Dataset Information

Adjunctive pregabalin vs gabapentin for focal seizures: Interpretation of comparative outcomes.

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

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundPregabalin and gabapentin improve neuropathic pain symptoms but there are emerging concerns regarding their misuse. This is more pronounced among patients with substance use disorder, particularly involving opioids. Co-ingestion of gabapentinoids with opioids is increasingly identified in opioid related deaths, however, the molecular mechanism behind this is still unclear. We have sought to determine whether pregabalin or gabapentin directly modulates acute μ receptor signaling, or μ receptor activation by morphine.MethodsThe effects of pregabalin and gabapentin were assessed in HEK 293 cells stably transfected with the human μ receptor. Their effect on morphine induced hyperpolarization, cAMP production and ERK phosphorylation were studied using fluorescent-based membrane potential assay, bioluminescence based CAMYEL assay and ELISA assay, respectively. Pregabalin/gabapentin effects on morphine-induced hyperpolarization were also investigated in AtT20 cells.ResultsPregabalin or gabapentin (1 µM, 100 µM each) did not activate the µ receptor or affect K channel activation or ERK phosphorylation produced by morphine. Neither drug affected the desensitization of K channel activation produced by prolonged (30 min) application of morphine. Gabapentin (1 µM, 100 µM) and pregabalin (1 µM) did not affect inhibition of forskolin-stimulated cAMP production by morphine. However, pregabalin (100 µM) potentiated forskolin mediated cAMP production, although morphine still inhibited cAMP levels with a similar potency to control.DiscussionPregabalin or gabapentin did not activate or modulate µ receptor signaling in three different assays. Our data do not support the hypothesis that gabapentin or pregabalin augment opioid effects through direct or allosteric modulation of the µ receptor. Pregabalin at a high concentration increases cAMP production independent of morphine. The mechanism of enhanced opioid-related harms from co-ingestion of pregabalin or gabapentin with opioids needs further investigation.