Substitution has better efficacy than add-on therapy for patients with focal epilepsy after their first antiepileptic drug treatments fail

Should substitution monotherapy or combination therapy be used after failure of the first antiseizure medication? Observations from a 30-year cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the temporal trends in the use of second antiseizure (ASM) regimens and compare the efficacy of substitution monotherapy and combination therapy after failure of initial monotherapy in people with epilepsy.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal observational cohort study conducted at the Epilepsy Unit of the Western Infirmary in Glasgow, Scotland. We included patients who were newly treated for epilepsy with ASMs between July 1982, and October 2012. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Seizure freedom was defined as no seizure for at least 1 year on unchanged medication at the last follow up.

RESULTS

During the study period, 498 patients were treated with a second ASM regimen after failure of the initial ASM monotherapy, of whom 346 (69%) were prescribed combination therapy and 152 (31%) were given substitution monotherapy. The proportion of patients receiving second regimen as combination therapy increased during the study period from 46% in first epoch (1985-1994) to 78% in the last (2005-2015) (RR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.17-2.36, corrected-p = .010). Overall, 21% (104/498) of the patients achieved seizure freedom on the second ASM regimen, which was less than half of the seizure-free rate on the initial ASM monotherapy (45%, p < .001). Patients who received substitution monotherapy had similar seizure-free rate compared with those who received combination therapy (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.81-1.69, p = .41). Individual ASMs used, either alone or in combination, had similar efficacy. However, the subgroup analysis was limited by small sample sizes.

SIGNIFICANCE

The choice of second regimen used based on clinical judgment was not associated with treatment outcome in patients whose initial monotherapy failed due to poor seizure control. Alternative approaches such as machine learning should be explored to aid individualized selection of the second ASM regimen.

Response to subsequent antiseizure medications after first antiseizure medication failure in newly diagnosed epilepsy

Objective

There is a lack of studies using the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) recommendation to define drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). This study evaluated the seizure freedom rates of substitution or add-on and subsequent antiseizure medication (ASM) therapies using different proposed definitions of DRE or ASM trials in patients with a failed first ASM. We also identified prognostic factors for 1-year seizure freedom.

Methods

This study included 459 patients with epilepsy of whom 151 were not seizure-free after the first ASM. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was used to examine the correlation between observations from the same patient.

Results

The overall seizure freedom rate with the first and subsequent ASMs was 88.0% (404/459). The rate of DRE when defined as the failure of two ASMs for any reason was 20.0%, and according to the ILAE definition of DRE, it was 16.3%. After failing the first ASM, 63.6% of patients (96/151) became seizure free with subsequent ASMs and tried an average of 1.9 ASMs (range 1–5). Of the patients who achieved 1-year seizure freedom, 10.1% (41/404) were taking polytherapy and there was no difference between substitution and add-on. All the patients with generalized epilepsy were seizure-free. A favorable prognostic factor was age >60 years and an EEG without epileptiform activity. The efficacies of the different ASMs were largely similar, but drugs that enhanced GABA-mediated inhibitory neurotransmission had the lowest seizure freedom rate.

Significance

In adults with newly-diagnosed epilepsy, 1-year seizure freedom was achieved for almost 90% of the patients. After failing the first ASM, two-thirds of the patients responded to subsequent ASM regimens. Our results support the feasibility and applicability of the ILAE concept of an adequate ASM trial and the failure of two ASMs as a definition of DRE.

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.

The importance of drug titration in the management of patients with epilepsy

The variable response to antiseizure medication (ASM) treatment and the numerous drug- and patient-related factors that must be considered when initiating therapy make drug titration to an optimal and tolerable dose an essential component in the pharmacologic treatment of patients with epilepsy. When initiating a new ASM, a "start low, go slow" titration approach is generally recommended and has been shown to reduce the risk of severe idiosyncratic reactions with certain medications and improve tolerability with regard to many frequently occurring central nervous system-related adverse effects (e.g., somnolence, dizziness). Many patients with epilepsy will require medication changes due to lack of efficacy or intolerability of the initial regimen. When this occurs, patients may be switched from one monotherapy to another or receive adjunctive therapy. When transitioning a patient from one ASM to another (referred to as monotherapy conversion or transitional polytherapy), there are several strategies for tapering the baseline ASM depending on the clinical scenario. Regardless of the particular strategy, the goal should be to discontinue the baseline ASM in order to prevent increased toxicity due to drug load. When adding on ASM therapy, flexible titration of the new ASM and adjustment of concomitant ASMs to achieve disease control with the lowest possible drug load (lowest numbers and lowest doses) may help improve tolerability of the add-on therapy. Communication with patients during the initiation of a new therapy may help patients adhere to the titration schedule, allowing them to reach their optimal maintenance dose.

Lacosamide as first add-on or conversion monotherapy: A retrospective real-life study

PURPOSE

Lacosamide (LCM), the R-enantiomer of 2-acetamido-N-benzyl-3-methoxypropionamide, is a newer approved antiseizure medication characterized by a novel pharmacodynamic and favorable pharmacokinetic profile that was approved as adjunctive treatment for adults with focal onset and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures in 2008, and recently also for monotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of LCM as first add-on or conversion monotherapy in adult subjects with focal epilepsy.

METHODS

We retrospectively included all adult patients who received LCM as first add-on regimen or as substitution monotherapy at least 12 months before starting the chart review, with a historical baseline of 6 months prior to day of the first administration of LCM. The choice of treatment was made independently by the epilepstologists, according to routine clinical practice. Clinical data were obtained at 3, 6, and 12 months after subjects started LCM and then analyzed to assess retention rate, seizure freedom, and adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients (58 men) with a mean age of 44 years and a median epilepsy duration of 6.6 years (range 1-53) were included in the study. At 12 months 72 patients retained LCM, 54 (75%) of them were seizure free, 44 (81.5%) in monotherapy and 10 (18.5%) in add-on LCM treatment. Among all subjects, 31 (57.4%) were free from seizure under LCM monotherapy throughout the entire observation period. Thirty one out of 72 (43%) PwE who retained LCM at 12 months, were free from seizures throughout the entire observation period. The maintenance median dosage of LCM was 200 mg/day. Ten (10%) subjects reported mild to moderate AE, most commonly drowsiness and dizziness. No serious AE were documented.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-life study confirms that LCM is an effective and well tolerated treatment option as first add-on or conversion monotherapy for focal seizures.

Which treatment strategy in patients with epilepsy with focal seizures uncontrolled by the first anti-seizure medication?

There is no definite proven or accepted strategy in the management of patients with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by the first anti-seizure medication (ASM). Clinical studies failed to find a significant difference in efficacy or tolerability between alternative monotherapy and/or adjunctive therapy in these patients. A second ASM is often added, the efficacy of the combination is assessed, and the dose of the first drug can be gradually reduced and withdrawn. If seizures recur, the effective combination therapy can be reinstated. In this review, we discussed experimental and clinical data about the efficacy and tolerability of the most frequently used combinations of ASMs. Animal studies suggested that the most favorable combinations are those between ASMs with different or multiple mechanisms of action, whereas combining drugs with similar pharmacodynamic properties is often associated with additive or infra-additive efficacy and additive or synergistic toxicity. Clinical studies have shown that levetiracetam (LEV) can be favorably combined with the sodium channel blockers (SCBs) lacosamide (LCM) and lamotrigine (LTG). Lamotrigine is particularly effective when associated with valproate (VPA) and possibly with LEV and topiramate (TPM). Carbamazepine (CBZ) has negative pharmacokinetic interactions with several ASMs and should not be combined with other SCBs; it could be effectively and safely combined with gabapentin (GBP) and LEV. Valproic acid has enzyme inhibiting properties and can be cautiously used with SCBs; its combination with TPM or zonisamide (ZNS) may be associated with higher toxicity.

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Monotherapy and Polytherapy in Seizure-Free Patients With Epilepsy Following Antiseizure Medication Withdrawal

Objective: The objectives of this study were to compare the risk and timing of seizure relapse in seizure-free patients with epilepsy following the withdrawal of monotherapy or polytherapy and to identify relevant influencing factors.

Methods: Patients who had achieved at least a 2-year seizure remission and started the withdrawal of antiseizure medication (ASM) were enrolled in this study. All patients were followed for at least 3 years or until seizure relapse. According to the number of ASMs at the time of withdrawalwas about twice than that, patients were divided into two groups: monotherapy group and polytherapy group. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare the recurrence risk of the two groups. Univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression analysis were used to analyze potential confounding variables between patients treated with monotherapy and polytherapy.

Results: A total of 188 patients (119 males and 69 females) were included. The average prescribed daily dose of most ASMs at the time of withdrawal was moderate or low (30–50% defined daily dose). The recurrence of most patients (89.2%) occurred within the first 3 years after withdrawal. The recurrence risk in patients treated with polytherapy at the time of withdrawal was about twice than that of the monotherapy group [p = 0.001, hazard ratio (HR) = 2.152, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.350–3.428]. Multivariate analysis showed that patients treated with polytherapy were significantly older at seizure onset [p = 0.024, odd ratio (OR) = 1.027, 95% CI = 1.004–1.052] and had a significantly longer duration of epilepsy before treatment (p = 0.004, OR = 1.009, 95% CI = 1.003–1.015) compared to patients in the monotherapy group. In addition, a history of perinatal injury was found to be an independent risk factor of seizure relapse in patients with ASM withdrawal.

Conclusion: The average prescribed daily dose of most ASMs at the time of withdrawal was moderate or low. Patients who received polytherapy at the time of withdrawal, particularly those with later seizure onset age and longer epilepsy duration before treatment, had a higher recurrence risk after ASMs withdrawal compared to patients treated with monotherapy.

Starting a new anti-seizure medication in drug-resistant epilepsy: Add-on or substitute?

OBJECTIVES

Randomized studies in drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) typically involve addition of a new anti-seizure medication (ASM). However, in clinical practice, if the patient is already taking multiple ASMs, then substitution of one of the current ASMs commonly occurs, despite little evidence supporting this approach.

METHODS

Longitudinal prospective study of seizure outcome after commencing a previously untried ASM in patients with DRE. Multivariable time-to-event and logistic regression models were used to evaluate outcomes by whether the new ASM was introduced by addition or substitution.

RESULTS

A total of 816 ASM changes in 436 adult patients with DRE between 2010 and 2018 were analyzed. The new ASM was added on 407 (50.1%) occasions and substituted on 409 (49.9%). Mean patient follow-up was 3.2 years. Substitution was more likely if the new ASM was enzyme-inducing or in patients with a greater number of concurrent ASMs. ASM add-on was more likely if a γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonist was introduced or if the patient had previously trialed a higher number of ASMs. The rate of discontinuation due to lack of tolerability was similar between the add-on and substitution groups. No difference between the add-on and substitution ASM introduction strategies was observed for the primary outcome of ≥50% seizure reduction at 12 months.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adding or substituting a new ASM in DRE has the same influence on seizure outcomes. The findings confirm that ASM alterations in DRE can be individualized according to concurrent ASM therapy and patient characteristics.