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

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.

A comparison of cenobamate with other newer antiseizure medications for adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cenobamate with other newer anti-seizure medications (ASMs) including brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, approved for adjunctive treatment of drug-resistant focal-onset seizures (FOS) in adults with epilepsy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to obtain relevant efficacy, safety, and tolerability data for ASMs for the treatment of drug-resistant FOS. All studies were thoroughly assessed for potential sources of heterogeneity and analysed via Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs). Efficacy outcomes were ≥50 % responder rate and seizure freedom during the maintenance period, which were modelled simultaneously using a multinomial Bayesian NMA. Safety and tolerability outcomes were the proportion of patients who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and the proportion who experienced at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 76 studies, of which 23 were included in the Bayesian NMAs. Cenobamate was associated with statistically significant higher rates for the ≥50 % responder rate and seizure freedom outcomes compared with all ASMs analysed. The point estimates indicated that cenobamate was associated with higher rates of experiencing at least one TEAE and at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation compared with brivaracetam, lacosamide, and zonisamide; however, no results were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Cenobamate was associated with increased efficacy compared with all ASMs analysed. There were no statistically significant differences in the safety and tolerability outcomes. The results presented corroborate the conclusions drawn from previous published NMAs, which also highlight the notable efficacy of cenobamate in comparison with other ASMs.

Zonisamide: A Comprehensive, Updated Review for the Clinician

Purpose of Review

Zonisamide (ZNS) was first approved in the United States in 2000 for the adjunctive treatment of patients aged 16 years or older with partial (focal) seizures. Although ZNS has been proven to treat multiple seizure types, it has been largely underutilized in US clinical practice.

Recent Findings

Published literature demonstrated that antiseizure medications (ASMs) acting on Na+ and Ca2+ channels may add beneficial effects in many seizure types by reducing seizure frequency and leading to overall improvements. In addition, effects of ZNS may lead to clinical improvements in Parkinson disease, alcohol and sleep disorders, pain, and migraine. ZNS is available in multiple formulations and is a safe and effective, broad spectrum ASM.

Summary

The purpose of this review was to provide an update to what is known about the efficacy of ZNS and where it shows benefits in the treatment of patients with epilepsy and other CNS disorders through its many unique mechanisms of action.

Clinical Trial Design for Disease-Modifying Therapies for Genetic Epilepsies

Although trials with anti-seizure medications (ASMs) have not shown clear anti-epileptogenic or disease-modifying activity in humans to date, rapid advancements in genomic technology and emerging gene-mediated and gene replacement options offer hope for the successful development of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for genetic epilepsies. In fact, more than 26 potential DMTs are in various stages of preclinical and/or clinical development for genetic syndromes associated with epilepsy. The scope of disease-modification includes but is not limited to effects on the underlying pathophysiology, the condition's natural history, epilepsy severity, developmental achievement, function, behavior, sleep, and quality of life. While conventional regulatory clinical trials for epilepsy therapeutics have historically focused on seizure reduction, similarly designed trials may prove ill-equipped to identify these broader disease-modifying benefits. As we look forward to this pipeline of DMTs, focused consideration should be given to the challenges they pose to conventional clinical trial designs for epilepsy therapeutics. Just as DMTs promise to fundamentally alter how we approach the care of patients with genetic epilepsy syndromes, DMTs likewise challenge how we traditionally construct and measure the success of clinical trials. In the following, we briefly review the historical and preclinical frameworks for DMT development for genetic epilepsies and explore the many novel challenges posed for such trials, including the choice of suitable outcome measures, trial structure, timing and duration of treatment, feasible follow-up period, varying safety profile, and ethical concerns.

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.

Zonisamide add-on therapy for focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis, and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic agent, but up to 30% develop dug-resistant epilepsy, especially those with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) of zonisamide, used as an add-on treatment for focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drug. This is an updated version of the Cochrane review previously published in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide, when used as an add-on treatment for people with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (September 2019). In addition, we contacted Eisai Limited (makers and licensees of zonisamide) and experts in the field, to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, in which add-on zonisamide was compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug in people with focal epilepsy, uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the certainty of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. The primary outcome was at least a 50% reduction in total seizure frequency; the secondary outcomes were (1) tolerability; and (2) adverse effects. We used an intention-to-treat approach for our primary analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) for each outcome. We displayed a summary of the estimates of effects and certainty of the evidence for each outcome in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not find any new studies since the last version of this review. We included eight studies (1636 participants) from previous versions of this review. The overall RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency for 300 mg to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.90 (95% CI 1.63 to 2.22; 7 trials, 1371 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The RR for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for any dose of zonisamide (100 mg to 500 mg/day) was 1.86 (95% CI 1.60 to 2.17; 7 trials, 1429 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was six (95% CI 4.1 to 6.8). Two trials provided evidence of a dose-response relationship for this outcome. The RR for treatment withdrawal for 300 mg to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.59 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.13; 6 trials, 1099 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and for 100 mg to 500 mg/day was 1.44 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.93; 6 trials, 1156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 15 (95% CI 9.3 to 36.7). The following adverse effects were more likely to be associated with zonisamide than with placebo: ataxia (RR 3.85, 99% CI 1.36 to 10.93; 4 trials, 734 participants; low-certainty evidence); somnolence (RR 1.52, 99% CI 1.00 to 2.31; 8 trials, 1636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); agitation (RR 2.35, 99% CI 1.05 to 5.27; 4 trials, 598 participants; low-certainty evidence); and anorexia (RR 2.74, 99% CI 1.64 to 4.60; 6 trials, 1181 participants; low-certainty evidence). Across the eight studies, we rated risk of bias domains at low or unclear risk of bias, apart from two studies, which we rated at high risk of attrition bias. Five of the eight studies were sponsored by the drug companies that produced zonisamide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used as an add-on treatment in people with focal epilepsy, uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs, moderate-certainty evidence found that zonisamide was more successful than placebo at reducing the frequency of seizures by at least 50%. We were unable to identify minimum effective and maximum tolerated doses. The included trials evaluated a maximum stable-dose phase of 18 weeks, so results cannot be used to confirm longer periods of efficacy in seizure control. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy, or to people with other seizure types or epilepsy syndromes.

[A retrospective analysis of using zonisamide and retention in monotherapy among patients with epilepsy in routine clinical practice]

INTRODUCTION

Zonisamide is one of the first antiepileptic drugs of new generation with a wide spectrum of action. It is successfully used in treatment of epilepsy for 30 years. The study aims at analyzing the results of the multicenter Russian trial on the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide and retention in monotherapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The analysis included 92 patients with focal epilepsy, aged 18-78 years, from 20 epileptology centers in different regions of Russia. The patients were treated with zonisamide in initial and subsequent treatment.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The efficacy (the reduction of seizure frequency by >50%) was achieved in 81 (91%) out of 89 patients (95% CI 83.6-95.7%). Fifty-two patients received zonisamide for more than one year. The efficacy was achieved in 50 (96.2%) (95% CI 88.2-99.2%), including 39 (79.6%) patients with remission out of 49 patients with assessment of seizure free periods (95% CI was 66.8-89% for the frequency of remissions). The adverse effects were recorded in 27 (29.3%) patients. Seven (7.6%) patients were withdrawn due to these effects. The maximal duration of observation period was 50 month. Mean time of retention in treatment was 42.4 month (95% CI 38.7-46.2 month). The total frequency of retention in treatment was 82.1% (95% CI 73.1-91%) during the whole observation period.

Zonisamide add-on therapy for focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis, and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic agent, but up to 30% develop refractory epilepsy, especially those with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) of zonisamide, used as an add-on treatment for focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drug. This is an updated version of the Cochrane review previously published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide, when used as an add-on treatment for people with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, on 4 September 2017, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE Ovid, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP. We searched SCOPUS on 13 February 2013, but this is no longer necessary, because RCTs and quasi-RCTs in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. In addition, we contacted Eisai Limited (makers and licensees of zonisamide) and experts in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, in which add-on zonisamide was compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug in people with focal epilepsy, uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the quality of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. The primary outcome was at least a 50% reduction in total seizure frequency; the secondary outcomes were (1) tolerability; and (2) adverse effects. We used an intention-to-treat approach for our primary analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) for each outcome. We displayed a summary of the estimates of effects and quality of the evidence for each outcome in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies (1636 participants). The overall RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for 300 mg to 500 mg/day of zonisamide was 1.90 (95% CI 1.63 to 2.22; 7 trials, 1371 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The RR for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for any dose of zonisamide (100 mg to 500 mg/day) was 1.86 (95% CI 1.60 to 2.17; 7 trials, 1429 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was six (95% CI 4.1 to 6.8) for this outcome. Two trials provided evidence of a dose-response relationship for this outcome. The RR for treatment withdrawal for 300 mg to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.59 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.13; 6 trials, 1099 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and for 100 mg to 500 mg/day was 1.44 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.93; 6 trials, 1156 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 15 (95% CI 9.3 to 36.7). The CIs of the following adverse effects indicated that they were significantly associated with zonisamide: ataxia RR 3.85 (99% CI 1.36 to 10.93; 4 trials, 734 participants; low-quality evidence); somnolence RR 1.52 (99% CI 1.00 to 2.31; 8 trials, 1636 participants; moderate-quality evidence); agitation RR 2.35 (99% CI 1.05 to 5.27; 4 trials, 598 participants; low-quality evidence); and anorexia RR 2.74 (99% CI 1.64 to 4.60; 6 trials, 1181 participants; low-quality evidence).Across the eight studies, we rated risk of bias domains at low or unclear risk of bias apart from two studies which we rated at high risk of attrition bias. Five of the eight studies were sponsored by the drug companies that produced zonisamide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used as an add-on treatment in people with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs, moderate-quality evidence found that zonisamide was more successful than placebo at reducing the frequency of seizures by at least 50%. We were unable to identify minimum effective and maximum tolerated doses. The included trials evaluated a maximum stable-dose phase of 18 weeks, so results cannot be used to confirm longer periods of efficacy in seizure control. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other seizure types or epilepsy syndromes.

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

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

Zonisamide as a treatment for partial epileptic seizures: a systematic review

Although the majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures can be well controlled with pharmacotherapy, up to one-third of patients can develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially those patients with partial seizures. This unmet need has driven considerable efforts over the last few decades aimed at developing and testing newer antiepileptic agents to improve seizure control. One of the most promising antiepileptic drugs of the new generation is zonisamide, a benzisoxazole derivative chemically unrelated to other anticonvulsant agents. In this article, the authors present the results of a systematic literature review summarizing the current evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide for the treatment of partial seizures. Of particular interest within this updated review are the recent data on the use of zonisamide as monotherapy, as they might open new therapeutic avenues.

Zonisamide add-on for drug-resistant partial epilepsy

BACKGROUND

The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic agent, but up to 30% develop refractory epilepsy, especially those with partial seizures. In this review we summarise the current evidence regarding zonisamide, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (12 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1) (January 2013), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 February 2013), SCOPUS (13 February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (12 February 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (13 February 2013). In addition, we contacted Eisai Limited (makers and licensees of zonisamide) and experts in the field to seek any ongoing/unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo-controlled, add-on trials of zonisamide in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes were: (1) 50% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency; (2) treatment withdrawal; (3) adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) for each outcome. All studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and presented in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials (949 participants) were included. The overall RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for 300 to 500 mg/day of zonisamide was 2.00 (95% CI 1.58 to 2.54). The RR for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for any dose of zonisamide (100 to 500 mg per day) was 1.92 (95% CI 1.52 to 2.42). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 6 for this outcome. Two trials provide evidence of a dose response relationship for this outcome. The RR for treatment withdrawal for 300 to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.64 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.25) and for 100 to 500 mg per day was 1.47 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.01). NNT for this outcome was 21. The CIs of the following adverse effects indicate that they are significantly associated with zonisamide: ataxia 3.77 (99% CI 1.28 to 11.11); somnolence 1.83 (99% CI 1.08 to 3.11); agitation 2.35 (99% CI 1.05 to 5.27) and anorexia 2.71 (99% CI 1.29 to 5.69). Across the 5 studies, risk of bias domains were rated as low is bias or unclear. None of the evidence for outcomes was downgraded for quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Zonisamide has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. In this review minimum effective and maximum tolerated doses cannot be identified. The trials reviewed were of a maximum stable-dose phase of 18 weeks in duration and results cannot be used to confirm longer periods of effectiveness in seizure control. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other seizure types or epilepsy syndromes.

The adverse event profile of zonisamide: a meta-analysis

The first aim of our study was to analyze the adverse events statistically significantly associated with zonisamide, through a systematic review and meta-analysis of available randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs). The second aim was to compare these results with those obtained from an analysis of non-RCTs and observational studies. Randomized controlled trials were identified using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), and Cochrane CENTRAL, from 1990 to September 2012. RevMan version 5.1 and OpenMeta[Analyst] were used for analyses of RCT and non-RCTs, respectively. Six eligible studies with 1184 patients between 12 and 80 years of age were included in RCTs analysis. Fifteen adverse events were investigated. In this first part of the analysis, no adverse events were statistically significantly associated with zonisamide. In the non-RCT analysis, a high incidence of weight loss and headache was found. In RCTs, zonisamide was statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse event-related study withdrawals [RR (99% CI) = 1.81 (1.07-3.08)]. Although our study revealed no statistically significantly associated adverse effects (AEs) with zonisamide, this is very likely a consequence of the small numbers in the RCTs available. The limited data available from the studies appear to reveal no major safety concerns related to zonisamide. However, the high incidence of weight loss and headache in the non-RCTs suggests that these AEs could be of clinical significance.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Zonisamide: its pharmacology, efficacy and safety in clinical trials

Zonisamide is a benzisoxazole derivative, chemically unrelated to other antiepileptic drugs, that appears to have multiple mechanisms of action, including inhibition of Na(+) channels and reduction of T-type Ca(2+) currents. It is currently licensed in Europe and the USA for adjunctive treatment of partial seizures in adults, and in Europe as monotherapy for treatment of partial seizures in adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Zonisamide displays predictable, dose-dependent pharmacokinetics and has a half-life of ~60 h, allowing once- or twice-daily administration. It has a low potential for interactions with other medications, including oral contraceptives. The clinical efficacy of adjunctive zonisamide therapy has been established in four pivotal, phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, which together included approximately 850 patients, aged 12-77 years, with refractory partial epilepsy. In all four trials, zonisamide 300-600 mg/day resulted in significant reductions in median total seizure rates vs placebo, and zonisamide was generally well tolerated; the most frequently reported adverse events being somnolence, dizziness and anorexia/weight loss. Subanalysis of the primary European trial indicated that zonisamide was effective when administered as first-line adjunctive treatment, and a long-term extension to the same trial demonstrated that the efficacy and safety/tolerability of adjunctive zonisamide was sustained for up to 36 months. Once-daily monotherapy with zonisamide (200-500 mg/day) has been shown to be non-inferior to, and as well tolerated as, twice-daily monotherapy with controlled-release carbamazepine (400-1200 mg/day) in adults with newly diagnosed partial epilepsy. Zonisamide has also been shown to have favourable long-term retention rates, an important indication of its overall effectiveness.