Dataset Information

Comparative Long-Term Effectiveness of a Monotherapy with Five Antiepileptic Drugs for Focal Epilepsy in Adult Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate and compare long-term effectiveness of five antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for monotherapy of adult patients with focal epilepsy in routine clinical practice.

Methods

Adult patients with focal epilepsy, who were prescribed with carbamazepine (CBZ), valproate (VPA), lamotrigine (LTG), topiramate (TPM), or oxcarbazepine (OXC) as monotherapy, during the period from January 2004 to June 2012 registered in Wenzhou Epilepsy Follow Up Registry Database (WEFURD), were included in the study. Prospective long-term follow-up was conducted until June 2013. The endpoints were time to treatment failure, time to seizure remission, and time to first seizure.

Results

This study included 654 patients: CBZ (n=125), VPA (n=151), LTG (n=135), TPM (n=76), and OXC (n=167). The retention rates of CBZ, VPA, LTG, TPM, and OXC at the third year were 36.1%, 32.4%, 57.6%, 37.9%, and 41.8%, respectively. For time to treatment failure, LTG was significantly better than CBZ and VPA (LTG vs. CBZ, hazard ratio, [HR] 0.80 [95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.96], LTG vs. VPA, 0.53 [0.37-0.74]); TPM was worse than LTG (TPM vs. LTG, 1.77 [1.15-2.74]), and OXC was better than VPA (0.86 [0.78-0.96]). After initial target doses, the seizure remission rates of CBZ, VPA, LTG, TPM, and OXC were 63.0%, 77.0%, 83.6%, 67.9%, and 75.3%, respectively. LTG was significantly better than CBZ (1.44 [1.15-1.82]) and OXC (LTG vs. OXC, 0.76 [0.63-0.93]); OXC was less effective than LTG in preventing the first seizure (1.20 [1.02-1.40]).

Conclusion

LTG was the best, OXC was better than VPA only, while VPA was the worst. The others were equivalent for comparisons between five AEDs regarding the long-term treatment outcomes of monotherapy for adult patients with focal epilepsy in a clinical practice. For selecting AEDs for these patients among the first-line drugs, LTG is an appropriate first choice; others are reservation in the first-line but VPA is not.

SUBMITTER: Zeng QY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4493091 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo study the effectiveness and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) commonly used in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME).MethodsPeople with JME were identified from a large database of individuals with epilepsy, which includes detailed retrospective information on AED use. We assessed secular changes in AED use and calculated rates of response (12-month seizure freedom) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for the five most common AEDs. Retention was modeled with a Cox proportional hazards model. We compared valproate use between males and females.ResultsWe included 305 people with 688 AED trials of valproate, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, carbamazepine, and topiramate. Valproate and carbamazepine were most often prescribed as the first AED. The response rate to valproate was highest among the five AEDs (42.7%), and significantly higher than response rates for lamotrigine, carbamazepine, and topiramate; the difference to the response rate to levetiracetam (37.1%) was not significant. The rates of ADRs were highest for topiramate (45.5%) and valproate (37.5%). Commonest ADRs included weight change, lethargy, and tremor. In the Cox proportional hazards model, later start year (1.10 [1.08-1.13], P < 0.001) and female sex (1.41 [1.07-1.85], P = 0.02) were associated with shorter trial duration. Valproate was associated with the longest treatment duration; trials with carbamazepine and topiramate were significantly shorter (HR [CI]: 3.29 [2.15-5.02], P < 0.001 and 1.93 [1.31-2.86], P < 0.001). The relative frequency of valproate trials shows a decreasing trend since 2003 while there is an increasing trend for levetiracetam. Fewer females than males received valproate (76.2% vs 92.6%, P = 0.001).SignificanceIn people with JME, valproate is an effective AED; levetiracetam emerged as an alternative. Valproate is now contraindicated in women of childbearing potential without special precautions. With appropriate selection and safeguards in place, valproate should remain available as a therapy, including as an alternative for women of childbearing potential whose seizures are resistant to other treatments.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing comparative treatment effects. In the absence of direct comparisons between all possible antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), however, clinical decision-making in focal (partial onset) epilepsy relies on alternative evidence borne from indirect comparisons including network meta-analyses (NMAs) and from real-world evidence (RWE) studies. We review NMAs and observational RWE studies comparing AEDs in the adjunctive setting to compare the robustness of these methods and to formulate recommendations for future evidence development. METHODS:A literature review identified NMAs and RWE studies comparing AEDs for the adjunctive treatment of focal seizures published between January 2008 and October 2018. NMAs were evaluated for robustness using a framework based on guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. RWE studies were evaluated using the GRACE checklist. RESULTS:From a total of 1993 records, 11 NMAs and six RWE studies were eligible. Key limitations identified in the NMAs include nonsystematic selection of RCTs, unexplored heterogeneity between included RCTs in terms of study and patient characteristics, and selection of AEDs and AED doses or dosing strategies that are not reflective of clinical practice. The main limitations of RWE studies concern sample size, design, and analysis methods. Approximately 90% of comparisons between individual AEDs were nonsignificant in the NMAs. None of the RWE studies adjusted for baseline differences between comparator groups; therefore, they lack the validity to make comparative conclusions. SIGNIFICANCE:Current NMAs and RWE studies provide only nominal comparative evidence for AED treatments in focal epilepsy, and should be used with caution for decision-making due to their methodological limitations. To overcome these hurdles, adherence to methodological guidelines and concerted efforts to collect relevant outcome data in the real world are needed.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the efficacy and safety profile of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in feline epilepsy is a crucial consideration for managing this important brain disease. However, there is a lack of information about the treatment of feline epilepsy and therefore a systematic review was constructed to assess current evidence for the AEDs' efficacy and tolerability in cats. The methods and materials of our former systematic reviews in canine epilepsy were mostly mirrored for the current systematic review in cats. Databases of PubMed, CAB Direct and Google scholar were searched to detect peer-reviewed studies reporting efficacy and/or adverse effects of AEDs in cats. The studies were assessed with regards to their quality of evidence, i.e. study design, study population, diagnostic criteria and overall risk of bias and the outcome measures reported, i.e. prevalence and 95% confidence interval of the successful and affected population in each study and in total.ResultsForty studies describing clinical outcomes of AEDs' efficacy and safety were included. Only two studies were classified as "blinded randomised controlled trials". The majority of the studies offered high overall risk of bias and described low feline populations with unclear diagnostic criteria and short treatment or follow-up periods. Individual AED assessments of efficacy and safety profile showed that phenobarbital might currently be considered as the first choice AED followed by levetiracetam and imepitoin. Only imepitoin's safety profile was supported by strong level of evidence. Imepitoin's efficacy as well as remaining AEDs' efficacy and safety profile were supported by weak level of evidence.ConclusionsThis systematic review reflects an evidence-based assessment of the published data on the AEDs' efficacy and safety for feline epilepsy. Currently, phenobarbital is likely to be the first-line for feline epileptic patients followed by levetiracetam and imepitoin. It is essential that clinicians evaluate both AEDs' effectiveness and tolerability before tailoring AED to the individual patient. Further studies in feline epilepsy treatment are by far crucial in order to establish definite guidelines for AEDs' efficacy and safety.