Dataset Information

Adjunctive Cenobamate for Focal-Onset Seizures in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cenobamate 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 GABA_A receptors, binding at a non-benzodiazepine site.

Objective

We assessed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive cenobamate for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adult patients with epilepsy using meta-analytical techniques.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Two 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?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.

SUBMITTER: Lattanzi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7658084 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adjunctive Cenobamate for Focal-Onset Seizures in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lattanzi Simona S Trinka Eugen E Zaccara Gaetano G Striano Pasquale P Del Giovane Cinzia C Silvestrini Mauro M Brigo Francesco F

CNS drugs 20201101 11

<h4>Background</h4>Cenobamate 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 GABA<sub>A</sub> receptors, binding at a non-benzodiazepine site.<h4>Objective</h4>We assessed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive cenobamate for the treatment of focal-onset seizu ...[more]

PMID: 32851590

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBrivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM) and perampanel (PER) are antiseizure medications (ASMs) approved for adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures. So far, no randomised controlled trial directly compared the efficacy and safety of these drugs.ObjectiveWe estimated the comparative efficacy and safety of these ASMs for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults with epilepsy using a network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsWe systematically searched (June week 4, 2021) 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. Randomised, double-blinded, controlled, parallel-group, add-on studies that compared oral BRV, CNB, ESL, LCM, and PER versus any comparator over maintenance periods of at least 12 weeks and included adult patients with focal seizures uncontrolled by concomitant ASMs were identified. The efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients with ≥ 50% and 100% reduction in baseline seizure frequency during the maintenance period. The tolerability outcomes were the proportions of participants who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and experienced at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation. Effect sizes were estimated by network meta-analyses within a frequentist framework. The hierarchy of competing interventions was established using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).ResultsSixteen trials (BRV: n = 3, CNB: n = 1, ESL: n = 4, LCM: n = 4, PER: n = 4) were included, overall enrolling 4507 patients randomised to add-on active treatments (BRV = 803, CNB = 221, ESL =9 90, LCM = 1104, and PER = 1389) and 2246 to add-on placebo. Cenobamate was associated with a higher rate of ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction than BRV [odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-3.66], ESL (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.07-3.48), LCM (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04-3.32), and PER (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.16-3.70). There was a not statistically significant trend favouring CNB over ESL, LCM and PER for the seizure freedom outcome. Brivaracetam (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.86) and LCM (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.88) were associated with a lower proportion of participants experiencing TEAEs compared to ESL, and patients treated with PER were associated with a higher risk to experience at least one TEAE (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02-1.96) than BRV. According to SUCRA, CNB had the greatest likelihood of being the best option for the ≥ 50% and 100% seizure frequency reduction, and BRV and LCM had the highest probabilities of being the best-tolerated treatments.ConclusionsCenobamate ranked best for efficacy, and BRV and LCM were best tolerated over the other comparators. Although NMAs cannot replace direct comparisons, they may support physicians in clinical decision making.

Project description:Background. The relative efficacy and safety of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy compared to other antiepileptic drugs has not been well established. Objective. To determine if lacosamide provides improved efficacy and safety, reduced length of hospital stay and improved quality of life compared with other anti-epileptic therapies for adults with partial-onset seizures. Data Sources. A systematic review of the medical literature using Medline (1946-Week 4, 2012), EMBASE (1980-Week 3, 2012), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 1 of 12, January 2012). Additional studies were identified (through to February 7, 2012) by searching bibliographies, the FDA drug approval files, clinical trial registries and major national and international neurology meeting abstracts. No restrictions on publication status or language were applied. Study Selection. Randomized controlled trials of lacosamide in adults with partial-onset seizures were included. Data Extraction. Study selection, extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two authors. Authors of studies were contacted for missing data. Data Synthesis. All pooled analyses used the random effects model. Results. Three trials (1311 patients) met inclusion criteria. Lacosamide increased the 50% responder rate compared to placebo (RR 1.68 [95% CI 1.36 to 2.08]; I(2) = 0%). Discontinuation due to adverse events was statistically significantly higher in the lacosamide arm (RR3.13 [95% CI 1.94 to 5.06]; I(2) = 0%). Individual adverse events (ataxia, dizziness, fatigue, and nausea) were also significantly higher in the lacosamide group. Limitations. All dosage arms from the included studies were pooled to make a single pair-wise comparison to placebo. Selective reporting of outcomes was found in all of the included RCTs. Conclusions. Lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in patients with partial-onset seizures increases the 50% responder rate but with significantly more adverse events compared to the placebo.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:During the development of cenobamate, an antiseizure medication (ASM) for focal seizures, three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) occurred. To mitigate the rate of DRESS, a start-low, go-slow approach was studied in an ongoing, open-label, multicenter study. Also examined were long-term safety of cenobamate and a method for managing the pharmacokinetic interaction between cenobamate, a 2C19 inhibitor, and concomitant phenytoin or phenobarbital. METHODS:Patients 18-70 years old with uncontrolled focal seizures taking stable doses of one to three ASMs were enrolled. Cenobamate 12.5 mg/d was initiated and increased at 2-week intervals to 25, 50, 100, 150, and 200 mg/d. Additional biweekly 50 mg/d increases to 400 mg/d were allowed. During titration, patients taking phenytoin or phenobarbital could not have their cenobamate titration rate or other concomitant ASMs adjusted; phenytoin/phenobarbital doses could be decreased by 25%-33%. RESULTS:At data cutoff (median treatment duration = 9 months), 1347 patients were enrolled, of whom 269 (20.0%) discontinued, most commonly due to adverse events (n = 137) and consent withdrawn for reason other than adverse event (n = 74); 1339 patients received ?1 treatment dose (median modal dose = 200 mg). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were somnolence (28.1%), dizziness (23.6%), and fatigue (16.6%). Serious TEAEs occurred in 108 patients (8.1%), most commonly seizure (n = 14), epilepsy (n = 5), and pneumonia, fall, and dizziness (n = 4 each). No cases of DRESS were identified. In the phenytoin/phenobarbital groups, 43.4% (36/114) and 29.7% (11/51) of patients, respectively, had their doses decreased. At the end of titration, mean plasma phenytoin/phenobarbital levels were generally comparable to baseline. SIGNIFICANCE:No cases of DRESS were identified in 1339 patients exposed to cenobamate using a start-low (12.5 mg/d), go-slow titration approach. Cenobamate was generally well tolerated in the long term, with no new safety issues found. Phenytoin/phenobarbital dose reductions (25%-33%), when needed during cenobamate titration, maintained stable plasma levels.

Project description:ObjectiveEvaluate long-term efficacy (percent seizure frequency reduction and responder rates), safety, and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate in an open-label extension (OLE) of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.MethodsPatients (aged 18-70 years) with uncontrolled focal seizures despite treatment with 1-3 antiseizure medications who completed the 18-week double-blind study (n=360) could enter the OLE, where they underwent a 2-week blinded conversion to cenobamate (target dose, 300 mg/day; min/max, 50/400 mg/day).ResultsThree hundred fifty-five patients were included in the OLE safety population (265 originally randomized to cenobamate, 90 originally randomized to placebo), and 354 were included in the OLE modified intent-to-treat population. As of July 2019, 58.9% (209/355) of patients were continuing cenobamate treatment and 141 had discontinued, including 16.6% (59/355) due to lack of efficacy, 8.7% (31/355) due to withdrawal by patient, and 7.6% (27/355) due to adverse events. Median (range) duration of OLE exposure was 53.9 (1.1-68.7) months. Retention rates at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months were 83%, 71%, 65%, and 62%, respectively. Median percent seizure frequency reduction over baseline increased with each 6-month OLE interval, up to 76.1% at months 43-48. Among observed patients, 16.4% (36/220) achieved 100% and 39.1% (86/220) achieved ≥90% seizure reduction during >36-48 months. Among the initial OLE mITT population, 10.2% (36/354) of patients achieved 100% and 24.3% (86/354) achieved ≥90% seizure reduction during >36-48 months. Similar to the double-blind study, adverse events (AEs) included dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, and headache. Serious AEs occurred in 20.3% (72/355) of patients.ConclusionLong-term efficacy, including 100% and ≥90% seizure reduction, was sustained during 48 months of cenobamate treatment, with 71% retention at 24 months. No new safety issues were identified. These results confirm the findings of the double-blind study and support the potential long-term clinical benefit of cenobamate.RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01866111.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class IV evidence that oral Cenobamate 50-400 mg/day is effective as an adjunctive treatment for the long-term management of patients with uncontrolled focal seizures previously treated with 1 to 3 ASMs.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study was undertaken to examine long-term (up to 7.8 years) retention rate, safety, and tolerability of the antiseizure medication (ASM) cenobamate as adjunctive treatment in the open-label extension (OLE) of study YKP3089C013 (C013; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01397968).MethodsPatients who completed the 12-week, multicenter, multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled C013 study, which examined adjunctive cenobamate treatment of adults with uncontrolled focal seizures, were eligible to enroll in the OLE. During the OLE, dose adjustments of cenobamate and concomitant ASMs were allowed. Safety assessments included frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious TEAEs, TEAE severity, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Probability of patient continuation in the OLE was examined using a Kaplan-Meier analysis.ResultsOne hundred forty-nine patients entered the OLE (median duration of cenobamate treatment = 6.25 years). As of the data cutoff, 57% of patients (85/149) remained in the OLE (median treatment duration = 6.8 years, range = 6.4-7.8 years). The median modal daily cenobamate dose was 200 mg (range = 50-400 mg). The probability of treatment continuation at 1-6 years of cenobamate treatment was 73%, 67%, 63%, 61%, 60%, and 59%, respectively. Among patients who continued at 1 year (n = 107), the probability of continuing at Years 2-5 was 92%, 87%, 83%, and 82%. The most common discontinuation reasons were patient withdrawal (19.5%, 29/149), adverse event (10.1%, 15/149), and lack of efficacy (5.4%, 8/149). TEAEs leading to discontinuation in 1% or more of patients were fatigue (1.3%, 2/149), ataxia (1.3%, 2/149), and memory impairment or amnesia (1.3%, 2/149). Dizziness (32.9%, 49/149), headache (26.8%, 40/149), and somnolence (21.5%, 32/149) were the most frequently reported TEAEs and were primarily mild or moderate in severity.SignificanceLong-term retention in the C013 OLE study demonstrated sustained safety and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate treatment up to 7.8 years in adults with treatment-resistant focal seizures taking one to three ASMs.

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.

Dataset Information

Adjunctive Cenobamate for Focal-Onset Seizures in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Publications

Adjunctive Cenobamate for Focal-Onset Seizures in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets