An update of the Hong Kong Epilepsy Guideline: consensus statement on the use of antiepileptic drugs in Hong Kong

Managing delayed or missed pregabalin doses in patients with focal epilepsy: a Monte Carlo simulation study

BACKGROUND

Delayed or missed doses are inevitable in epilepsy pharmacotherapy. The current remedial measures recommended by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for non-adherence are generic and lack clinical evidence.

AIM

To assess remedial strategies for delayed or missed pregabalin doses in patients with epilepsy using Monte Carlo simulations.

METHOD

Monte Carlo simulations were performed using a published population pharmacokinetic model for pregabalin. The applicability of five proposed remedial regimens as well as FDA recommendations was evaluated by simulating various poor adherence scenarios in eight populations, including those with renal dysfunction.

RESULTS

All proposed remedial strategies were associated with delay duration and renal function. When delays are relatively short, an immediate regular dose is advised. The cut-off time points for taking the regular dose as a remedial regimen were 1, 2, 4, and 12 h for patients with mild renal impairment and normal renal function, moderate renal impairment, severe renal impairment, and end-stage renal disease, respectively. However, when delay aligns closely with a dosing interval, a regular dose combined with a partial dose proves effective. Generally, supplementing 1.3-fold the regular dose at the next scheduled time adequately compensates for the missed dose.

CONCLUSION

Model-based simulations provided quantitative evidence for the effectiveness and feasibility of remedial strategies for missed or delayed pregabalin doses.

Evaluating Therapeutic Equivalence of Generic and Original Levetiracetam in Patients with Epilepsy: A Retrospective Study

The brand interchangeability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is a topic of debate, especially regarding their therapeutic equivalence. This study evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of generic levetiracetam compared to the brand-name equivalent in a routine clinical setting. We conducted a retrospective study, examining patients with stable seizure frequency who received generic levetiracetam after the brand-name drug. During the six-month substitution period, changes in seizure frequency, hospitalization due to seizure exacerbation, adverse events, composite outcomes related to adjusting the AED dosage, and switching back to original levetiracetam were analyzed. Seventy-five patients were enrolled; the majority (85.3%) had focal onset seizures, and almost half (49.3%) had refractory epilepsy. Six months after the substitution, the mean seizure frequency per month was not significantly different (3.15 ± 14.47 vs. 2.77 ± 11.41; p = 0.970). In patients with controlled seizures before the change, the seizure frequency increased significantly (0.56 ± 1.83 vs. 0.03 ± 0.16; p = 0.012). Adverse events occurred in six patients. We have observed recurrent seizures or adverse events from 14 days after the transition. The original drug return rates due to recurrent seizures and adverse events were 5.3% and 1.3%, respectively. Generic levetiracetam might not show therapeutic equivalence to the original molecule, especially in patients adequately controlled by the brand-name drug.

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.

Consensus statements on the clinical uses of pregabalin for Hong Kong

To facilitate the understanding of pregabalin and optimize its clinical usage in Hong Kong, an expert panel (11 psychiatrists, one family physician and one anesthesiologist) experienced in treating anxiety and somatic symptoms was invited to establish a set of consensus statements based on several discussion areas. A non-systematic literature search for relevant articles was conducted. The panelists addressed the discussion areas by sharing their clinical experience and available literature in a couple of meetings. At the last meeting, consensus statements derived from the proceedings were discussed and finalized. A total of 11 statements were ultimately accepted by panel voting based on their practicability of recommendation in Hong Kong. These statements are aimed to act as a practical reference for local clinicians when they consider prescribing pregabalin in different clinical situations.

Reporting specifications regarding epilepsy practice guidelines based on the RIGHT reporting checklist: an analysis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical guidelines are designed to optimise patient care and provide efficient approaches for therapy. Epilepsy is a chronic brain disorder that continues to experience a considerable treatment gap due to non-standard recommendations. We assessed the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on epilepsy over the past 5 years to generate a reporting specification for this study.

SETTING

Seven databases were searched in May 2018 focusing on the period from 2013 to 2018. These included Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP). Reporting quality of epilepsy guidelines was assessed by two independent authors using the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) approach. Spearman's correlation was used to assess inter-rater reliability.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants with epilepsy or seizure, not limited by age, gender, course of disease or cause of epilepsy, were included.

INTERVENTIONS

There were no limitations with regard to intervention.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome was the ability of the RIGHT tool to measure reporting quality.

RESULTS

Twelve relevant guidelines were included in this study. The reporting quality was not high in any of the included guidelines. The highest reporting quality included a 'yes' proportion of 77.1%, whereas the worst included a corresponding proportion of 37.1%. Overall evaluation results showed that 16.7% of the included guidelines were of high quality, 75% were of medium quality and 8.3% were of low quality. The correlation between the two estimators was credible (ρ>0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Appraisal of these guidelines using the RIGHT tool revealed that the quality of reporting varied among guidelines. Items that exhibited low quality in most included guidelines were healthcare questions, rationale/explanation for recommendations, quality assurance, funding source(s) and role(s) of the funder, and limitations of the guideline. Thus, these aspects should receive greater attention in future guideline reporting.

Levetiracetam for epilepsy: an evidence map of efficacy, safety and economic profiles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and economics of levetiracetam (LEV) for epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, OpenGrey.eu and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case reports and economic studies published from January 2007 to April 2018. We used a bubble plot to graphically display information of included studies and conducted meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesize the evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 14,803 records were obtained. We included 30 SRs/meta-analyses, 34 RCTs, 18 observational studies, 58 case reports and 2 economic studies after the screening process. The included SRs enrolled patients with pediatric epilepsy, epilepsy in pregnancy, focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy and refractory focal epilepsy. Meta-analysis of the included RCTs indicated that LEV was as effective as carbamazepine (CBZ; treatment for 6 months: 58.9% vs 64.8%, OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.50-1.16; 12 months: 54.9% vs 55.5%, OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.79-1.93), oxcarbazepine (57.7% vs 59.8%, OR=1.34, 95% CI: 0.34-5.23), phenobarbital (50.0% vs 50.9%, OR=1.20, 95% CI: 0.51-2.82) and lamotrigine (LTG; 61.5% vs 57.7%, OR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.90-1.66). SRs and observational studies indicated a low malformation rate and intrauterine death rate for pregnant women, as well as low risk of cognitive side effects. But psychiatric and behavioral side effects could not be ruled out. LEV decreased discontinuation due to adverse events compared with CBZ (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.65), while no difference was found when LEV was compared with placebo and LTG. Two cost-effectiveness evaluations for refractory epilepsy with decision-tree model showed US$ 76.18 per seizure-free day gained in Canada and US$ 44 per seizure-free day gained in Korea.

CONCLUSION

LEV is as effective as CBZ, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital and LTG and has an advantage for pregnant women and in cognitive functions. Limited evidence supports its cost-effectiveness.

REGISTERED NUMBER

PROSPERO (No CRD 42017069367).

Clinical outcomes of intravenous levetiracetam treatment in patients with renal impairment

Intravenous levetiracetam has been approved for use as an antiepileptic drug, as well as in cases of status epilepticus. There are few reports that detail the clinical data and outcomes associated with this antiepileptic drug, particularly in patients with renal impairment. This was a retrospective analytical study conducted at Khon Kaen University's Srinagarind Hospital in Thailand. The study period was between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014. The inclusion criteria were that patents were over 15 years old, had renal impairment, and had received intravenous levetiracetam treatment. The main clinical outcomes were seizure control and mortality. Clinical outcomes were compared between those with and without status epilepticus. Mortality of patients with status epilepticus were compared in terms of seizure control and order of intravenous levetiracetam treatment. During the study period, there were 247 patients who met the study criteria. The average age of the patients was 58 years with nearly equal sex distribution. Of those, 90 patients (36.4%) had GRFs of less than 15 mL/min/1.73 m² and 60 patients (24.3%) received intravenous LEVE due to status epilepticus. The seizure control rates in the status epilepticus and non-status epilepticus groups were 36.7% and 88.7%, respectively (P<0.001). The mortality rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (33.3% vs 27.8%; P=0.418). There was no significant overall difference in mortality rate between seizure-controlled and seizure-uncontrolled patients in the status epilepticus group. In the convulsive status epilepticus group, variations in terms of treatment order of intravenous levetiracetam and seizure control resulted in no significant difference in mortality rates (P=0.311). No major side effects were detected in any patients after the intravenous levetiracetam treatment. In conclusion, intravenous levetiracetam treatment was effective and safe in patients with renal impairment.

Perampanel, an AMPA receptor antagonist: From clinical research to practice in clinical settings

Epileptic seizures are refractory to treatment in approximately one-third of patients despite the recent introduction of many newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Development of novel AEDs therefore remains a high priority. Perampanel is a first-in-class non-competitive selective AMPA receptor antagonist with a unique mechanism of action. Clinical efficacy and safety of perampanel as adjunctive treatment for focal seizures with/without secondary generalization (±SG) and primary generalized tonic-clonic (PGTC) seizures have been established in five phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and a long-term extension study, and perampanel is approved as monotherapy for focal seizures ±SG in the USA. In patients with focal seizures ±SG, add-on perampanel resulted in median percent reduction in seizure frequency 23.3%-34.5% and ≥50% responder rate 28.5%-37.6%; in PGTC seizures, these results were 76.5% and 64.2%, respectively. Efficacy among adolescents (reduction in seizure frequency 34.8%-35.6%; ≥50% responder rate 40.9%-45.0%) and elderly people (reduction in seizure frequency 12.5%-16.9%; ≥50% responder rate 22.2%-42.9%) is similar to those in adults, and results remain comparable between Asian (reduction in seizure frequency 17.3%-38.0%) and global populations. Perampanel has been extensively studied in real-world clinical practice, with similar efficacy and safety results to the RCTs (≥50% responder rate 12.8%-75.0%; adverse events of somnolence/sedation, dizziness, ataxia, and behavioral changes). Real-world observational studies suggest that perampanel tolerability can be improved by slow titration (2 mg every 2-4 weeks), and bedtime administration can mitigate somnolence and dizziness. Counseling about the potential for behavioral changes and close monitoring are recommended.