Efficacy, tolerability and safety of add-on third-generation antiseizure medications in treating focal seizures worldwide: a network meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled trials

Background

Adjunctive newer antiseizure medications (ASMs) are being used in patients with treatment-resistant focal-onset seizures (FOS). An updated network meta-analysis (NMA) was necessary to compile evidence in this critical area.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus from their inception until 17 January 2024, evaluating the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of rufinamide (RUF), brivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), retigabine (RTG), and perampanel (PER) as adjunctive treatments for FOS. Efficacy outcomes included seizure response and seizure freedom. Tolerability was assessed by discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Safety outcomes were evaluated based on the number of patients experiencing at least one AE and serious adverse events (SAEs). This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023485130).

Findings

A total of 29 studies involving 11,750 participants were included. For seizure response, all ASMs were significantly superior to placebo, with RTG ranking highest, followed by CNB. Considering dosage, CNB 400 mg/d was top-ranked, followed by RTG 1200 mg/d. For seizure freedom, BRV was highest-ranked, followed by CNB, with BRV 100 mg/d leading, followed by CNB 400 mg/d. Regarding tolerability, LCM 600 mg/d had the lowest ranking, followed by CNB 400 mg/d. For the safety outcome of AEs, ESL 1200 mg/d was ranked lowest, followed by CNB 400 mg/d. Regarding SAEs, LCM 400 mg/d was ranked lowest, followed by RTG 1200 mg/d.

Interpretation

ASMs at different dosages have varying efficacy and tolerability profiles. We have provided hierarchical rankings of ASMs for efficacy and safety outcomes. Our findings offer the most comprehensive evidence available to inform patients, families, physicians, guideline developers, and policymakers about the choice of ASMs in patients with treatment-resistant FOS.

Funding

None.

Lipid profile with eslicarbazepine acetate and carbamazepine monotherapy in adult patients with newly diagnosed focal seizures: post hoc analysis of a phase III trial and open-label extension study

Background

Antiseizure medications can have negative effects on plasma lipid levels.

Objectives

To evaluate plasma lipid changes in patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy treated with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) or controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) monotherapy during a phase III, randomized, double-blind (DB) trial and 2 years of ESL treatment in an open-label extension (OLE).

Design

Post hoc analysis of a phase III trial and OLE study.

Methods

Proportions of patients with elevated levels of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were assessed at DB baseline, OLE baseline (last visit of DB trial), and end of OLE.

Results

A total of 184 patients received ESL monotherapy during the OLE: 96 received ESL monotherapy in the DB trial and 88 patients received CBZ-CR monotherapy. The proportions of patients with elevated total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol increased significantly during the DB trial in those treated with CBZ-CR monotherapy [total cholesterol, +14.9% (p < 0.001); LDL cholesterol, +11.5% (p = 0.012)] but decreased significantly after switching to ESL monotherapy in the OLE [total cholesterol, -15.3% (p = 0.008); LDL cholesterol, -11.1% (p = 0.021)]. No significant changes were observed in those treated with ESL monotherapy during the DB trial and OLE. At the end of the DB trial, between-group differences (ESL-CBZ-CR) in the proportions of patients with elevated total and LDL cholesterol were -13.6% (p = 0.037) and -12.3% (p = 0.061), respectively; at the end of the OLE, these between-group differences were -6.0% (p = 0.360) and -0.6% (p = 1.000), respectively.

Conclusion

A lower proportion of patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy had increased levels of total and LDL cholesterol, compared to baseline, following monotherapy with ESL versus CBZ-CR; after switching from CBZ-CR to ESL, the proportions of patients with increased levels decreased significantly.

Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01162460/NCT02484001; EudraCT 2009-011135-13/2015-001243-36.

Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of perampanel and oxcarbazepine as monotherapy in children and adolescents with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy

Objective: This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of perampanel and oxcarbazepine as monotherapy in children with focal epilepsy (FE). Methods: This is an ambispective, single-center, non-inferiority study comparing the effectiveness and safety of perampanel (PER) monotherapy and oxcarbazepine (OXC) monotherapy in children with newly diagnosed FE. The primary endpoint was a six-month seizure freedom rate. The secondary endpoints included retention, responder, and seizure freedom rates at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were also recorded for both groups. Results: One hundred and thirty children and adolescents aged from 4 to 18years newly diagnosed with FE between May 2020 and November 2022 in Wuhan Children's Hospital were included. There were 71 patients in the PER group and 59 patients in the OXC group. In the per protocol set (PPS), 50 (78.1%) in the PER group and 43 (78.2%) in the OXC group completed six months of treatment without seizures. The lower 95% CI (66.0%-87.5%) limit of PER was higher than the non-inferiority margin of 62.4% (80% of the 6-month seizure freedom rate in the OXC group); PER was non-inferior to OXC. The 3-month and 12-month seizure freedom rates were 77.1% and 82.9% for the PER group, respectively, while they were 80.4% and 75.8% for the OXC group. There were no serious adverse events in both groups. Conclusion: PER showed comparable effectiveness and safety compared with OXC in children with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, which might be an effective and safe treatment for children and adolescents with newly diagnosed FE. Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier ChiCTR2300074696.

The effect of cannabidiol on seizure features and quality of life in drug-resistant frontal lobe epilepsy patients: a triple-blind controlled trial

Background

Treatment-resistant epileptic seizures are associated with reduced quality of life (QoL). As polypharmacy with routine antiseizure medications has many side effects, novel add-on treatments are necessary. Recent research showed the efficacy of add-on therapy by cannabidiol (CBD) on refractory epilepsy. We attempted to extend data on the efficacy and safety profile of CBD in patients with frontal lobe treatment-resistant epilepsy.

Methods

A total of 27 patients were recruited into two CBD (n = 12) and placebo (n = 15) groups. The CBD group received a highly purified liposomal preparation of the drug in addition to routine antiseizure medications. The placebo group only received antiseizure medications. This experiment followed a triple-blinding protocol. Outcome measures were seizure frequency, the Chalfont seizure severity scale (CSSS), and the quality of life questionnaire score (QOLIE-31) assessed at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks.

Results

At 4 weeks, results indicated that a higher fraction of patients in the CBD group (66.67%) showed improvement in seizure, compared to the placebo group (20.00%). Before-after comparison revealed that CBD, unlike routine ADEs, was effective in reducing the occurrence of seizures at the study's final timepoint [mean difference 45.58, 95% CI (8.987 to 82.18), p = 0.009]. Seizure severity was not affected by study groups or time intervals (repeated-measures ANOVA p > 0.05). Post-hoc tests found that the QoLI-31 score was improved at 8 weeks compared to baseline [mean diff. -5.031, 95% CI (-9.729 to -0.3328), p = 0.032]. The difference in cases who experienced enhanced QoL was meaningful between the CBD and placebo groups at 8 weeks [RR: 2.160, 95% CI (1.148 to 4.741), p = 0.018] but not at 4 weeks (p = 0.653). A positive finding for QoL improvement was associated with a positive finding for seizure frequency reduction [r = 0.638, 95% CI (0.296 to 0.835), p = 0.001]. Interestingly, limiting the correlation analysis to cases receiving CBD indicated that QoL improvement was not linked with seizure parameters such as severity and frequency (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The present study suggests the benefit of a purified and highly efficient preparation of CBD for seizure frequency reduction and improvement of QoL in refractory frontal lobe epilepsy. Further study with longer follow-ups and larger sample size is advised.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.irct.ir/trial/56790, identifier: IRCT20210608051515N1.

The Efficacy and Cognitive Impact of Perampanel Monotherapy in Patients with Self-Limited Epilepsy with Centrotemporal Spikes: A Retrospective Analysis

Objective

The third generation of antiepileptic medication (ASM) perampanel (PER), is mostly used as an add-on treatment for refractory epilepsy patients, and rarely used as a monotherapy. This study aims to observe the efficacy and assess the cognitive effects of PER monotherapy in patients with self-limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (SeLECTS).

Patients and Methods

Through screening, 86 patients who were first diagnosed with SeLECTS and treated with PER monotherapy were included in this study. All patients were followed up at least 12 months, and Evaluated the efficacy and safety of PER by observing the seizures of patients. At the same time, we used the P300 event-related potential (ERP) component and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) to evaluate the cognitive changes in children before and after treatment with PER.

Results

Ten percent of the children experienced adverse effects, such as dizziness, gait instability, and irritability. The drug retention rate at the last follow-up was 98.83%. Further more, the P300 ERP component and WISC-IV tests were performed no significant difference before and 12 months after PER monotherapy in SeLECTS children.

Conclusion

The third-generation of ASM PER monotherapy had a clear effect in children with SeLECTS. A small dose of PER can control seizures well and has no obvious effect on cognitive development.

Initial monotherapy with eslicarbazepine acetate for the management of adult patients with focal epilepsy in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of observational studies

AIM OF THE STUDY

To assess the effectiveness, overall tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as an initial or early monotherapy treatment of adult patients with focal epilepsy under real-world practice conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We focused on real-world longitudinal studies that included or separately reported the results of at least one of the efficacy outcomes of interest. A DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used with the presentation of the 95% confidence intervals of the estimate.

RESULTS

5 studies met our selection criteria and were included in the quantitative synthesis. All studies were observational and uncontrolled studies, and all but one were retrospective studies. The pooled proportion of patients who were seizure-free for the entire study period was 64.6% (95% CI, 45.7 to 79.8) at month 6 and 56.6% (95% CI, 50.2 to 62.8) at month 12. Pooled retention rates were 95.0% (95% CI, 90.3 to 97.5) at 6 months and 83.6% (95% CI, 73.9 to 90.1) at 12 months. The pooled proportion of patients who reported at least one adverse event was 27.2% (95% CI, 21.7 to 33.6), and the pooled proportion of patients who discontinued ESL due to adverse events was 8.9% (95% CI 6.2 to 12.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that initial or early monotherapy with ESL is effective and well-tolerated for the management of adult patients with focal epilepsy in clinical practice, with results that are at least similar to those reported in the pivotal randomized clinical trial of ESL monotherapy. No new safety signals with ESL have been identified in this systematic review.

Comparative economic outcomes in patients with focal seizures initiating eslicarbazepine acetate versus brivaracetam in the long-term care setting in the USA

Aim: To compare all-cause and epilepsy-specific pharmacy and total costs associated with initiation of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) or brivaracetam (BRV) among patients with focal seizures in long-term care (LTC) in the US. Methods: This retrospective analysis used data from IQVIA's New Data Warehouse. Results: 298 patients initiated ESL and 282 patients initiated BRV. Initiation of ESL versus BRV was associated with 33.3% lower all-cause pharmacy costs, 34.4% lower epilepsy-specific pharmacy costs, 21.3% lower all-cause total costs and 30.9% lower epilepsy-specific total costs (all p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Among patients with focal seizures in LTC in the US, initiation of ESL versus BRV was associated with significant reductions in all-cause and epilepsy-specific pharmacy and total costs compared with initiation of BRV.

Perampanel monotherapy for the treatment of epilepsy: Clinical trial and real-world evidence

Perampanel, a selective, non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist, is a once-daily oral anti-seizure medication (ASM) for focal-onset seizures (FOS) and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). In the US, perampanel is approved for the treatment of FOS (adjunctive and monotherapy), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), in patients aged ≥4 years, and as adjunctive treatment of GTCS in patients aged ≥12 years. The monotherapy approvals in the US were based on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) policy allowing extrapolation of adjunctive data to the monotherapy setting in the absence of randomized controlled monotherapy trials; since then, perampanel monotherapy has received approvals in approximately 48 countries. As there are key differences in clinical evidence of perampanel as adjunctive therapy vs monotherapy, we review the clinical outcomes of perampanel when administered as primary or secondary monotherapy. Eight publications reporting the efficacy and safety outcomes of perampanel monotherapy in clinical trial and real-world settings were selected during our literature search and are included; these comprise three Eisai-sponsored studies in patients with epilepsy: one prospective, open-label, Phase III clinical trial of patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy (Study 342 [FREEDOM]) and two retrospective, real-world Phase IV studies of patients with epilepsy who received perampanel during routine clinical care (Studies 504 and 506 [PROVE]); and five retrospective, real-world studies in patients with epilepsy who were prescribed perampanel during routine clinical care. Results from these studies demonstrated that seizure freedom may be achieved following treatment with perampanel monotherapy (either primary or secondary), with favorable retention rates and safety profiles. Overall, the clinical evidence supports the use of perampanel monotherapy both in newly diagnosed patients and in those who have been unable to control their seizures with other ASMs.

The pharmacokinetic, safety, and tolerability profiles of eslicarbazepine acetate are comparable between Korean and White subjects

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a prodrug antiseizure medication for the treatment of focal seizures. ESL shows a well-established pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic relationship and has similar extrinsic epilepsy-related factors across ethnicities. This study evaluated and compared ESL safety, tolerability, and PK characteristics between Korean and White subjects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single- and multiple-dose escalation study was conducted in healthy Korean and White adults. Participants randomly received a single dose and multiple oral doses of ESL (400-1600 mg) or placebo once daily for 11 days at a ratio of 8:2. Serial blood samples were collected to determine the plasma concentration of ESL and its metabolites (eslicarbazepine, [R-licarbazepine and oxcarbazepine). Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study. A total of 29 Korean and 20 White subjects completed the study. The PK profiles of the metabolites of ESL were similar between Korean and White subjects. The geometric mean ratio (90% confidence interval) of Korean to White subjects for the area under the concentration-time curve within a dosing interval of eslicarbazepine was 1.06 (0.97-1.17) and 0.96 (0.87-1.06) after multiple oral doses of 400 and 1600 mg ESL, respectively. Other PK parameters were also similar between the two ethnic groups. ESL was well-tolerated in healthy Korean and White subjects, and its PK characteristics were similar between the two ethnic groups. The results of this study support to use the same dosage regimen of ESL in both White and Korean patients with seizures.

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

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

Update on Antiseizure Medications 2022

EDITORS NOTE

The article "Update on Antiseizure Medications 2022" by Dr Abou-Khalil was first published in the February 2016 Epilepsy issue of Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology as "Antiepileptic Drugs," and at the request of the Editor-in-Chief was updated by Dr Abou-Khalil for the 2019 issue and again for this issue.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, eventrate, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: eventrate 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and eventrate was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or eventrate in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), eventrate 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, eventrate, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug eventrate, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and eventrate would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.

Impact of carbamazepine on vitamin D levels: A meta-analysis

PURPOSE

There are longstanding concerns about the impact of enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medications (ASMs) on vitamin D, an important molecule in both bone metabolism and inflammation pathways. The relationship between chronic use of carbamazepine and vitamin D levels has been studied, but no comprehensive review to inform practitioners and policymakers is currently available. We performed a meta-analysis on studies that measured 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels in persons taking carbamazepine to determine whether this drug significantly reduces circulating 25OHD.

PRINCIPAL RESULTS

From a literature search of the terms "carbamazepine" and "vitamin D", we identified 12 studies that measured 25OHD levels in persons on carbamazepine monotherapy groups and controls. Persons taking carbamazepine had significantly lower 25OHD levels than persons not taking carbamazepine. The average 25OHD levels of carbamazepine-treated patients across all studies was 21.8 ng/mL (IQR 15.4,26.0) whereas 25OHD levels of control subjects was 28.0 ng/mL (IQR 20.8,30.4). The weighted difference of means was 4.00 ng/mL of 25OHD. Neither age nor sex nor duration of carbamazepine therapy had a significant impact on this finding. The effect was similar irrespective of whether the comparator group consisted of healthy controls or epilepsy patients taking non-inducing medications.

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

Carbamazepine use is associated with a reduction of 25OHD levels. In combination with other literature establishing the problematic metabolic effects of carbamazepine, this meta-analysis provides additional evidence in favor of the use of alternative ASMs as first-line agents. At minimum, vitamin D supplementation should be strongly considered for patients prescribed carbamazepine.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety and Efficacy of Natalizumab as Adjunctive Therapy for People With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Phase 2 Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To explore efficacy/safety of natalizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti-α4-integrin antibody, as adjunctive therapy in adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

METHODS

Participants with ≥6 seizures during the 6-week baseline period were randomized 1:1 to receive natalizumab 300 mg IV or placebo every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. Primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline in log-transformed seizure frequency, with a predefined threshold for therapeutic success of 31% relative reduction in seizure frequency over the placebo group. Countable seizure types were focal aware with motor signs, focal impaired awareness, and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic. Secondary efficacy endpoints/safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 32 and 34 participants dosed in the natalizumab 300 mg and placebo groups, 30 (94%) and 31 (91%) completed the placebo-controlled treatment period, respectively (one participant was randomized to receive natalizumab but not dosed due to IV complications). Estimated relative change in seizure frequency of natalizumab over placebo was -14.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] -46.1%-36.1%; p = 0.51). The proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency was 31.3% for natalizumab and 17.6% for placebo (odds ratio 2.09, 95% CI 0.64-6.85; p = 0.22). Adverse events were reported in 24 (75%) and 22 (65%) participants receiving natalizumab vs placebo.

DISCUSSION

Although the threshold to demonstrate efficacy was not met, there were no unexpected safety findings and further exploration of possible anti-inflammatory therapies for drug-resistant epilepsy is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT03283371.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class I evidence that IV natalizumab every 4 weeks, compared to placebo, did not significantly change seizure frequency in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy. The study lacked the precision to exclude an important effect of natalizumab.

In vitro and in vivo anti-epileptic efficacy of eslicarbazepine acetate in a mouse model of KCNQ2-related self-limited epilepsy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The KCNQ2 gene encodes for the K_v 7.2 subunit of non-inactivating potassium channels. KCNQ2-related diseases range from autosomal dominant neonatal self-limited epilepsy, often caused by KCNQ2 haploinsufficiency, to severe encephalopathies caused by KCNQ2 missense variants. In vivo and in vitro effects of the sodium channel blocker eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) and eslicarbazepine metabolite (S-Lic) in a mouse model of self-limited neonatal epilepsy as a first attempt to assess the utility of ESL in the KCNQ2 disease spectrum was investigated.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Effects of S-Lic on in vitro physiological and pathological hippocampal neuronal activity in slices from mice carrying a heterozygous deletion of Kcnq2 (Kcnq2^+/- ) and Kcnq2^+/+ mice were investigated. ESL in vivo efficacy was investigated in the 6-Hz psychomotor seizure model in both Kcnq2^+/- and Kcnq2^+/+ mice.

KEY RESULTS

S-Lic increased the amplitude and decreased the incidence of physiological sharp wave-ripples in a concentration-dependent manner and slightly decreased gamma oscillations frequency. 4-Aminopyridine-evoked seizure-like events were blocked at high S-Lic concentrations and substantially reduced in incidence at lower concentrations. These results were not different in Kcnq2^+/+ and Kcnq2^+/- mice, although the EC₅₀ estimation implicated higher efficacy in Kcnq2^+/- animals. In vivo, Kcnq2^+/- mice had a lower seizure threshold than Kcnq2^+/+ mice. In both genotypes, ESL dose-dependently displayed protection against seizures.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

S-Lic slightly modulates hippocampal oscillations and blocks epileptic activity in vitro and in vivo. Our results suggest that the increased excitability in Kcnq2^+/- mice is effectively targeted by S-Lic high concentrations, presumably by blocking diverse sodium channel subtypes.

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.

Safety of Eslicarbazepine Acetate in Elderly Versus Non-Elderly Patients with Focal Seizures: From Pooled Data of Clinical Studies to 8 Years of Post-Marketing Experience

Introduction

The prevalence of epilepsy increases in elderly patients aged > 65 years, and treatment is challenging because clinical data are limited.

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate the safety of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients aged ≥ 65 years versus non-elderly patients with focal seizures.

Methods

The safety data of seven phase II and III, double-blind, open-label, randomized clinical studies of ESL in adults were pooled. At least possibly related treatmentemergent adverse events (TEAEs) and ESL post-marketing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were analyzed separately by age categories.

Results

The most frequently reported at least possibly related TEAEs in elderly (N = 120) versus non-elderly patients (N = 1863) were dizziness (10.8 vs. 20.3%), somnolence (9.2 vs. 12.6%), and hyponatremia (6.7 vs. 1.5%). Elderly patients presented a higher incidence of serious TEAEs (22.5 vs. 7.6%) and at least possibly related serious TEAEs (6.7 vs. 2.5%), probably because treatment was complicated by comorbidities and comedications. After an estimated cumulative exposure of over 2 million patient-months worldwide and 8 years of post-marketing surveillance, hyponatremia was the most frequently reported ADR (n = 232), accounting for 14.6% and 6.8% of the ADRs reported in elderly (n = 473) and non-elderly patients (n = 2406), respectively. This was followed by ADR/safety information such as drug–dose titration not performed (7.0 vs. 5.4%), product use in unapproved indication (4.9 vs. 1.9%), off-label use (3.4 vs. 2.2%), dizziness (3.4 vs. 3.5%), and seizure (2.1 vs. 5.8%).

Conclusion

No specific safety issue was identified from the pooled studies for elderly compared with non-elderly patients. After 8 years of post-marketing surveillance, the qualitative safety of ESL remains similar to that observed in the clinical studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40264-021-01097-5.

Neuropharmacology of Antiseizure Drugs

BACKGROUND

Antiseizure drugs (ASDs) are the primary therapy for epilepsy, with more than 20 drugs introduced into clinical practice to date. These drugs are typically grouped by their mechanisms of action and therapeutic spectrum. This article aims to educate non-neurologists and medical students about the new frontiers in the pharmacology of ASDs and presents the current state of the literature on the efficacy and tolerability of these agents.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and evidence-based meta-analyses of ASD efficacy and tolerability as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier Clinical Pharmacology.

RESULTS

The choice of ASD varies primarily according to the seizure type. Practical guidelines for ASD selection in patients with new-onset and drug-resistant epilepsy were recently published. The guidelines have shown that the newer-generation drugs, which have unique mechanistic and pharmacokinetic properties, are better tolerated but have similar efficacy compared with the older drugs. Several ASDs are effective as first-line monotherapy in focal seizures, including lamotrigine, carbamazepine, phenytoin, levetiracetam, and zonisamide. Valproate remains the first-line drug for many patients with generalized and unclassified epilepsies. However, valproate should be avoided, if possible, in women of childbearing potential because of teratogenicity. Toxicity profile precludes several drugs from use as first-line treatment, for example, vigabatrin, felbamate, and rufinamide.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiseizure drugs have different pharmacologic profiles that should be considered when selecting and prescribing these agents for epilepsy. These include pharmacokinetic properties, propensity for drug-drug interactions, and adverse effects.

Response to first antiseizure medication in patients diagnosed with epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the interaction among the efficacy, tolerability and overall effectiveness of the first antiseizure medication in patients 16 years or older with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 584 patients who were referred to the Tampere University Hospital between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2005 and were diagnosed with epilepsy. All individuals were retrospectively followed up until 31 December 2006, until reaching at least one year of seizure freedom, or until death if before the cut-off date.

RESULTS

Overall, after thorough validation of the epilepsy diagnosis 459 patients comprised the study cohort; among these patients, 73% of males and 60% of females became seizure-free for at least one year with the first antiseizure medication. The seizure freedom rate for focal epilepsy was 67%. There was no significant difference in focal epilepsy to achieve seizure freedom between oxcarbazepine, carbamazepine or valproic acid. The seizure freedom rate among patients above 60 years of age was 67%. For patients with structural and unknown aetiology, seizure freedom rates were 61.5% and 75.3%, respectively. Additionally, epileptiform activity on EEG in patients with focal epilepsy decreased odds of seizure freedom in adjusted logistic regression models (OR 0.55, p=0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a more positive prediction of seizure freedom compared with previous studies with the onset of epilepsy at 16 years or older with an overall estimation that two-thirds of patients with new-onset epilepsy obtain seizure freedom with the first antiseizure medication.

Comparative Economic Outcomes in Patients with Focal Seizure Initiating First-Line Eslicarbazepine Acetate Monotherapy versus Generic Antiseizure Drugs

Objective

To examine the association between initiating first-line (1L) monotherapy with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) vs a generic antiseizure drug (ASD) and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and charges in adults with treated focal seizures (FS).

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of Symphony Health’s Integrated Dataverse^® open-source claims data. Two cohorts were identified as having initiated 1L monotherapy with ESL or literature-defined generic ASDs. Linear regression models with person fixed effects and inverse probability treatment weights assessed the relative additional changes in HCRU and charges among patients who received ESL compared to generic ASD.

Results

A total of 250 and 43,220 patients initiated ESL (48.3 years; 57.2% female) or a generic ASD (54.5 years; 58.1% female), respectively. Compared to patients initiating a generic ASD, patients treated with ESL had additional reductions of 11.8 percentage points in the likelihood of any all-cause outpatient visits (P<0.001), 7.4 percentage points in the likelihood of any emergency department (ED) visits (P=0.013), and 22.7 percentage points in the likelihood of any FS-related outpatient visits (P<0.001). Patients initiating ESL had greater reductions in mean charges for all-cause medical ($2620; P=0.002), outpatient ($1995; P=0.005), and non-FS-related medical ($2708; P<0.001) services. Patients initiating ESL had greater relative increases in mean total prescription ($1368; P<0.001) and ASD-related prescription ($1636; P<0.001) charges, but greater relative reductions in non-ASD prescription ($269; P=0.032) charges. The increases in prescription charges were of a lower magnitude than the decreases in medical charges.

Conclusion

Initiation of ESL as 1L monotherapy was associated with statistically significantly greater reductions in any use of several all-cause and FS-related services, number of visits, and charges compared to initiation of a generic ASD as 1L monotherapy in patients with FS. Initiation of a generic ASD as 1L monotherapy was associated with significantly smaller increases in total prescription charges and ASD-related prescription charges.

Healthcare Resource Utilization Among Patients with Focal Seizures Treated with Eslicarbazepine Acetate in the US Long-Term Care Setting: A Retrospective Claims Database Analysis

Introduction

The aim of this study was to compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) before and after initiation of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in the long-term care (LTC) setting (rehabilitation center, mental health center, LTC non-skilled nursing facility/assisted-living facility, home health, assisted living, nursing home, other/unknown).

Methods

This retrospective analysis used IQVIA’s New Data Warehouse, which includes deterministically linked LTC, prescription, and professional fee claims data and IQVIA Hospital Charge Data Master database. The study period was 1 April 2013 to 31 December 2019. The index date was the date of ESL initiation in the LTC setting. Inclusion criteria were: (1) ≥ 1 new ESL prescription between 1 April 2014 and 31 December 2018; (2) diagnosis of focal seizure (FS) during the 12 months pre-index date; and (3) no ESL prescription during the 12-month period pre-index. A 12-month pre-post analysis compared epilepsy-specific and all-cause HCRU before and after ESL initiation. Categorical variables were compared with McNemar’s tests.

Results

A total of 307 patients (mean age 52.2 years, 57.7% male) with FS were included, of whom 24.8% were in nursing homes. Patients used a mean of 3.1 antiseizure drugs prior to initiation of ESL, and 87.9% of patients initiated ESL as adjunctive treatment. There were significant reductions in proportion of patients with epilepsy specific physician office visits, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and all-cause physician office visits and hospitalizations in the post-index period compared to the pre-index period (P < 0.05). Similar results were observed in sensitivity (patients with an epilepsy diagnosis) and subgroup analyses [presence or absence of intellectual developmental disorders or age (≥ 65 and < 65 years)].

Conclusion

Proportion of patients with epilepsy-specific physician office visits, ED visits, hospitalizations, and all-cause physician office visits and hospitalizations were significantly reduced following initiation of ESL in patients with FS in LTC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-021-00244-5.

What has been the impact of new drug treatments on epilepsy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nearly two dozen antiseizure medications (ASMs) with different mechanisms of action have been introduced over the past three decades with the aim of providing better efficacy or safety profile than the previous drugs. Several new ASMs with improvement on a classic drug family or have novel mechanisms of action have been recently approved for epilepsy. The present review explored recent studies or guidelines on new agents and discussed the potential impact of these novel treatments on epilepsy management and future directions of research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Long-term cohort studies showed that, collectively, the second-generation did not improve the overall prognosis of epilepsy. Individual monotherapy studies showed similar efficacy of second-generation (levetiracetam and zonisamide) and third-generation (eslicarbazepine acetate and lacosamide) ASMs compared to controlled-release carbamazepine for the treatment of focal epilepsy. However, there appears to be no evidence to support any second-generation or third-generation ASMs to be as efficacious as valproate monotherapy for generalized and unclassified epilepsies. Cannabidiol adjunctive treatments were found to be efficacious for Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Although most newer generation ASMs are less prone to drug-drug interactions, stiripentol and cannabidiol can elevate the plasma concentration of N-desmethylclobazam, the active metabolite of clobazam. Generally speaking, the second-generation ASMs have lower teratogenic risk than the older drugs but there is scant study on neurodevelopmental effect of third-generation ASMs.

SUMMARY

Although the newer generation ASMs may not have improved the overall seizure control they have advantages in terms of drug-drug interactions and teratogenicity, and thus offer valuable individualized options in the treatment of epilepsy.

Efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate as a first or later adjunctive therapy in patients with focal seizures

INTRODUCTION

We report outcomes from an open-label, non-randomized, 24-week study of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in adults at earlier and later stages of their treatment history for focal seizures, conducted in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

ESL was taken as the first adjunctive therapy to levetiracetam (LEV) or lamotrigine (LTG) monotherapy (Arm 1), or as a later adjunctive therapy in treatment-resistant patients (Arm 2). The primary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of ESL (by retention rates). Secondary objectives were to evaluate efficacy (seizure frequency), safety, tolerability, behavioral changes, mood, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with ESL treatment.

RESULTS

The modified intent-to-treat population included 96 patients (Arm 1: n = 41; Arm 2: n = 55) and the safety population included 102 patients (Arm 1: n = 44; Arm 2: n = 58). Overall, 81.8 % of patients in Arm 1 and 63.8 % of patients in Arm 2 completed the 24-week maintenance period. Median reductions in standardized seizure frequency (SSF) were markedly higher in Arm 1 (72.8 %) than Arm 2 (22.8 %), as were responder rates (≥50 % reduction in SSF; Arm 1: 62.5 %; Arm 2: 38.5 %) and rates of seizure freedom (Arm 1: 25.0 %; Arm 2: 9.6 %). Efficacy outcomes were generally more favorable in patients taking ESL in combination with LEV versus other anti-seizure medications (ASMs). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 81 % vs 73 %) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (16 % vs 2 %) were reported more frequently in Arm 2 than Arm 1, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported infrequently (Arm 1: 0; Arm 2: 7 %). The most common TEAEs were dizziness, nausea, headache, somnolence, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, vomiting, and anxiety. There were no notable changes in depressive symptoms, mood status, or aggression throughout the study. Health and HRQoL scores were generally high at baseline and did not change throughout the study. However, on average, both clinicians and patients perceived improvement in illness over the course of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

ESL was effective and well tolerated both as the first adjunctive therapy to either of the most prescribed first-line ASMs, LEV or LTG, and as a later adjunctive therapy in treatment-resistant patients.

Current role of carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine in the management of epilepsy

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders, affecting approximately 50 million people worldwide. Despite a dramatic increase in treatment options over the past 30 years, it still ranks fourth in the world's disease burden. There are now close to 30 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), with more than two thirds introduced to the market after carbamazepine (CBZ) and one third after its derivative, oxcarbazepine (OXC). Following the introduction of these newer AEDs, the role of CBZ and OXC in the therapeutic armamentarium for seizure control and effective epilepsy management needs to be reviewed. The main guidelines list both CBZ and OXC as first-line options or second-line alternatives for the treatment of focal-onset epilepsy and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures. While evidence suggests that overall AEDs have similar efficacy, some newer AEDs may be better tolerated than CBZ. In line with this, there have been changes in treatment patterns, with many variations across different countries. However, CBZ remains among the two or three most prescribed drugs for focal epilepsy in many countries, and is widely used across Europe, Africa, South America, and Asia, where it represents a good compromise between cost, availability, and effectiveness. OXC is among the first-choice options for the initial treatment of focal-onset seizures in several countries, including the US and China, where the oral suspension is commonly prescribed. This review provides guidance on the optimal use of these two drugs in clinical practice, including in children, the elderly, and in pregnancy.

Effects of lacosamide and carbamazepine on lipids in a randomized trial

Objective

The effects of anticonvulsants on lipids are the subject of considerable concern and investigation, but there are almost no data on this issue from randomized trials. We evaluated serum lipid profiles in adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy, following randomization to lacosamide (LCM) or carbamazepine (CBZ) monotherapy.

Methods

We analyzed data from a Phase 3, international, randomized, double‐blind trial of LCM vs CBZ for the initial treatment of focal epilepsy. Serum lipid profiles in patients not taking lipid‐lowering agents and providing blood samples under fasting conditions before treatment, and following 3 or 12 months of treatment with LCM or CBZ at various doses were analyzed.

Results

At 12 months, 271 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria for the analysis. No change was observed in LCM‐treated patients for total cholesterol, cholesterol fractions, or triglycerides. CBZ‐treated patients showed an increase of 21.1 mg/dL in total cholesterol, 12.6 mg/dL in low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, 12.5 mg/dL in non–high density lipoprotein (non‐HDL) cholesterol, and 8.5 mg/dL in HDL cholesterol; triglycerides remained unchanged. The proportion of patients with elevated total cholesterol levels (above the upper limit of the reference range) did not change in the LCM treatment group (37.0% at Baseline; 34.8% at 12 months), but increased from 30.8% (at Baseline) to 49.6% (at 12 months) in the CBZ treatment group.

Significance

This study provides Class II evidence that CBZ elevates serum lipids, whereas LCM has no effect on lipids. It supports LCM as an appropriate choice for new‐onset focal epilepsy.

Pharmacological treatment of focal epilepsy in adults: an evidence based approach

INTRODUCTION

Focal seizures represent the most common seizure type and focal epilepsies the most common epilepsy type. Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) still represent the main form of treatment for epilepsy.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this review article is to provide an overview of available evidence about current and upcoming pharmacological options and strategies for adults with focal epilepsy focusing on the last 5 years.

EXPERT OPINION

Seventeen drugs are currently approved for the treatment of focal seizures including cenobamate as the very latest option. Ten of these drugs are also licensed for monotherapy. Level A evidence for initial monotherapy is available for seven drugs with no robust data supporting that one drug is superior to the other. Safety, tolerability as well as pharmacoeconomic reasons would then drive treatment decisions. Data on adjunctive treatment are available for 13 ASMs showing again no obvious difference in terms of efficacy. Evidence on specific drug combinations is almost non-existent and the final decision of combining specific drugs is based on the experience of the individual clinician rather than on robust evidence. Current outcome measures do not consider number of previously failed drugs and the observation period is often too short.

Evidence-based anti-seizure monotherapy in newly diagnosed epilepsy: A new approach

OBJECTIVES

To describe the process and results of the updated Swedish practice guidelines for monotherapy in epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Swedish Medical Products Agency led the process together with medical experts. Evidence rating in accordance with the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) template was linked to the Cochrane group's GRADE system. Evidence from recently published trials and meta-analyses was added. A national expert panel participated in the project and contributed their clinical experience.

RESULTS

In seizures with focal onset, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, or levetiracetam is recommended for children and adults (ILAE level A-C for adults/Cochrane level strong for children and adults). Oxcarbazepine is an alternative for children, although its level A evidence, in a single class I trial, could relate to poor phenytoin tolerability. Eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide, and zonisamide are alternatives for adults and gabapentin for the elderly (ILAE level A). Carbamazepine is not a first choice for the elderly due to its high potential for interactions. In generalized epilepsy with tonic-clonic seizures (GTC), lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and sodium valproate are recommended for children and adults (ILAE level C-D/Cochrane level moderate-strong) although sodium valproate is contraindicated in girls and women of childbearing age unless special considerations are met. Ethosuximide is the first choice in absence epilepsy without GTC (ILAE level A).

CONCLUSIONS

Lamotrigine and levetiracetam can be used as first choice for focal seizures and generalized epilepsy with GTC, suitable in all age-groups and for both men and women. Recommendations for GTC seizures have lower evidence than those for focal seizures.

Cortical stimulation in pharmacoresistant focal epilepsies

Pharmacoresistance and adverse drug events designate a considerable group of patients with focal epilepsies that require alternative treatments such as neurosurgical intervention and neurostimulation. Electrical or magnetic stimulations of cortical brain areas for the treatment of pharmacoresistant focal epilepsies emerged from preclinical studies and experience through intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in patients. Direct neurostimulation of seizure onset zones in neocortical brain areas may specifically affect neuronal networks involved in epileptiform activity without remarkable adverse influence on physiological cortical processing in immediate vicinity. Noninvasive low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation are suggested to be anticonvulsant; however, potential effects are ephemeral and require effect maintenance by ongoing stimulation. Invasive responsive neurostimulation, chronic subthreshold cortical stimulation, and epicranial cortical stimulation cover a broad range of different emerging technologies with intracranial and epicranial approaches that still have limited market access partly due to ongoing clinical development. Despite significant differences, the present bioelectronic technologies share common mode of actions with acute seizure termination by high-frequency stimulation and long-term depression induced by low-frequency magnetic or electrical stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation.

Impact of Early Initiation of Eslicarbazepine Acetate on Economic Outcomes Among Patients with Focal Seizure: Results from Retrospective Database Analyses

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the association between early initiation of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as first-line therapy (1L cohort) or as first adjunctive regimen to either levetiracetam (LEV) or lamotrigine (LTG) (add-on cohort), and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and charges among adults with treated focal seizures (FS).

METHODS

This retrospective, longitudinal cohort analysis used Symphony Health's Integrated Dataverse (IDV®) claims data to identify patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of FS who had a new prescription for ESL between April 2015 and June 2018. Baseline was the 90-day period immediately prior to the date of the first-dispensed claim for ESL (index date) with a follow-up of 1-4 consecutive 90-day periods. Linear regression models were estimated to assess changes in HCRU and charge outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 274 and 153 patients who received ESL in the 1L cohort and add-on cohort, respectively. The 1L cohort experienced significant reductions from baseline during follow-up in all-cause inpatient (IP; P < 0.0001), emergency room (ER; P < 0.0001), and outpatient (OP; P < 0.0001) visits; FS-related IP (P = 0.006) and OP (P < 0.0001) visits; total, medical, all-cause ER and OP, and FS-related medical charges (P < 0.05); and significant increases in total prescription and anti-seizure drug (ASD)-related prescription (P < 0.001) charges. The add-on cohort experienced significant reductions in all-cause IP (P = 0.009) and all-cause and FS-related OP visits (P < 0.0001 for both) and significant increases in total prescription and ASD-related prescription (P < 0.001) charges during the follow-up period. In both cohorts, the increases in prescription charges were smaller than the reduction in total medical charges.

CONCLUSION

Early initiation of ESL as 1L or add-on therapy was associated with statistically significant reductions in all-cause IP and all-cause and FS-related OP visits during follow-up compared to baseline. The 1L cohort also had statistically significant reductions in all-cause ER visits, FS-related IP visits, and total, medical, all-cause ER and OP, and FS-related medical charges. Knowledge of healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs of care in patients taking anti-seizure drugs (ASDs) is required to inform prescribing and formulary decision-making. Levetiracetam (LEV) and lamotrigine (LTG) are the most widely used first-line (1L) ASDs in the USA. Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), a third-generation ASD with sodium channel-modulating activity, is typically used in later lines of therapy. Sodium channel-blocking anti-seizure drugs may represent an effective treatment option for patients with epilepsy in the 1L setting. This study assessed the association between early initiation of ESL as 1L therapy (1L cohort) or as first adjunctive therapy to either LEV or LTG (add-on cohort), and HCRU and charges among adults with treated focal seizures (FS). The results showed that following ESL initiation the 1L cohort experienced significant reductions in all-cause inpatient (IP), emergency room (ER), and outpatient (OP) visits; FS-related IP and OP visits; and total, medical, all-cause ER and OP, and FS-related medical charges, and significant increases in total prescription and ASD-related prescription charges. The add-on cohort showed significant reductions in all-cause IP and all-cause and FS-related OP visits and significant increases in total prescription and ASD-related prescription charges. In both cohorts, the increases in prescription charges were smaller than the reduction in total medical charges. These data imply that use of ESL as 1L therapy in adult patients with FS could help conserve scarce healthcare resources and reduce the burden on healthcare budgets. These findings may inform selection of ASD therapy in this patient population.

Long-term efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: An open-label extension study

Objective

To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy during long‐term treatment.

Methods

An open‐label extension (OLE) study was conducted in adults completing a phase 3, randomized, double‐blind, noninferiority trial, during which they had received monotherapy with either once‐daily ESL or twice‐daily controlled‐release carbamazepine (CBZ‐CR) for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. In the OLE study, all patients received ESL (800‐1600 mg/d) for 2 years. Primary efficacy outcome was retention time (from baseline of the OLE study). Secondary efficacy assessments included seizure freedom rate (no seizures during the OLE study) and responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline of double‐blind trial). Safety assessments included evaluation of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results

Of 206 randomized patients, 96 who received ESL in the double‐blind trial (ESL/ESL) and 88 who received CBZ‐CR in the double‐blind trial (CBZ‐CR/ESL) were treated with ESL monotherapy (89.3% overall). Treatment retention time was similar between groups, with low probability of ESL withdrawal overall (<0.07 at any time). After 24 months, the probability of ESL withdrawal was 0.0638 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0292‐0.1366) in the ESL/ESL group and 0.0472 (95% CI = 0.0180‐0.1210) in the CBZ‐CR/ESL group. Seizure freedom rates were 90.6% (ESL/ESL) and 80.7% (CBZ‐CR/ESL; P = .0531). Responder rates remained >80% in both groups throughout the study. Incidence of serious TEAEs was similar between groups (7.3% vs 5.7%; 0% vs 1.1% possibly related), as were the incidences of TEAEs considered at least possibly related to treatment (17.7% vs 18.2%) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (3.1% vs 4.5%). The types of TEAEs were generally consistent with the known safety profile of ESL.

Significance

ESL monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated over the long term, including in patients who transitioned from CBZ‐CR monotherapy. No new safety concerns emerged.

Eslicarbazepine Acetate: A Review in Focal-Onset Seizures

Eslicarbazepine acetate (Zebinix^®), a voltage-gated sodium channel blocker, is a once-daily, orally administered anti-seizure medication available in the EU for use as monotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed focal-onset seizures and as adjunctive therapy in adults, adolescents and children aged > 6 years with focal-onset seizures. In adult patients, adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate was generally associated with a significant decrease in seizure frequency and an increase in responder rate compared with placebo. The drug was also an effective monotherapy agent in adult patients, demonstrating noninferiority to controlled-release carbamazepine, in terms of seizure freedom rates. In paediatric patients, eslicarbazepine acetate provided seizure control when administered as adjunctive therapy, with the benefits appearing to be dependent on age and dose. The antiepileptic efficacy of eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive therapy or as monotherapy was maintained during longer-term extension studies, with each extension study period being up to 2 years. Oral eslicarbazepine acetate was generally well tolerated when administered as adjunctive therapy or monotherapy in adult patients and when administered as adjunctive therapy in paediatric patients, with most adverse events being of mild or moderate intensity. In conclusion, with the convenience of once-daily administration, eslicarbazepine acetate is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment option for adults, adolescents and children aged > 6 years with focal-onset seizures.

Efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive therapy for refractory focal-onset seizures in children: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, phase-III clinical trial

PURPOSE

This was a phase-III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study aimed to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive therapy in pediatric patients with refractory focal-onset seizures (FOS).

METHODS

Children (2-18 years old) with FOS, receiving 1-2 antiepileptic drugs, were randomized to ESL or placebo. Treatment was started at 10 mg/kg/day, up-titrated up to 20-30 mg/kg/day, and maintained for 12 weeks, followed by one-year open-label follow-up. Primary efficacy endpoints were relative reduction in standardized seizure frequency (SSF) and proportion of responders (≥50% SSF reduction) from baseline. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat (ITT) set included 134 patients randomized to ESL and 129 to placebo; 89.6% and 91.5%, respectively, completed the trial. An unbalanced number of seizures at baseline were observed between groups. Least square (LS) mean relative change in SSF from baseline was higher in the ESL group (-18.1%) than in placebo (-8.6%). Proportion of responders between ESL and placebo groups was not statistically different. A post hoc analysis showed greater relative reduction in SSF in patients above 6 years old treated with ESL 20 or 30 mg/kg/day compared with placebo; this was significant in patients above 6 years old treated with ESL 30 mg/kg/day (LS mean difference: 31.9%; p = 0.0478). The observed safety profile in children was consistent with that established in adult studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive ESL treatment was well-tolerated, but this trial failed to demonstrate that ESL was more effective than placebo in the predefined efficacy endpoints; factors that may have contributed to this outcome, affecting particularly the young age group, include etiological heterogeneity, difficulty in recognizing simple partial seizures, high seizure frequency with risk of imbalance, and underestimation of the efficacious dose range.

Safety, tolerability and effectiveness of transition to eslicarbazepine acetate from carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine in clinical practice

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients transitioning from carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine to ESL in clinical practice, by analysing data from the Euro-Esli study.

METHODS

Euro-Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European clinical practice studies. Effectiveness assessments included responder rate (≥50 % seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rate (seizure freedom at least since prior visit), assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months of ESL treatment, and at the last visit. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout follow-up by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and ESL discontinuation due to AEs, respectively. Data were analysed for cohorts of patients who transitioned from carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine to ESL either due to lack of efficacy or poor tolerability.

RESULTS

Euro-Esli included 2058 patients, of whom 233 (11.3 %) transitioned from carbamazepine to ESL and 134 (6.5 %) transitioned from oxcarbazepine to ESL. After 12 months of ESL treatment, responder and seizure freedom rates for patients transitioning from carbamazepine due to lack of efficacy (n = 163) were 70.0 % and 30.9 %, respectively. Corresponding values for patients transitioning from oxcarbazepine due to lack of efficacy (n = 90) were 57.1 % and 25.0 %, respectively. Among patients who transitioned from carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine to ESL due to poor tolerability (n = 64 and n = 61, respectively), 26.6 % and 39.5 % experienced AEs, and 8.3 % and 6.8 % discontinued ESL due to AEs, respectively.

CONCLUSION

ESL was efficacious and generally well tolerated in patients transitioning from carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine in clinical practice due to inadequate seizure control or intolerable AEs with these agents.

Clinical outcomes of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy for focal-onset seizures: A multicenter audit

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy in routine clinical practice for the treatment of focal-onset seizures.

METHODS

Multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted in patients older than 16 years treated with ESL as first-line monotherapy or converted to ESL monotherapy from polytherapy or other monotherapy. Outcomes included 1-year retention rate, seizure-free rates after 6 and 12 months of monotherapy treatment, and safety/tolerability issues.

RESULTS

A total of 256 patients were included (106 first-line and 150 conversion to monotherapy; 56 patients aged >65 years). Overall, the 1-year retention rate was 79% (72.7% in the ≥65 years subgroup) and seizure-free rates at 6 and 12 months were 59.3% and 55.3% (72.2% and 67.3% in the ≥65 years subgroup), without significant differences when comparing first-line vs conversion-to-ESL monotherapy groups (P = .979). However, the conversion group was heterogeneous and included 43 (29.1%) patients that were seizure free the year prior ESL introduction. A substantially higher proportion of patients remained seizure free for the entire follow-up among those who initiated ESL due to tolerability problems compared with those treated due to inadequate seizure control (71.4% vs 37.3%). Overall, 62 of 256 (24.2%) patients reported AEs (39.3% in >65 years subgroup) and led to discontinuation in 20/256 (7.8%) patients (12.5% in >65 years subgroup). Commonly reported AEs were somnolence (6.6%), dizziness (6.3%), and headache (4.3%). Hyponatremia was recorded in five patients, the majority (4/5) of whom were older than 65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Eslicarbazepine acetate was effective and well-tolerated as first-line or conversion to monotherapy in a clinical setting in adult and elderly patients with focal-onset seizures.

Effectiveness of eslicarbazepine acetate in dependency of baseline anticonvulsant therapy: Results from a German prospective multicenter clinical practice study

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a third-generation antiepileptic drug (AED) approved as monotherapy for partial-onset seizures in adults and as adjunctive therapy in patients aged above 6 years in the European Union (EU). The prospective observational Zebinix Effects in DEpendency of BAseline Conditions (ZEDEBAC) study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of ESL in clinical practice, with ESL being administered as monotherapy (mono group), as only add-on to a current monotherapy (1+ group), or as add-on to ≥2 baseline AEDs (≥2+ group). In total, 237 patients were included, 35 in the mono group, 114 in the 1+, and 88 in the ≥2+ group. Six-month retention rates were 93.9%, 78.0%, and 75.3% in the mono, 1+, and ≥2+ group. There were 90.5%, 77.6%, and 48.3% of patients in the mono, 1+, and ≥2+ groups who were responders (patients with a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency at follow-up vs. baseline). Seizure freedom rates were 81.5%, 47.9%, and 23.4%, respectively. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred in 11.4% of patients of the mono, 19.3% of the 1+, and 28.4% of patients of the ≥2+ group. Hyponatremia was reported as ADR in 3.4% of all patients. Although baseline variables differed considerably, with most elderly patients with tumor-related and vascular etiologies in the mono group and most patients with refractory epilepsies with pronounced use of concomitant sodium channel blockers (SCBs) in the ≥2+ group, retention as a measure of real-life effectiveness turned out not to be substantially different and favorable in all groups.

Long-term safety and efficacy of lacosamide and controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

A large-scale, double-blind trial (SP0993; NCT01243177) demonstrated that lacosamide was noninferior to controlled-release carbamazepine (carbamazepine-CR) in terms of efficacy, and well tolerated as first-line monotherapy in patients (≥16 years of age) with newly diagnosed epilepsy. We report primary safety outcomes from the double-blind extension of the noninferiority trial (SP0994; NCT01465997) and post hoc analyses of pooled long-term safety and efficacy data from both trials.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to lacosamide or carbamazepine-CR. Doses were escalated (lacosamide: 200/400/600 mg/d; carbamazepine-CR: 400/800/1200 mg/d) based on seizure control. Eligible patients continued randomized treatment in the extension. Primary outcomes of the extension were treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, and discontinuations due to TEAEs. Post hoc analyses of data from combined trials included 12- and 24-month seizure freedom and TEAEs by number of comorbid conditions.

RESULTS

A total of 886 patients were treated in the initial trial and 548 in the extension; 211 of 279 patients (75.6%) on lacosamide and 180/269 (66.9%) on carbamazepine-CR completed the extension. In the extension, 181 patients (64.9%) on lacosamide and 182 (67.7%) on carbamazepine-CR reported TEAEs; in both groups, nasopharyngitis, headache, and dizziness were most common. Serious TEAEs were reported by 32 patients (11.5%) on lacosamide and 22 (8.2%) on carbamazepine-CR; 12 (4.3%) and 21 (7.8%) discontinued due to TEAEs. In the combined trials (median exposure: lacosamide 630 days; carbamazepine-CR 589 days), Kaplan-Meier estimated proportions of patients with 12- and 24-month seizure freedom from first dose were 50.8% (95% confidence interval 46.2%-55.4%) and 47.0% (42.2%-51.7%) on lacosamide, and 54.9% (50.3%-59.6%) and 50.9% (46.0%-55.7%) on carbamazepine-CR. Incidences of drug-related TEAEs and discontinuations due to TEAEs increased by number of comorbid conditions and were lower in patients on lacosamide.

SIGNIFICANCE

Long-term (median ~2 years) lacosamide monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated in adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Seizure freedom rates were similar with lacosamide and carbamazepine-CR.

MONOZEB: Long-term observational study of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Serum sodium levels and related treatment-emergent adverse events during eslicarbazepine acetate use in adults with epilepsy

Objective

To examine the frequency of hyponatremia and potentially related symptoms in clinical trials of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in adults with focal‐ (partial‐) onset seizures.

Methods

This post hoc, exploratory analysis included data from three controlled phase 3 trials of adjunctive ESL (400‐1200 mg once daily), two phase 3 trials of ESL monotherapy (1200‐1600 mg once daily), and their open‐label extension studies. Exploratory endpoints included clinical laboratory measurements of serum sodium concentrations ([Na⁺]), incidences of hyponatremia‐related treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and incidences of TEAEs that are potential symptoms of hyponatremia.

Results

The controlled trials of adjunctive ESL and ESL monotherapy included 1447 (placebo, n = 426; ESL, n = 1021) and 365 (ESL, n = 365) patients, respectively; 639 and 274 patients continued onto uncontrolled, open‐label extensions. In the controlled and uncontrolled trials ≤3.3% of patients taking ESL had a minimum postdose [Na⁺] measurement ≤125 mEq/L, <9% had a >10 mEq/L decrease in [Na⁺] from baseline, <6% had a hyponatremia‐related TEAE, and <2% discontinued the controlled trials due to a hyponatremia‐related TEAE. Hyponatremia appeared to be more frequent in the monotherapy (vs adjunctive therapy) trials; in the controlled trials of adjunctive ESL and ESL monotherapy, incidence generally increased with increasing ESL dose. The majority of patients with an investigator‐reported TEAE of “hyponatremia” or “blood sodium decreased” did not have a corresponding laboratory [Na⁺] measurement ≤125 mEq/L. Some symptoms potentially related to hyponatremia (including nausea and vomiting) were more frequent in patients with a minimum postdose [Na⁺] measurement ≤125 mEq/L.

Significance

Reductions in serum sodium concentrations and hyponatremia‐related TEAEs occurred in a small number of patients taking ESL. Suspected hyponatremia should be confirmed and monitored via [Na⁺] measurements.

Long-term safety and efficacy following conversion to eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy in adults with focal seizures

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy in adults with focal seizures (FS).

METHODS

Study 050 was a long-term, multicenter, open-label (OL) safety extension of two conversion-to-ESL monotherapy studies in adults with refractory FS. After participating in Study 045 or 046, patients started on ESL 1600 mg once daily (QD) (or 1200 mg if they previously had a dose reduction), and could adjust the dose 400 mg/week to a dose between 800-2400 mg QD. Patients could add up to two additional antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). This post-hoc analysis focuses on the actual monotherapy subgroup, which included patients in Studies 045/046/050 who did not add additional AEDs. Study endpoints included treatment retention time, time on ESL monotherapy, change in standardized seizure frequency (SSF), change in quality of life (QoL) in epilepsy (QOLIE-31) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores, and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); serious adverse events (SAEs), TEAEs leading to discontinuation, and TEAEs related to allergic reaction, hyponatremia and thyroid function were also evaluated.

RESULTS

There were 274 patients in the Study 050 full intent-to-treat (ITT) population and 140 patients in the actual monotherapy subgroup. Median treatment retention time and time on ESL monotherapy were both >5 years. Median reduction in SSF from baseline was 66.4% in the full ITT population and 78.3% in the actual monotherapy subgroup; responder (≥50% reduction in SSF) rates were 62.4% and 74.3%, respectively. QOLIE-31 scores increased from baseline in the full ITT population and the actual monotherapy subgroup (4.1- and 7.5-point increases, respectively). MADRS scores decreased from baseline in both the full ITT population and the actual monotherapy subgroup (0.7- and 2.9-point decreases, respectively). TEAEs occurred in 85.4% of patients in the full ITT population and 81.4% of patients in the actual monotherapy subgroup. Incidences of SAEs and TEAEs leading to discontinuation, as well as dizziness, depression, fall, partial seizures with secondary generalization, and complex partial seizures, were higher in the full ITT population than in the actual monotherapy subgroup. Allergic reactions, hyponatremia, and hypothyroidism were infrequent, particularly in the actual monotherapy subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this post-hoc analysis suggest that long-term treatment with ESL was effective and well tolerated, both as a monotherapy and in combination with other AEDs for FS. QoL and tolerability appeared to be better, and incidence of depression lower, in the patient population taking ESL as a monotherapy, compared with the population that included patients taking ESL as an adjunctive therapy.

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

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

[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.

Eslicarbazepine acetate as monotherapy in clinical practice: Outcomes from Euro-Esli

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy in clinical practice in Europe.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Euro-Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European clinical practice studies. Responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rate (seizure freedom at least since prior visit) were assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months of ESL treatment and at last visit. Adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to ESL discontinuation were assessed throughout follow-up. A subanalysis was conducted to assess outcomes for patients treated initially with ESL monotherapy and for patients treated at the last visit with ESL monotherapy.

RESULTS

ESL was used as monotherapy in 88/2045 (4.3%) patients initially and in 229/1340 (17.1%) patients at the last visit. At 12 months, responder and seizure freedom rates were 94.1% and 88.2%, respectively, in patients treated initially with ESL monotherapy, and 93.2% and 77.4%, respectively, in patients treated at the last visit with ESL monotherapy. Corresponding values for patients treated initially with ESL adjunctive therapy were 74.8% and 39.0%, respectively; and for patients treated at the last visit with ESL adjunctive therapy, corresponding values were 70.4% and 25.9%, respectively. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable in patients treated with ESL as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. The most commonly reported AEs (≥5% of patients in any group) were dizziness, somnolence, instability/ataxia, and fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

These clinical practice data support the use of ESL as monotherapy, as well as adjunctive therapy, for focal-onset seizures, complementing evidence from clinical trials.