Adjunctive pregabalin vs gabapentin for focal seizures: Interpretation of comparative outcomes

Efficacy and safety of add-on antiseizure medications for focal epilepsy: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several antiseizure medications (ASMs) have been approved for the treatment of focal epilepsy. However, there is a paucity of evidence on direct comparison of ASMs. We evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of all approved add-on ASMs for the treatment of focal epilepsy using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Data through extensive literature search was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrial.gov databases using predefined search terms from inception through March 2023. PRISMA reporting guidelines (CRD42023403450) were followed in this study. Efficacy outcomes assessed were ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% responder rates. Patient retention rate and safety outcomes such as overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and individual TEAEs were assessed. "Gemtc" 4.0.4 package was used to perform Bayesian analysis. Outcomes are reported as relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Literature search retrieved 5807 studies of which, 75 studies were included in the analysis. All ASMs showed significantly higher ≥50% responder rate compared with placebo. Except the ≥75% seizure frequency reduction for zonisamide (2.23; 95% CI: 1.00-5.70) and 100% for rufinamide (2.03; 95% CI: 0.54-11.00), all other interventions showed significantly higher ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared with placebo. Among treatments, significantly higher 100% responder rate was observed with cenobamate compared to eslicarbazepine (10.71; 95% CI: 1.56-323.9) and zonisamide (10.63; 95% CI: 1.37-261.2). All ASMs showed a lower patient retention rate compared to placebo, with the least significant value observed for oxcarbazepine (0.77; 95% CI: 0.7-0.84). Levetiracetam showed a lower risk of incidence (1.0; 95%CI: 0.94-1.1; SUCRA: 0.885067) for overall TEAE compared with other medications.

SIGNIFICANCE

All approved ASMs were effective as add-on treatment for focal epilepsy. Of the ASMs included, cenobamate had the greatest likelihood of allowing patients to attain seizure freedom.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

This article compares the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs) currently available to neurologists in the treatment of epileptic patients. Several newer generation ASMs that have been developed may be as effective or better than the older medications. We included 75 studies in the analysis. In comparison, all drugs improved ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared to control, except for Zonisamide and Rufinamide in the ≥75% and 100% responder rate categories. Retention of patients undergoing treatment was lower in drugs than placebo. All drugs were tolerated, the levetiracetam showed the best tolerability. Cenobamate more likely help completely to reduce seizures.

Insight on the hub gene associated signatures and potential therapeutic agents in epilepsy and glioma

OBJECTIVE

The relationship between epilepsy and glioma has long been widely recognized, but the mechanisms of interaction remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the shared genetic signature and treatment strategies between epilepsy and glioma.

METHODS

We subjected hippocampal tissue samples from patients with epilepsy and glioma to transcriptomic analysis to identify differential genes and associated pathways, respectively. Weight gene co-expression network (WGCNA) analysis was performed to identify conserved modules in epilepsy and glioma and to obtain differentially expressed conserved genes. Prognostic and diagnostic models were built using lasso regression. We also focused on building transcription factor-gene interaction networks and assessing the proportion of immune invading cells in epilepsy patients. Finally, drug compounds were inferred using a drug signature database (DSigDB) based on core targets.

RESULTS

We discovered 88 differently conserved genes, most of which are involved in synaptic signaling and calcium ion pathways. We used lasso regression model to reduce 88 characteristic genes, and finally screened out 14 genes (EIF4A2, CEP170B, SNPH, EPHA4, KLK7, GNG3, MYOP, ANKRD29, RASD2, PRRT3, EFR3A, SGIP1, RAB6B, CNNM1) as the features of glioma prognosis model whose ROC curve is 0.9. Then, we developed a diagnosis model for epilepsy patients using 8 genes (PRRT3, RASD2, MYPOP, CNNM1, ANKRD29, GNG3, SGIP1, KLK7) with area under ROC curve (AUC) values near 1. According to the ssGSEA method, we observed an increase in activated B cells, eosinophils, follicular helper T cells and type 2T helper cells, and a decrease in monocytes in patients with epilepsy. Notably, the great majority of these immune cells showed a negative correlation with hub genes. To reveal the transcriptional-level regulation mechanism, we also built a TF-gene network. In addition, we discovered that patients with glioma-related epilepsy may benefit more from gabapentin and pregabalin.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals the modular conserved phenotypes of epilepsy and glioma and constructs effective diagnostic and prognostic markers. It provides new biological targets and ideas for the early diagnosis and effective treatment of epilepsy.

Gabapentinoids for Pain: A Review of Published Comparative Effectiveness Trials and Data Submitted to the FDA for Approval

Use of the gabapentinoids for pain continues to increase. In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) strengthened the warnings for both gabapentin and pregabalin to emphasize the central nervous system side effects and the risk of respiratory depression, especially when combined with other centrally acting drugs. We reviewed the published comparative effectiveness literature for gabapentinoids for pain as well as all trials (published and unpublished) used by the FDA for the approval of the five pain indications for these agents (one for gabapentin, four for pregabalin). Among the findings of interest are the fact that the FDA rejected the application for gabapentin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy based on the risk versus benefit profile of that drug in the clinical trials that were submitted by the manufacturer. Additionally, both the comparative effectiveness trials as well as the studies used by the FDA tend to be short in duration and show only modest pain benefits for the gabapentinoids. The placebo response in these trials was frequently one-third to one-half as great as the pain benefit demonstrated by the gabapentinoid. Based on the available clinical trial evidence, we feel prescribers should be cautious when using gabapentinoids for pain, particularly when using these agents for a prolonged period or when combined with other, centrally acting agents.

Pregabalin Add-On vs. Dose Increase in Levetiracetam Add-On Treatment: A Real-Life Trial in Dogs With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder affecting 0.6–0.75% of dogs in veterinary practice. Treatment is frequently complicated by the occurrence of drug-resistant epilepsy and cluster seizures in dogs with idiopathic epilepsy. Only few studies are available to guide treatment choices beyond licensed veterinary drugs. The aim of the study was to compare antiseizure efficacy and tolerability of two add-on treatment strategies in dogs with drug-resistant idiopathic epilepsy. The study design was a prospective, open-label, non-blinded, comparative treatment trial. Treatment success was defined as a 3-fold extension of the longest baseline interseizure interval and to a minimum of 3 months. To avoid prolonged adherence to a presumably ineffective treatment strategy, dog owners could leave the study after the third day with generalized seizures if the interseizure interval failed to show a relevant increase. Twenty-six dogs (mean age 5.5 years, mean seizure frequency 4/month) with drug-resistant idiopathic epilepsy and a history of cluster seizures were included. Dogs received either add-on treatment with pregabalin (PGB) 4 mg/kg twice daily (14 dogs) or a dose increase in levetiracetam (LEV) add-on treatment (12 dogs). Thirteen dogs in the PGB group had drug levels within the therapeutic range for humans. Two dogs in the PGB group (14.3%; 2/14) and one dog in the LEV group (8.3%; 1/12) achieved treatment success with long seizure-free intervals from 122 to 219 days but then relapsed to their early seizure frequency 10 months after the study inclusion. The overall low success rates with both treatment strategies likely reflect a real-life situation in canine drug-resistant idiopathic epilepsy in everyday veterinary practice. These results delineate the need for research on better pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment strategies in dogs with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review last published in Issue 7, 2019; it includes two additional studies. Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one-third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs that has been developed to improve outcomes. In this review we summarised the current evidence regarding pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the following databases on 16 November 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 16 November 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of pregabalin and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add-on for people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Double-blind and single-blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT). We presented summary risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 randomised controlled trials (3949 participants). Nine trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.72, 9 trials, 2663 participants, low-certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose-response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.60; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.64; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared pregabalin to three active-control drugs: lamotrigine, levetiracetam and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12; 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to levetiracetam (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine for seizure freedom (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83). However, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add-on pregabalin compared to levetiracetam (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We detected no significant differences in treatment withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse effects, specifically, during either pooled analysis or subgroup analysis. Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, headache and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin than in active control. We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We assessed all the studies to be at a high risk of funding bias as they were all sponsored by Pfizer. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment was significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, although there were issues with tolerability at higher doses. However, the trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision-making. This review focused on the use of pregabalin in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of pregabalin when used as monotherapy.

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.

Gabapentin add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially people with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 11 August 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no new studies for this update, therefore, the results and conclusions are unchanged. In the previous update of this review, we combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall risk ratio (RR) for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (95% CI 19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (95% CI 8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-certainty evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, the studies were at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide CIs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and seems to be fairly well-tolerated. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of gabapentin, and to compare gabapentin with other add-on drugs.

Immediate and controlled-release pregabalin for the treatment of epilepsy

Introduction: Epilepsy is a common neurological disease requiring complex therapies, which are unable to achieve seizure control in 30% of patients. Poor adherence has been recognized as a possible determinant of drug-resistance. Prolonged-release formulations of antiepileptic drugs might help increase adherence and minimize side effects.Areas covered: Pregabalin (PGB) has peculiar pharmacodynamics and almost ideal pharmacokinetics, except for a short half-life and therefore requiring multiple daily dosing. PGB immediate-release (IR) is effective in focal-onset epilepsy (FOE), neuropathic pain, generalized anxiety disorder, and fibromyalgia, despite some tolerability issues, especially at higher doses. The controlled-release formulation (CR) shares PGB IR advantages and requires slight dose adjustments to guarantee bioavailability. In 2014, PGB CR (165 and 330 mg/day) failed to prove superior to placebo in a randomized placebo-controlled trial on 323 subjects with drug-resistant FOE, although it was just as tolerable. Therefore, PGB CR is not currently licensed for epilepsy.Expert opinion: Considering the disappointing results of the only controlled trial, PGB CR is unlikely to become an established epilepsy treatment anytime soon. Nevertheless, given its peculiar properties and potential advantages, PGB (in either formulation) should be further evaluated in specific populations of patients, especially fragile subjects with several comorbidities and complex polytherapies.

General Trends in Prices and Prescription Patterns of Anticonvulsants in Germany between 2000 and 2017: Analysis of National and Cohort-Based Data

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to explore trends in price evolution and prescription volumes of anticonvulsants (AEDs, antiepileptic drugs) in Germany between 2000 and 2017.

METHOD

This study used data from annual reports on mean prescription frequency and prices of defined daily doses (DDD) of AEDs in Germany to analyze nationwide trends. Interrupted time series (ITS) analysis was employed to test for significant effects of several statutory healthcare reforms in Germany on AED price evolution. These data were compared to cohort-based prescription patterns of four German cohort studies from 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2016 that included a total of 1368 patients with focal and generalized epilepsies.

RESULTS

Analysis of national prescription data between 2000 and 2017 showed that mean prices per DDD of third-generation AEDs decreased by 65% and mean prices of second-generation AEDs decreased by 36%, whereas mean prices of first-generation AEDs increased by 133%. Simultaneously, mean prescription frequency of third- generation AEDs increased by 2494%, while there was a substantial decrease in the use of first- (- 55%) and second- (- 16%) generation AEDs. ITS analysis revealed that in particular the introduction of mandatory rebates on drugs in 2003 affected prices of frequently used newer AEDs. These findings are consistent with data from cohort studies of epilepsy patients showing a general decrease of prices for frequently used AEDs in monotherapy by 62% and in combination therapies by 68%. The analysis suggests that overall expenses for AEDs remained stable despite an increase in the prescription of "newer" and "non-enzyme-inducing" AEDs for epilepsy patients.

CONCLUSION

Between 2000 and 2017, a distinct decline in AED prices can be observed that seems predominately caused by a governmentally obtained price decline of third- and second-generation drugs. These observations seem to be the result of a German statutory cost containment policy applied across all health-care sectors. The increasing use of third-generation AEDs to the disadvantage of "old" and "enzyme-inducing" AEDs reflects the preferences of physicians and patients with epilepsy and follows national treatment guidelines.

Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one-third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs which have been developed to improve outcomes.This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2014, and includes three new studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), on 5 July 2018, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 5 July 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (5 July 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 5 July 2018), and contacted Pfizer Ltd, manufacturer of pregabalin, to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add-on for people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Double-blind and single-blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected and assessed trials for eligibility and extracted data. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Two review authors assessed the included studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine industry-sponsored randomised controlled trials (3327 participants) in the review. Seven trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.42, 7 trials, 2193 participants, low-certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose-response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.65, 7 trials, 2193 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.88 to 3.74, 7 trials, 2193 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).Three trials compared pregabalin to three active-control drugs: lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12, 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to levetiracetam (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11, 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12, 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) for seizure freedom, however, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add-on pregabalin compared to levetiracetam (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52), levetiracetam (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49), or gabapentin (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.07) for treatment withdrawal due to any reason or due to adverse effects (pregabalin versus lamotrigine: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.48; versus levetiracetam: RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.54; versus gabapentin: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.11). Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin.We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin, when used as an add-on drug for treatment-resistant focal epilepsy, is significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, however issues with tolerability were noted at higher doses. The trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision making.

Gabapentin add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2013.Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially those with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 20 March 2018), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 March 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (20 March 2018) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 20 March 2018). We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials representing 2607 randomised participants. We combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall RR for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-quality evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-quality evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There were no significant differences for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Overall, the studies were rated at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall quality of evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide confidence intervals.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types.

From clinical trials of antiepileptic drugs to treatment

Rational prescribing should be based on the assessment of high-quality evidence about the benefits and risks of available treatment options. Because clinical trials, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs), provide the best source of evidence, their design and results need to be carefully scrutinized. The majority of RCTs of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been designed to address regulatory requirements, and generally they involve restrictive eligibility criteria, rigid dosing schemes, short duration of follow-up, and comparison with placebo rather than standard treatments. Although these studies have high internal validity, they are conducted in a setting that is distant from routine clinical practice and therefore their usefulness in guiding treatment decisions is limited. Information more directly applicable to clinical practice can be derived from a relatively small number of comparative effectiveness monotherapy RCTs, although the design of some of these studies was probably biased in favor of the sponsor's product. Alarmingly, there is a paucity of well-designed trials in epilepsy syndromes other than focal epilepsies, and no RCTs at all in most of the less common epileptic syndromes of infancy and childhood. In the light of these shortcomings, there is scope for re-assessing regulatory requirements to facilitate generation of data more directly applicable to the routine clinical setting. Likewise, research-funding organizations should be sensitized about the lack of adequate evidence to guide therapeutic practice in epilepsy, and the need to promote high-quality comparative effectiveness trials. Future prospective pragmatic trials may benefit from the increasingly widespread availability of electronic health records.