectiveness of each AED.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has been approved by the North West-Liverpool East REC (Ref. 12/NW/0361). The trial team will disseminate the results through scientific meetings, peer-reviewed publications and patient and public involvement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

EudraCT 2012-001884-64; ISRCTN30294119.

Levetiracetam in genetic generalized epilepsy: A prospective unblinded active-controlled trial

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam (LEV) versus valproate (VPA) monotherapy in adults with genetic generalized tonic-clonic seizures alone (GTCS) and juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME).

METHODS

This study was an open-label, active-controlled trial with a two-parallel-group design. Outcome measures including withdrawal rate and seizure freedom rate at 26th weeks and time to withdrawal, and time to first seizure were compared between LEV and VPA groups. Furthermore, tolerability and development of adverse events (AEs) were investigated and analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and three patients enrolled the study. 71.1% of patients in LEV group and 29.3% in VPA group were female. By the end of 26^th week, seizure freedom rate and withdrawal rate were 88.9% and 8.9% in LEV group and 86.2% and 10.3% in VPA group with no significant difference. Time to first seizure was longer in VPA group (p = 0.32) and time to withdrawal favored LEV (p = 0.51). At least one AE was reported in 37.7% of patients in LEV group and 55.1% in VPA group. The most common AEs were psychiatric symptoms and dizziness in those on LEV and weight gain and dyspepsia in VPA group.

CONCLUSION

LEV has similar efficacy and acceptable safety in comparison to VPA in short-term treatment of patients with genetic GTCS and JME, and it could be considered as an alternative to VPA particularly in women of reproductive age.

Levetiracetam and brivaracetam: a review of evidence from clinical trials and clinical experience

Until the early 1990s, a limited number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were available. Since then, a large variety of new AEDs have been developed and introduced, several of them offering new modes of action. One of these new AED families is described and reviewed in this article. Levetiracetam (LEV) and brivaracetam (BRV) are pyrrolidone derivate compounds binding at the presynaptic SV2A receptor site and are thus representative of AEDs with a unique mode of action. LEV was extensively investigated in randomized controlled trials and has a very promising efficacy both in focal and generalized epilepsies. Its pharmacokinetic profile is favorable and LEV does not undergo clinically relevant interactions. Adverse reactions comprise mainly asthenia, somnolence, and behavioral symptoms. It has now been established as a first-line antiepileptic drug. BRV has been recently introduced as an adjunct antiepileptic drug in focal epilepsy with a similarly promising pharmacokinetic profile and possibly increased tolerability concerning psychiatric adverse events. This review summarizes the essential preclinical and clinical data of LEV and BRV that is currently available and includes the experiences at a large tertiary referral epilepsy center.

MONOZEB: Long-term observational study of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy

AIM

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used as monotherapy for 1 year or more in routine clinical use in patients with focal seizures in epilepsy clinics in Spain.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational, noninterventional study. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, had focal seizures, and started on ESL ≥1 year before database closure. Primary endpoint was the following: proportion seizure-free for ≥6 months at 1 and 2 years. Secondary endpoints included retention on ESL monotherapy at 1 and 2 years, seizure frequency change, seizure worsening, and side effects. Other analyses included seizure freedom from baseline to 1 and 2 years and outcomes in special populations.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty-five patients were included (127 on first-line monotherapy and 308 converting to ESL monotherapy): median daily dose was 800 mg at all time points; 63.2% were seizure-free at 1 year, 65.1% at 2 years, and 50.3% for the entire follow-up. Mean duration of ESL monotherapy was 66.7 months; retention was 88.0% at 1 year and 81.9% at 2 years. Mean reduction in seizure frequency was 75.5% at last visit. Over the entire follow-up, seizure worsening was seen in 22 patients (5.1%), side effects in 28.0%, considered severe in 1.8%, and leading to discontinuation in 5.7%. Dizziness, hyponatremia (sodium <135 mEq/l), and somnolence were the most frequent side effects. Outcomes in special populations (patients aged ≥65 years and those with psychiatric history or learning difficulty) were consistent with the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with focal seizures taking ESL monotherapy had excellent retention, high seizure-free rates, and good tolerability up to 2 years.

Brivaracetam efficacy and safety in focal epilepsy

Introduction: Brivaracetam (BRV) is an analog of levetiracetam (LEV) with 15-30 times greater affinity to SV2A and greater brain permeability than LEV. These properties have stimulated interest in its clinical trial data and post-marketing experience. Areas covered: The authors provide a background on epilepsy and its treatment, discuss the racetam family of antiepileptic drugs to which BRV belongs, and then discuss BRV properties and its efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of epilepsy. Expert opinion: While preclinical data suggest a broad spectrum of efficacy, BRV is only approved for focal epilepsy. The recommended starting dose is 100 mg per day, but in the absence of urgency, it may be prudent to start at 50 mg per day, considered the lowest effective dose. There was no added benefit when BRV was used adjunctively with LEV in clinical trials. However, post-marketing data suggest that some patients may experience improved seizure control when switching from LEV. Behavioral adverse effects seemed less common than with LEV, and most patients switched to BRV after experiencing behavioral adverse effects on LEV reported improvement. Prior or anticipated intolerability to LEV is the strongest indication for BRV in clinical practice.

Antiepileptic monotherapy in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. A network meta-analysis

Second and third generation AEDs have been directly compared to controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as initial monotherapy for new-onset focal epilepsy. Conversely, no head-to-head trials have been performed. The aim of this study was to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of the antiepileptic monotherapies in adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy through a network meta-analysis (NMA). Randomized, double-blinded, parallel group, monotherapy studies comparing any AED to CBZ-CR in adults with newly diagnosed untreated epilepsy with focal-onset seizures was identified. The outcome measures were the seizure freedom for 6 and 12 months, the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and the treatment withdrawal due to TEAEs. Mixed treatment comparisons were conducted by a Bayesian NMA using the Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Effect sizes were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Four trials were included involving 2856 participants, 1445 for CBZ-CR and 1411 for the comparative AEDs. Monotherapy AEDs compared to CBR-CR were levetiracetam (LEV), zonisamide (ZNS), lacosamide (LCM), and eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL). There were no statistical differences in the 6- and 12-month seizure freedom and TEAEs occurrence between LEV, ZNS, LCM, ESL, and CBZ-CR In the analysis of drug withdrawal due to TEAEs, LCM treatment was associated with a significantly lower discontinuation rate than CBZ-CR (OR 0.659, 95% CrI 0.428-0.950). LEV, ZNS, LCM, and ESL are effective initial monotherapy treatments in adult patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and represent suitable alternatives to CBZ-CR.

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).

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.

Perampanel: Does it have broad-spectrum potential?

This article reviews the profile of perampanel, a novel noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxyl-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionate (AMPA) receptor antagonist, and its role as a potential broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug in the treatment of epilepsy. For this narrative review, data were collected using specified search criteria. Articles reporting the evidence for perampanel's efficacy from preclinical models, phase 3 clinical studies, observational studies, and descriptive evidence were included. AMPA receptors play a key role in mediating the action of glutamate at the excitatory synapse. Preclinical research showed the AMPA receptor blockade to constitute a promising target for antiepileptic drug therapy. In animal models, perampanel proved to be protective against seizures and reduce seizure severity and duration. Four phase-3 randomized controlled trials (3 in patients with focal seizures and one in primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy) have been completed. In focal (partial) onset seizures, perampanel (4, 8, and 12 mg) significantly reduced seizure frequency per 28 days (23.3%-28.8% vs 12.8%; P < .01) and responder rates (≥50% reduction in seizures) (28.5%-35.3% vs 19.3%; P < .05) compared with placebo. In primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures, perampanel 8 mg resulted in greater reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days (-76.5% vs -38.4%; P < .0001) and responder rate (64.2% vs 39.5%; P = .0019) than placebo. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of perampanel have been reproduced in real-world clinical practice, and the agent has been shown to be effective in other epilepsy syndromes. Perampanel is a potentially broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug with a novel mechanism of action that may be a useful addition for patients with epilepsy with various seizure types. The availability of novel antiepileptic drugs for epilepsy treatment enables more individualized treatment for these patients.

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.

Comparative efficacy of antiepileptic drugs for patients with generalized epileptic seizures: systematic review and network meta-analyses

Background Valproate is a widely prescribed antiepileptic drug for generalized epilepsies, due to the extensive knowledge on its efficacy since it is on the market for many decades. However, a large number of new antiepileptic medicines was introduced into clinical practice and may be better options for treatment, considering that these medicines differ in terms of efficacy spectrum. Despite extensive research, questions regarding which medicine would constitute the first option for the monotherapy treatment of generalized epilepsy remain. Aim of the Review To compare the relative efficacy of all available antiepileptic drugs in the monotherapy treatment of generalized epileptic seizures; and also to compare all antiepoileptig drugs with valproate, which is the current first-line treatment for generalized epilepsy. Methods A systematic review for randomized controlled clinical trials was performed. Network meta-analyses used Bayesian random effects model. Sensitivity analyses determined the results´ robustness. The relative probability of two efficacy outcomes ("Seizure free" and "Therapeutic inefficacy") to happen for each medcicine was calculated using the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve. Results Seven papers (1809 patients) studied the efficacy of valproate, lamotrigine, phenytoin, carbamazepine, topiramate, levetiracetam, and phenobarbital in the treatment of generalized tonicclonic, tonic, and clonic seizures. Phenytoin demonstrated to be inferior to valproate in leaving the patient free of these seizures types [OR: 0.50 (95% CrI 0.27, 0.87)]. Lamotrigine (61%) showed the highest probability of presenting the outcome "Seizure free", followed by levetiracetam (47%), topiramate (44%), and valproate (38%) in the treatment of generalized tonic-clonic, tonic, and clonic seizures. Meanwhile, valproate exhibited greater chance of presenting the outcome "Therapeutic inefficacy" (62%). Regarding absence seizures itself, there was no difference in the efficacy of lamotrigine and ethosuximide when compared to valproate. However, the ranking indicates that ethosuximide (52%) and valproate (47%) are both more likely than lamotrigine to keep the patient free of seizures. Conclusions Lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and topiramate are as effective as valproate for treating generalized tonic-clonic, tonic, and clonic seizures. Meanwhile, valproate and ethosuximide are the best options for the treatment of absence seizures promoting better control of seizures, which is the primary goal of pharmacotherapy.

Observational multicentre study into the use of antiepileptic drugs in Spanish neurology consultations

INTRODUCTION

The study aims to quantify the types of antiepileptic drugs (AED) prescribed in neurology consultations.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

This descriptive, observational study included a sample of 559 patients older than 14 years, diagnosed with epilepsy, and receiving pharmacological treatment. Data were collected at outpatient consultations by 47 Spanish neurologists in May 2016. Epilepsy was defined based on the International League Against Epilepsy classification. According to the year of marketing, AEDs were categorised as classic (before 1990) or new (after 1990). We performed a descriptive analysis of qualitative and quantitative variables.

RESULTS

Female patients accounted for 54.6% of the sample. Mean age was 42.7 years; mean age of onset was 22.4. Regarding epilepsy type, 75.7% of patients experienced partial seizures, 51.5% were symptomatic,32.4% had refractory epilepsy, 35.6% had been seizure-free for the previous year, and 59.2% had associated comorbidities.A total of 1103 AED prescriptions were made; 64.6% of prescriptions were for new AEDs; 85.4% of patients received new AEDs. Patients received a mean of 2 AEDs (range, 1-5). A total of 59.6% of patients received polytherapy.The most frequently prescribed AEDs were levetiracetam (42.6%), valproic acid (25.4%), lamotrigine (19.5%), carbamazepine (17.9%), and lacosamide (17.5%). No AED was employed exclusively as monotherapy. The most frequently prescribed AEDs for generalised and partial seizures were valproic acid (48.2%) and levetiracetam (43.2%), respectively. Valproic acid was less frequently prescribed to female patients. Patients with refractory epilepsy or with associated comorbidities were more frequently prescribed a combination of new and classic AEDs (48.7% and 45.6%, respectively) than only one type of AED.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients received new AEDs. The combination of classic and new AEDs was more frequently prescribed to patients with refractory epilepsy or with associated comorbidities.

[Depakine: 25 years in Russia]

The article summarizes domestic and international studies on the development and clinical investigation of valproates including multiple studies of a research team directed by the author. Valproate targets are considered in biological and clinical aspects. A spectrum of action and advantages of the brand drug (depakine) compared to generics and other antiepileptic drugs are discussed. A number of recommendations for practitioners about using valproates are proposed.

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.