Meta-analyses of antiepileptic drugs for refractory partial (focal) epilepsy: an observation

Safety and Tolerability of Lacosamide in Patients With Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: As a third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM), lacosamide (LCM) is recommended worldwide for patients with epilepsy. We aimed to provide more conclusive evidence for the safety and tolerability of LCM in patients with epilepsy. Methods: A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, IDB, VIP Database, and Wanfang Database from inception to 2021 March, and all studies assessing the safety of LCM were included. A meta-analysis was performed for safety data of LCM. Results: Eighty-three studies involving 12268 populations (11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 16 cohort studies, 53 case series, and 3 case reports) were included in our study. Meta-analysis of the total incidence of adverse events (AEs) of LCM was 38.7% [95% CI (35.1%, 45.8%); n=75 studies]. Incidence of withdrawal due to AEs was 10.8% [95% CI (9.1%, 12.6%); n=56 studies], and incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was 6.5% [95% CI (4.0%, 8.9%); n=13 studies]. Most AEs were in the nervous system and digestive system. The most common AEs were sedation (15.8%), dizziness (15.7%), fatigue (9.4%), and nausea/vomiting (9.3%). For children, the total incidence of AEs of LCM was 32.8% [95% CI (21.6%, 44.0%); n=16 studies], and the most common AEs were dizziness (8.6%), nausea/vomiting (8.6%), and somnolence (6.8%). Conclusion: Lacosamide is generally safe and well tolerated in patients with epilepsy. Common AEs were sedation, dizziness, and fatigue. It is necessary to pay more attention to the prevention and management of these AEs and conduct more large-scale and high-quality studies to update safety data.

Understanding the challenge of comparative effectiveness research in focal epilepsy: A review of network meta-analyses and real-world evidence on antiepileptic drugs

OBJECTIVE

Head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing comparative treatment effects. In the absence of direct comparisons between all possible antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), however, clinical decision-making in focal (partial onset) epilepsy relies on alternative evidence borne from indirect comparisons including network meta-analyses (NMAs) and from real-world evidence (RWE) studies. We review NMAs and observational RWE studies comparing AEDs in the adjunctive setting to compare the robustness of these methods and to formulate recommendations for future evidence development.

METHODS

A literature review identified NMAs and RWE studies comparing AEDs for the adjunctive treatment of focal seizures published between January 2008 and October 2018. NMAs were evaluated for robustness using a framework based on guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. RWE studies were evaluated using the GRACE checklist.

RESULTS

From a total of 1993 records, 11 NMAs and six RWE studies were eligible. Key limitations identified in the NMAs include nonsystematic selection of RCTs, unexplored heterogeneity between included RCTs in terms of study and patient characteristics, and selection of AEDs and AED doses or dosing strategies that are not reflective of clinical practice. The main limitations of RWE studies concern sample size, design, and analysis methods. Approximately 90% of comparisons between individual AEDs were nonsignificant in the NMAs. None of the RWE studies adjusted for baseline differences between comparator groups; therefore, they lack the validity to make comparative conclusions.

SIGNIFICANCE

Current NMAs and RWE studies provide only nominal comparative evidence for AED treatments in focal epilepsy, and should be used with caution for decision-making due to their methodological limitations. To overcome these hurdles, adherence to methodological guidelines and concerted efforts to collect relevant outcome data in the real world are needed.

Relative performance of brivaracetam as adjunctive treatment of focal seizures in adults: a network meta-analysis

Objective: To estimate the relative efficacy, safety and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam and other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) approach. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) identified randomized controlled trials of AEDs treating focal (partial-onset) seizures for ≥8 weeks and assessed them for inclusion in the NMA. Bayesian random-effects NMA was performed for several outcomes. All interventions within the licensed dose range were included in the network of evidence. Results: The SLR identified 82 studies; 65 were included in the NMA. These studies had baseline mean age 33.1-38.0 years, mean duration of epilepsy 18.7-23.0 years and median seizure frequency/28 days 8.1-11.8. All AEDs had significantly higher odds than placebo of achieving ≥50% responder rates (odds ratios 1.83-3.58) and all AEDs had a trend of higher odds than placebo of achieving seizure freedom (odds ratios 1.36-5.73), most being statistically significant. Tolerability outcomes were comparable between AEDs; most AEDs had higher odds than placebo of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation, serious AEs, nausea, fatigue, dizziness and somnolence. Conclusions: This NMA would appear to show relative equivalence in efficacy, safety and tolerability outcomes of the included AEDs. However, patient heterogeneity within trials and in clinical practice should be considered when interpreting these results. While NMAs are based on the best available evidence the authors suggest that, due to the inability of NMAs to capture unmeasured confounding factors and population heterogeneity, NMAs must not be the sole basis for comparative treatment recommendations.

Two-year real-world experience with perampanel in patients with refractory focal epilepsy: Austrian data

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyse registry data of seizure outcome and adverse events (AEs) for perampanel as add-on therapy in patients with focal epilepsy since its approval in 2012 for adjunctive treatment of focal epilepsy in patients ⩾12 years.

METHOD

A retrospective 2-year chart review of all patients receiving perampanel was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients received perampanel [median treatment length: 20.1 (range: 3.4-26.8) months]; 71 (58%) remained on treatment at last follow up. Overall, 33 patients (27%) were seizure-free for ⩾3 months at last follow up; of these, eight were seizure free for ⩾3 times the longest interictal interval before perampanel therapy; 18 (15%) had reduced seizure frequency ⩾50%. A total of 58 (47%) had an AE and 34 (28%) withdrew from treatment because of AEs. AEs included dizziness (33%), fatigue (12%), psychiatric symptoms (8%), cognitive deficits (7%), speech problems (5%), nausea (4%) and gait problems (4%). AEs subsided in 17/18 patients (94%) following a 2 mg dose reduction. A total of 43 (35%) took a concomitant enzyme inducer. Patients not taking enzyme inducers were more likely to be seizure free (p = 0.002); there were no other between-group differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Perampanel was well tolerated and improved seizure control in 42% of patients (50- 100% reduction), with higher rates in those not receiving a concomitant enzyme inducer. AEs, particularly dizziness, were common but often disappeared with a slight dose reduction. The results are consistent with those from randomized controlled trials.

Perampanel for focal epilepsy: insights from early clinical experience

Perampanel is approved for adjunctive therapy of focal epilepsy with or without secondarily generalized seizures in patients aged >12 years. This narrative review uses real-world and clinical trial data to elucidate perampanel's role in the clinic. Audit data show good tolerability with perampanel and higher freedom-from-seizure rates in elderly vs younger patients. When using perampanel in elderly patients, special attention should be given to comorbidities and co-medication to avoid potential interactions or adverse events. Slower titration is generally recommended, and seizure control should be reassessed at a dose of 4 mg before further dose increases. Perampanel efficacy is similar in adolescents and adults; however, somnolence, nasopharyngitis, and aggression are more frequent in adolescents vs the overall population. Individualized and slow-dose titration can minimize adverse events. Low serum concentrations of perampanel may occur in patients also receiving some enzyme-inducing anti-epileptic drugs; a perampanel dose increase may be required. Adverse events of importance with perampanel include dizziness; anger, aggression, and hostile behavior (particularly in adolescents); and falls (particularly in patients >65 years). An individualized approach to dosing, including slower up-titration and bedtime dosing, reduces dizziness risk. Other drugs may cause or aggravate dizziness; reducing concomitant drugs may be necessary when up-titrating perampanel. It would seem clinically appropriate to give due consideration to avoiding use in patients with a history of anger or hostile/aggressive behavior. The possibility of such behaviors should be discussed with patients before starting perampanel, with monitoring during up-titration. Slower up-titration of perampanel in older patients helps reduce fall risk.

Can the adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs be detected in saccadic eye movements?

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to determine whether the adverse effects of antiepileptic-drugs could be assessed by the eye movements of epilepsy patients.

METHODS

This study was performed prospectively in a single tertiary hospital. The inclusion criteria for this study were as follows: (1) consecutive patients with epilepsy taking antiepileptic-drugs regularly for at least 1 year, (2) the absence of structural lesions on MRI, (3) an age ≥16 years old, (4) not using medications that could influence eye movement, and (5) a normal neurological examination. The latency, peak velocity and accuracy of the saccades and the gain of the pursuits were recorded by video-based electro-oculography. We analyzed the differences in the parameters of the eye movements for 75 patients with epilepsy and 20 normal controls matched for age and sex.

RESULTS

The total latency (1017.7 ± 148.9 ms vs. 1150.7 ± 106.6 ms, p=0.0003) and accuracy [370.7% (95% CI 364.1-376.4%, range 306-408.2%), 92.7% as total accuracy normalized value vs. 383.6% (95% CI 378.8-398%, range 322.9-417.4%), 95.9% as total accuracy normalized value, p=0.0005] were significantly different between the patients with epilepsy and normal controls. For the detection of nystagmus with video-based electro-oculography, the clear cutoff values of total accuracy (≤388.7%, 97.2% as total accuracy normalized value) revealed 93.4% sensitivity and 28.6% specificity, and the clear cutoff values of total latency (≤1005.5 ms) showed 49.2% sensitivity and 78.6% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

The total latency and accuracy of video-based electro-oculography may be screened to identify patients with a high risk of adverse effects with antiepileptic-drugs.

Network meta-analyses of antiepileptic drug efficacy and tolerability in drug-resistant focal epilepsies: a clinical perspective

PURPOSE

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a new technique that allows multiple treatment comparisons and provides estimates of effect sizes for all possible pair-wise comparisons. Several NMAs of antiepileptic drug (AED) efficacy and tolerability in individuals with refractory focal epilepsy, however, came to non-specific and, in some cases, divergent conclusions. We review some clinical factors that may be responsible for these inconsistent findings.

RESULTS

A major issue is the small number of individuals included in the meta-analyses with consequent wide confidence intervals and lack of ability to achieve significant results. Further issues are lack of robustness of the measured efficacy outcome-the responder ratio (the percentage of individuals with a >50 % improvement in seizure frequency); the selection of randomized studies (RCTs) included, i.e., the inclusion of studies with heterogeneous populations (children and adults); and inclusion of people treated with different doses of the experimental drug. Some methods of analysing data from RCTs, such as the last observation carried forward (LOCF) analysis, the choice of different phases of the study to compare to baseline, and the year in which the trial was conducted, selectively affect measurement of efficacy outcomes. Titration speed and other methodological aspects selectively affect tolerability.

CONCLUSION

Several factors restrict the analysis of clinically useful estimates of the comparative efficacy of AEDs, while analysis of tolerability may be easier to accomplish.

Prospective audits with newer antiepileptic drugs in focal epilepsy: insights into population responses?

Despite the availability of a wide range of new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), there is little evidence that their introduction has substantially altered outcomes. This paper reviews data from 5 consecutive prospective audits with new AEDs using similar methodology. Prospective audits with topiramate (TPM; n=135), levetiracetam (LEV; n=136), zonisamide (ZNS; n=141), pregabalin (PGB; n=135), and lacosamide (LCM; n=160) were undertaken in treated patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures. Follow-up continued until one of four endpoints was reached: seizure freedom for ≥6months on unchanged dosing; ≥50% reduction (responder) in seizure frequency on the highest tolerated dose compared with baseline; <50% seizure frequency reduction (marginal response) compared with baseline in patients wishing to continue treatment with the new AED; or withdrawal due to lack of efficacy, side effects, or both. A greater proportion of seizure-free patients occurred with LEV (23.5%), LCM (21.9%), and TPM (20.7%) than with ZNS (12.8%) and PGB (10.4%). A higher percentage discontinued treatment with ZNS (41.8%) and PGB (50.4%) than with LEV (32.4%), TPM (31.1%), and LCM (22.5%). Most seizure-free patients responded to the new agent as first or second add-on (TPM 96%; LEV 97%; ZNS 89%; PGB 86%; LCM 97%) often at modest or moderate dosing (TPM 68%, ≤200mg/day; LEV 63%, ≤1000mg/day; ZNS 61%, ≤100mg/day; PGB 86%, ≤300mg/day; LCM 74%, ≤200mg/day). With <10% of patients discontinuing all AEDs due to lack of efficacy, tolerability was the major factor influencing the number of patients remaining on treatment. Lacosamide was the best (77% patients continued treatment), while PGB was the worst (50% continued treatment) tolerated AED. Overall, seizure freedom was achieved in <25% of patients in each audit, mainly as a first or second add-on, with best tolerated AEDs producing a higher number of good outcomes. Seizures in very few patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, as defined by the International League Against Epilepsy task force, responded to any of the 5 newer AEDs. These data support the suggestion that the introduction of modern agents has not importantly impacted the outcomes in refractory epilepsy.