Adjunctive pregabalin vs gabapentin for focal seizures: Interpretation of comparative outcomes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To evaluate the comparative safety and adjunctive efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency in patients with partial-onset seizures based on prestudy modeling showing superior efficacy for pregabalin.Methods
The design of this comparative efficacy and safety study of pregabalin and gabapentin as adjunctive treatment in adults with refractory partial-onset seizures was randomized, flexible dose, double blind, and parallel group. The study included a 6-week baseline and a 21-week treatment phase. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate to the treatment phase.Results
A total of 484 patients were randomized to pregabalin (n = 242) or gabapentin (n = 242). Of these, 359 patients (187 pregabalin, 172 gabapentin) completed the treatment phase. The observed median and mean in percentage change from baseline was -58.65 and -47.7 (SD 48.3) for pregabalin and -57.43 and -45.28 (SD 60.6) for gabapentin. For the primary endpoint, there was no significant difference between treatments. The Hodges-Lehman estimated median difference was 0.0 (95% confidence interval -6.0 to 7.0). Safety profiles were comparable and consistent with prior trials.Conclusions
The absence of the anticipated efficacy difference based on modeling of prior, nearly identical trials and the larger-than-expected response rates of the 2 antiepileptic drugs were unexpected. These findings raise questions that are potentially important to consider in future comparative efficacy trials.Clinicaltrialsgov identifier
NCT00537940.Classification of evidence
This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with partial seizures enrolled in this study, pregabalin is not superior to gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency. Because of the atypical response rates, the results of this study are poorly generalizable to other epilepsy populations.
SUBMITTER: French J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5035985 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background Gabapentin and pregabalin are used to manage neuropathic pain, pruritus, and restless legs syndrome in patients on hemodialysis. These patients may be especially predisposed to complications related to these agents, which are renally cleared, but data regarding the risk thereof are lacking.Methods From the US Renal Data System, we identified 140,899 Medicare-covered adults receiving hemodialysis with Part D coverage in 2011. Using Cox regression models in which we adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, duration of exposure, number of medications, and use of potentially confounding concomitant medications, we investigated the association between gabapentin and pregabalin, modeled as separate time-varying exposures, and time to first emergency room visit or hospitalization for altered mental status, fall, and fracture. We evaluated risk according to daily dose categories: gabapentin (>0-100, >100-200, >200-300, and >300 mg) and pregabalin (>0-100 and >100 mg).Results In 2011, 19% and 4% of patients received gabapentin and pregabalin, respectively. Sixty-eight percent of gabapentin or pregabalin users had a diagnosis of neuropathic pain, pruritus, or restless legs syndrome. Gabapentin was associated with 50%, 55%, and 38% higher hazards of altered mental status, fall, and fracture, respectively, in the highest dose category, but even lower dosing was associated with a higher hazard of altered mental status (31%-41%) and fall (26%-30%). Pregabalin was associated with up to 51% and 68% higher hazards of altered mental status and fall, respectively.Conclusions Gabapentin and pregabalin should be used judiciously in patients on hemodialysis, and research to identify the most optimal dosing is warranted.
| S-EPMC6050935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide in children and adolescents with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures.MethodsIn this double-blind trial (SP0969; NCT01921205), patients (age ≥4-<17 years) with uncontrolled focal seizures were randomized (1:1) to adjunctive lacosamide/placebo. After a 6-week titration, patients who reached the target dose range for their weight (<30 kg: 8-12 mg/kg/d oral solution; ≥30-<50 kg: 6-8 mg/kg/d oral solution; ≥50 kg: 300-400 mg/d tablets) entered a 10-week maintenance period. The primary outcome was change in focal seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline to maintenance.ResultsThree hundred forty-three patients were randomized; 306 (lacosamide 152 of 171 [88.9%]; placebo 154 of 172 [89.5%]) completed treatment (titration and maintenance). Adverse events (AEs) were the most common reasons for discontinuation during treatment (lacosamide 4.1%; placebo 5.8%). From baseline to maintenance, percent reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days for lacosamide (n = 170) vs placebo (n = 168) was 31.7% (p = 0.0003). During maintenance, median percent reduction in focal seizure frequency per 28 days was 51.7% for lacosamide and 21.7% for placebo. Fifty percent responder rates (≥50% reduction) were 52.9% and 33.3% (odds ratio 2.17, p = 0.0006). During treatment, treatment-emergent AEs were reported by 67.8% lacosamide-treated patients (placebo 58.1%), most commonly (≥10%) somnolence (14.0%, placebo 5.2%) and dizziness (10.5%, placebo 3.5%).ConclusionsAdjunctive lacosamide was efficacious in reducing seizure frequency and generally well tolerated in patients (age ≥4-<17 years) with focal seizures.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT01921205.Classification of evidenceThis trial provides Class I evidence that for children and adolescents with uncontrolled focal seizures, adjunctive lacosamide reduces seizure frequency.
| S-EPMC6808531 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The maintenance of seizure control over time is a clinical priority in patients with epilepsy. The aim of this study was to assess the sustained seizure frequency reduction with adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in real-world practice. Patients with focal epilepsy prescribed add-on BRV were identified. Study outcomes included sustained seizure freedom and sustained seizure response, defined as a 100% and a ≥50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency that continued without interruption and without BRV withdrawal through the 12-month follow-up. Nine hundred ninety-four patients with a median age of 45 (interquartile range = 32-56) years were included. During the 1-year study period, sustained seizure freedom was achieved by 142 (14.3%) patients, of whom 72 (50.7%) were seizure-free from Day 1 of BRV treatment. Sustained seizure freedom was maintained for ≥6, ≥9, and 12 months by 14.3%, 11.9%, and 7.2% of patients from the study cohort. Sustained seizure response was reached by 383 (38.5%) patients; 236 of 383 (61.6%) achieved sustained ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency by Day 1, 94 of 383 (24.5%) by Month 4, and 53 of 383 (13.8%) by Month 7 up to Month 12. Adjunctive BRV was associated with sustained seizure frequency reduction from the first day of treatment in a subset of patients with uncontrolled focal epilepsy.
| S-EPMC9311068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is an unmet need for well-tolerated antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) that effectively control focal onset seizures. This study aimed to evaluate the economic value of new AEDs in the treatment of focal onset seizure, with or without secondary generalization, in Finnish adults and adolescents with epilepsy, comparing brivaracetam with perampanel as adjunctive AEDs. METHODS:Economic value was assessed using cost-utility analysis. Periods of AED initiation, titration, response assessment (seizure freedom,???50% reduction, no response), switching in no response or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and death were simulated using a discrete-event simulation model. Responses and switching were simulated based on a comprehensive Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary modeled outcome was the 3%/year discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), payer costs (year 2017 Euro) per patient, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were secondary outcomes. Probabilistic and comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS:Brivaracetam was more efficacious and had fewer TEAEs than perampanel and other AEDs. Modeled average 5-year QALYs and costs were 3.671 and €28,297 for brivaracetam and 3.611 and €27,979 for perampanel, respectively. The resulting ICER for brivaracetam versus perampanel was only €5345/QALY gained in a deterministic base case scenario. Brivaracetam had a positive NMB and high probability of cost-effectiveness of €1190 and 71% or €1944 and 80% with the assumed willingness to pay of €25,358 or €38,036/QALY gained, respectively. The primary result was robust, with a positive NMB persistent in all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When switching from brivaracetam to perampanel was excluded from the modeling or switching from perampanel to brivaracetam was included, brivaracetam was cost-saving and more effective than perampanel (dominant). CONCLUSION:These simulated comparisons demonstrated that brivaracetam was more effective and potentially also more affordable than perampanel. Thus, brivaracetam is likely a cost-effective and net beneficial alternative to perampanel for treatment of focal onset seizures. Plain language summary available for this article.
| S-EPMC6979440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive cenobamate 200 mg/d in patients with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures despite treatment with 1 to 3 antiepileptic drugs.MethodsIn this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults 18 to 65 years of age with focal seizures were randomized 1:1 (cenobamate:placebo) after an 8-week baseline period. The 12-week double-blind treatment period consisted of a 6-week titration phase and a 6-week maintenance phase. The primary outcome was percent change in seizure frequency (from baseline) per 28 days during double-blind treatment.ResultsTwo hundred twenty-two patients were randomized; 113 received cenobamate and 109 received placebo; and 90.3% and 90.8% of patients, respectively, completed double-blind treatment. Median baseline seizure frequency was 6.5 in 28 days (range 0-237). Compared to placebo, cenobamate conferred a greater median percent seizure reduction (55.6% vs 21.5%; p < 0.0001) The responder rate (≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) was 50.4% for cenobamate and 22.2% for placebo (p < 0.0001). Focal seizures with motor component, impaired awareness, and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures were significantly reduced with cenobamate vs placebo. During maintenance, 28.3% of cenobamate-treated and 8.8% of placebo-treated patients were seizure-free. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in >10% in either group (cenobamate vs placebo) were somnolence (22.1% vs 11.9%), dizziness (22.1% vs 16.5%), headache (12.4% vs 12.8%), nausea (11.5% vs 4.6%), and fatigue (10.6% vs 6.4%).ConclusionAdjunctive treatment with cenobamate 200 mg/d significantly improved seizure control in adults with uncontrolled focal seizures and was well tolerated.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT01397968.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that, for patients with uncontrolled focal seizures, adjunctive cenobamate reduces seizures.
| S-EPMC7357293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceOptimal pharmacologic treatment for chronic sciatica (CS) is currently unclear. While gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) are both used to treat CS, equipoise exists. Nevertheless, pharmaceutical regulation authorities typically subsidize one drug over the other. This hinders interchange wherever the favored drug is either ineffective or ill-tolerated.ObjectiveTo assess GBP vs PGB head to head for the treatment of CS.Design, setting, and participantsA preplanned interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy crossover trial of PGB vs GBP for management of CS at half the estimated final sample size was performed in a single-center, tertiary referral public hospital. A total of 20 patients underwent randomization from March 2016 to March 2018, and 2 were excluded with 1 lost to follow-up and the other requiring urgent surgery unrelated to the study. Patients attending a specialist neurosurgery clinic with unilateral CS were considered for trial recruitment. Chronic sciatica was defined as pain lasting for at least 3 months radiating into 1 leg only to, at, or below the knee level. Imaging (magnetic resonance imaging with or without computed tomography) corroborating a root-level lesion concordant with symptoms and/or signs was determined by the trial clinician. Inclusion criteria included patients who had not used GBP and PGB and were 18 years or older. Analyses were intention to treat and began February 2018.InterventionsRandomly assigned participants received GBP (400 mg to 800 mg 3 times a day) then PGB (150 mg to 300 mg twice daily) or vice versa, each taken for 8 weeks. Crossover followed a 1-week washout.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was pain intensity (10-point visual analog scale) at baseline and 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included disability (using the Oswestry Disability Index) and severity/frequency of adverse events.ResultsThe total trial population (N = 18) consisted mostly of men (11 [61%]) with a mean (SD) age of 57 (16.5) years. A third of the cohort were smokers (5 [28%]), and more than half consumed alcohol (12 [67%]). Gabapentin was superior to PGB, with fewer and less severe adverse events. Both GBP (mean [SD], 7.54 [1.39] to 5.82 [1.72]; P < .001) and PGB (mean [SD], 7.33 [1.30] to 6.38 [1.88]; P = .002) displayed significant visual analog pain intensity scale reduction and Oswestry Disability Index reduction (mean [SD], 59.22 [16.88] to 48.54 [15.52]; P < .001 for both). Head to head, GBP showed superior visual analog pain intensity scale reduction (mean [SD], GBP: 1.72 [1.17] vs PGB: 0.94 [1.09]; P = .035) irrespective of sequence order; however, Oswestry Disability Index reduction was unchanged. Adverse events for PGB were more frequent (PGB, 31 [81%] vs GBP, 7 [19%]; P = .002) especially when PGB was taken first.Conclusions and relevancePregabalin and GBP were both significantly efficacious. However, GBP was superior with fewer and less severe adverse events. Gabapentin should be commenced before PGB to permit optimal crossover of medicines.Trial registrationanzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12613000559718.
| S-EPMC6439871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: In this study, we intended to compare and rank the efficacy and acceptability of antiseizure medications (ASMs) for adjunctive treatment of children with drug-resistant focal-onset seizures. Method: We conducted a computerized search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before 31 May 2022. We included studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of antiseizure medications for children with drug-resistant focal-onset seizures. The efficacy and safety were reported in terms of responder and dropout rate along with serious adverse events, the outcomes were ranked with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: A total of 14 studies (16 trials) with 2,464 patients were included, involving 10 active antiseizure medications. For the primary endpoint of at least 50% reduction in focal-onset seizures, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve ranking suggested that lamotrigine and levetiracetam were more effective as compared with other antiseizure medications; moreover, levetiracetam had the highest probability of rank first for achieving seizure freedom. Concerning tolerability, oxcarbazepine and eslicarbazepine acetate were associated with higher dropout rates relative to other antiseizure medications and placebo, and topiramate was associated with higher occurrence of side effects. No significant differences were found between active antiseizure medications concerning dropout for side effects. Conclusion: According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve ranking, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and oxcarbazepine were more efficacious than other active antiseizure medications in terms of responder rate. Concerning tolerability, oxcarbazepine was more likely to lead to dropout and topiramate was associated with higher occurrence of side effects.
| S-EPMC9800847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCenobamate is a novel tetrazole-derived carbamate compound with a dual mechanism of action. This drug can enhance the inactivated state of voltage-gated sodium channels, preferentially inhibiting the persistent component of the sodium channel current, and acts as a positive allosteric modulator of GABAA receptors, binding at a non-benzodiazepine site.ObjectiveWe assessed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive cenobamate for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adult patients with epilepsy using meta-analytical techniques.MethodsWe systematically searched (May, week 4, 2020) MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ). There were no date limitations or language restrictions. Randomized, placebo-controlled, single or double-blinded, add-on trials of cenobamate in adult patients with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures were identified. Main outcomes included the proportion of patients with ≥ 50 and 100% reduction in seizure frequency during the maintenance treatment period compared with baseline and the incidence of treatment withdrawal and adverse events (AEs). Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated for each outcome.ResultsTwo trials were included, overall enrolling 659 patients (442 for the add-on cenobamate group and 217 for the add-on placebo group). Seizure frequency reduction by at least 50% occurred during the maintenance phase in 50.1% of the patients randomized to cenobamate and 23.5% of the placebo-treated participants (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.67-2.85; p < 0.001). The pooled estimated RR to achieve seizure freedom for the cenobamate group in comparison with placebo was 3.71 (95% CI 1.93-7.14; p < 0.001). Withdrawal from randomized treatment occurred in 16.7 and 11.1% of participants receiving cenobamate and placebo, respectively (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85-2.09; p = 0.205). Treatment was discontinued due to AEs in 12.2 and 4.1% of the patients in the active and control arms (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.08-4.79; p = 0.031). AEs were reported in 76.9 and 66.8% of the patients during treatment with cenobamate and placebo (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.26; p = 0.021). The cenobamate-associated AEs included somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, balance disorder, and diplopia.ConclusionsAdjunctive cenobamate in adult patients with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures is associated with a greater reduction in seizure frequency and a higher rate of AEs than placebo.
| S-EPMC7658084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePrimary objective was to evaluate efficacy of lacosamide administered concomitantly with 1-3 antiseizure medications in young children with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures.MethodsDouble-blind, parallel-group trial (SP0967: NCT02477839/2013-000717-20) conducted between June 2015 and May 2020 at hospitals and clinics in 25 countries. Patients (aged ≥1 month to <4 years) with uncontrolled focal seizures were randomized 1:1 to adjunctive lacosamide or placebo using an interactive voice/web response system and stratified by age. After a 20-day titration period, patients who reached target-dose range (8-12 mg/kg/day) entered a 7-day maintenance period. Region-specific primary efficacy variables were based on ≤72-h video-electroencephalograms: change in average daily frequency (ADF) of electrographic focal seizures as measured on end-of-maintenance video-electroencephalogram versus end-of-baseline video-electroencephalogram (United States); 50% responder rate (≥50% reduction in ADF of focal seizures) during maintenance (European Union).ResultsIn total, 255 patients were randomized (lacosamide/placebo: 128/127) and received ≥1 trial medication dose. Percentage reduction in ADF of focal seizures for lacosamide (116 patients) versus placebo (120 patients) was 3.2% (95% confidence interval = -13.6 to 17.5, p = 0.69). 50% responder rate was 41.4% for lacosamide (116 patients), 37.5% for placebo (120 patients) (p = 0.58). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 44.5% of lacosamide-treated patients (placebo 51.2%).InterpretationAdjunctive lacosamide did not show superior efficacy versus placebo in young children with focal seizures. However, efficacy variables were potentially affected by high variability and low reliability between readers in video-electroencephalogram interpretation. Lacosamide was generally well tolerated; safety profile was acceptable and consistent with that in adults and children aged ≥4 years.
| S-EPMC10963285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveGeneralized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures are the most common type of generalized seizure and more common in children than adults. This phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of pregabalin for GTC seizures in adults and children with epilepsy.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, multicenter study evaluated pregabalin (5 mg/kg/day or 10 mg/kg/day) vs placebo as adjunctive therapy for 10 weeks (following a 2-week dose escalation), in pediatric and adult patients (aged 5-65 years) with GTC seizures. Primary endpoint was change in log-transformed 28-day seizure rate during active treatment. Secondary endpoints included responder rates, defined as proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in 28-day GTC seizure rate from baseline. Safety was monitored throughout.ResultsOf 219 patients, 75, 72, and 72 were randomized to adjunctive pregabalin 5 mg/kg/day, 10 mg/kg/day, and placebo, respectively. Fifteen, 11, and 6 patients discontinued from the 5 mg/kg/day, 10 mg/kg/day, and placebo arms, respectively, most commonly due to adverse events (AEs; 10.7%, 6.9%, and 5.6%, respectively). A nonsignificant change in log-transformed mean 28-day seizure rate was seen with pregabalin 10 mg/kg/day vs placebo (least-squares [LS] mean difference -0.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.19 to 0.16]; P = .8889) and with pregabalin 5 mg/kg/day vs placebo (LS mean difference 0.02 [CI -0.15 to 0.19]; P = .8121). Similar observations were noted for adults and children. No significant differences were seen for secondary endpoints with pregabalin vs placebo, including responder rate. The most common AEs (≥10%) were dizziness, headache, and somnolence. Most were of mild/moderate intensity. Seven patients had serious AEs, with one death in the placebo arm (sudden unexpected death in epilepsy).SignificanceAdjunctive pregabalin treatment did not change GTC seizure rate in adults or children. The safety profile of pregabalin was similar to that known; treatment was well tolerated with few discontinuations due to AEs.
| S-EPMC8166786 | biostudies-literature