A meta-analysis: efficacy and safety of anti-epileptic drugs prescribed in Korea as monotherapy and adjunctive treatment for patients with focal epilepsy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jeon J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8020359 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy during long-term treatment.MethodsAn open-label extension (OLE) study was conducted in adults completing a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial, during which they had received monotherapy with either once-daily ESL or twice-daily controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. In the OLE study, all patients received ESL (800-1600 mg/d) for 2 years. Primary efficacy outcome was retention time (from baseline of the OLE study). Secondary efficacy assessments included seizure freedom rate (no seizures during the OLE study) and responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline of double-blind trial). Safety assessments included evaluation of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).ResultsOf 206 randomized patients, 96 who received ESL in the double-blind trial (ESL/ESL) and 88 who received CBZ-CR in the double-blind trial (CBZ-CR/ESL) were treated with ESL monotherapy (89.3% overall). Treatment retention time was similar between groups, with low probability of ESL withdrawal overall (<0.07 at any time). After 24 months, the probability of ESL withdrawal was 0.0638 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0292-0.1366) in the ESL/ESL group and 0.0472 (95% CI = 0.0180-0.1210) in the CBZ-CR/ESL group. Seizure freedom rates were 90.6% (ESL/ESL) and 80.7% (CBZ-CR/ESL; P = .0531). Responder rates remained >80% in both groups throughout the study. Incidence of serious TEAEs was similar between groups (7.3% vs 5.7%; 0% vs 1.1% possibly related), as were the incidences of TEAEs considered at least possibly related to treatment (17.7% vs 18.2%) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (3.1% vs 4.5%). The types of TEAEs were generally consistent with the known safety profile of ESL.SignificanceESL monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated over the long term, including in patients who transitioned from CBZ-CR monotherapy. No new safety concerns emerged.
| S-EPMC7693183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize efficacy, safety/tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of padsevonil (PSL) administered concomitantly with ≤3 antiseizure medications (ASMs) for observable focal seizures in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy in two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials.MethodsThe phase 2b dose-finding trial (EP0091/NCT03373383) randomized patients 1:1:1:1:1 to PSL 50/100/200/400 mg or placebo twice daily (b.i.d.). The phase 3 efficacy trial (EP0092/NCT03739840) randomized patients 1:1:1:1 to PSL 100/200/400 mg or placebo b.i.d. Patients with observable (focal aware with motor symptoms, focal impaired awareness, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic) focal seizures for ≥3 years, experiencing them ≥4 times per 28 days including during the 4-week baseline period despite treatment with ≥4 lifetime ASMs including current ASMs, were enrolled.ResultsIn EP0091 and EP0092, 410 and 231 patients, respectively, were randomized and received at least one dose of trial medication. In patients in EP0091 on PSL 50/100/200/400 mg b.i.d. (n = 80/82/81/81, respectively) versus placebo (n = 81), outcomes included percentage reductions over placebo in observable focal seizure frequency during the 12-week maintenance period: 17.2%, 19.1% (p = 0.128), 19.2% (p = 0.128), 12.4% (p = 0.248); 75% responder rates (p-values for odds ratios): 13.8%, 12.2% (p = 0.192), 11.1% (p = 0.192), 16.0% (p = 0.124) versus 6.2%; 50% responder rates: 33.8% (p = 0.045), 31.7% (p = 0.079), 25.9% (p = 0.338), 32.1% (p = 0.087), versus 21.0%; TEAEs were reported by 82.7% (67/81), 78.3% (65/83), 74.4% (61/82), 90.1% (73/81) versus 78.3% (65/83). In patients in EP0092 on PSL 100/200/400 mg b.i.d. (n = 60/56/56, respectively) versus placebo (n = 54), outcomes included percentage reductions over placebo: -5.6% (p = 0.687), 6.5% (p = 0.687), 6.3% (p = 0.687); 75% responder rates: 15.3% (p = 0.989), 12.5% (p = 0.989), 14.3% (p = 0.989) versus 13.0%; 50% responder rates: 35.6% (p = 0.425), 33.9% (p = 0.625), and 42.9% (p = 0.125) versus 27.8%; TEAEs were reported by 80.0% (48/60), 78.9% (45/57), 83.1% (49/59) versus 67.3% (37/55).SignificanceIn both trials, the primary outcomes did not reach statistical significance in any PSL dose group compared with placebo. PSL was generally well tolerated, and no new safety signals were identified.
| S-EPMC9712475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In EEG-fMRI studies, BOLD responses related to interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs) are most often the expected positive response (activation) but sometimes a surprising negative response (deactivation). The significance of deactivation in the region of IED generation is uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine if BOLD deactivation was caused by specific IED characteristics. Among focal epilepsy patients who underwent 3T EEG-fMRI from 2006 to 2011, those with negative BOLD having a maximum t-value in the IED generating region were selected. As controls, subjects with maximum activation in the IED generating region were selected. We established the relationship between the type of response (activation/deactivation) and (1) presence of slow wave in the IEDs, (2) lobe of epileptic focus, (3) occurrence as isolated events or bursts, (4) spatial extent of the EEG discharge. Fifteen patients with deactivation and 15 with activation were included. The IEDs were accompanied by a slow wave in 87 % of patients whose primary BOLD was a deactivation and only in 33 % of patients with activation. In the deactivation group, the epileptic focus was more frequently in the posterior quadrant and involved larger cortical areas, whereas in the activation group it was more frequently temporal. IEDs were more frequently of long duration in the deactivation group. The main factor responsible for focal deactivations is the presence of a slow wave, which is the likely electrographic correlate of prolonged inhibition. This adds a link to the relationship between electrophysiological and BOLD activities.
| S-EPMC4490905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo evaluate the comparative efficacy (50% reduction in seizure frequency) and tolerability (premature withdrawal due to adverse events) of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) for refractory epilepsy.MethodsWe searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2) including Epilepsy Group's specialized register, MEDLINE (1950 to March 2009), EMBASE (1980 to March 2009), and Current Contents Connect (1998 to March 2009) to conduct a systematic review of published studies, developed a treatment network and undertook a network meta-analysis.ResultsForty-three eligible trials with 6346 patients and 12 interventions, including placebo, contributed to the analysis. Only three direct drug comparator trials were identified, the remaining 40 trials being placebo-controlled. Conventional random-effects meta-analysis indicated all drugs were superior in efficacy to placebo (overall odds ratio (OR] 3.78, 95% CI 3.14, 4.55) but did not permit firm distinction between drugs on the basis of the efficacy or tolerability. A Bayesian network meta-analysis prioritized oxcarbazepine, topiramate and pregabalin on the basis of short term efficacy. However, sodium valproate, levetiracetam, gabapentin and vigabatrin were prioritized on the basis of short-term efficacy and tolerability, with the caveat that vigabatrin is recognized as being associated with serious visual disturbance with chronic use.ConclusionOf the wide range of AEDs licensed for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, sodium valproate, levetiracetam and gabapentin demonstrated the best balance of efficacy and tolerability. Until regulators mandate greater use of active comparator trials with longer term follow-up, network meta-analysis provides the only available means to quantify these clinically important parameters.
| S-EPMC3853525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo prospectively evaluate safety and efficacy of brain-responsive neurostimulation in adults with medically intractable focal onset seizures (FOS) over 9 years.MethodsAdults treated with brain-responsive neurostimulation in 2-year feasibility or randomized controlled trials were enrolled in a long-term prospective open label trial (LTT) to assess safety, efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) over an additional 7 years. Safety was assessed as adverse events (AEs), efficacy as median percent change in seizure frequency and responder rate, and QOL with the Quality of Life in Epilepsy (QOLIE-89) inventory.ResultsOf 256 patients treated in the initial trials, 230 participated in the LTT. At 9 years, the median percent reduction in seizure frequency was 75% (p < 0.0001, Wilcoxon signed rank), responder rate was 73%, and 35% had a ≥90% reduction in seizure frequency. We found that 18.4% (47 of 256) experienced ≥1 year of seizure freedom, with 62% (29 of 47) seizure-free at the last follow-up and an average seizure-free period of 3.2 years (range 1.04-9.6 years). Overall QOL and epilepsy-targeted and cognitive domains of QOLIE-89 remained significantly improved (p < 0.05). There were no serious AEs related to stimulation, and the sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (SUDEP) rate was significantly lower than predefined comparators (p < 0.05, 1-tailed χ2).ConclusionsAdjunctive brain-responsive neurostimulation provides significant and sustained reductions in the frequency of FOS with improved QOL. Stimulation was well tolerated; implantation-related AEs were typical of other neurostimulation devices; and SUDEP rates were low.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT00572195.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class IV evidence that brain-responsive neurostimulation significantly reduces focal seizures with acceptable safety over 9 years.
| S-EPMC7538230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveOur study assessed perampanel monotherapy in patients (aged ≥12 years) with focal-onset seizures (FOS) with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) in Japan and South Korea.MethodsStudy 342 (NCT03201900; FREEDOM) is a single-arm, open-label, Phase III study. Patients initially received perampanel in a 32-week 4-mg/d Treatment Phase (6-week Titration; 26-week Maintenance Periods). If they experienced a seizure during the 4-mg/d Maintenance Period, they could be up-titrated to 8 mg/d across an additional 30-week Treatment Phase (4-week Titration; 26-week Maintenance Periods). Primary endpoint was the seizure-freedom rate during the Maintenance Period (4 mg/d and last evaluated dose [4 or 8 mg/d]). Secondary endpoints included time to first seizure onset and to withdrawal during Maintenance. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were monitored.ResultsAt data cutoff (February 28, 2019), 89 patients with FOS (84 [94.4%] with newly diagnosed epilepsy and 5 [5.6%] with recurrence of epilepsy after a period of remission) had received ≥1 perampanel dose; 16 patients discontinued during the 4-mg/d Titration Period, meaning 73 patients entered the 4-mg/d Maintenance Period and were included in the primary analysis set for efficacy. Seizure-freedom rate in the 26-week Maintenance Period was 46/73 (63.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 50.9-74.0) at 4 mg/d and 54/73 (74.0%; 95% CI: 62.4-83.5) at 4 or 8 mg/d. Cumulative probability of seizure-onset and withdrawal rates during Maintenance was 30.8% (95% CI: 21.5-43.0) and 23.7% (95% CI: 15.4-35.3) at 4 mg/d, and 18.2% (95% CI: 11.0-29.3) and 23.3% (95% CI: 15.2-34.8) at 4 or 8 mg/d. Perampanel was generally well tolerated, and the most common TEAE was dizziness.SignificancePerampanel monotherapy (4 to 8 mg/d) was efficacious and consistent with the known safety profile up to 26 weeks in patients (≥12 years) with primarily newly diagnosed FOS with or without FBTCS.
| S-EPMC7278556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare long-term effectiveness of five antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for monotherapy of adult patients with focal epilepsy in routine clinical practice.MethodsAdult 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.ResultsThis 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]).ConclusionLTG 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.
| S-EPMC4493091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study was proposed to compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of the second and third generation AEDs for refractory epilepsy. The 50% responder rate (RR) was selected as the efficacy outcome whereas the incidence of dizziness and somnolence were considered to evaluate the tolerability of AEDs. Odds ratio (OR) and their 95% credible interval (CrI) were obtained using a consistency model and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value was calculated to rank AEDs. Topiramate appeared to be significantly more effective than placebo, eslicarbazepine acetate, perampanel, pregabalin, zonisamide, gabapentin and lamotrigine with respect to the 50% RR (all OR?>?1). Patients who were managed by eslicarbazepine acetate, perampanel, oxcarbazepine, topiramate and pregabalin were more likely to suffer from dizziness compared to those who receive placebo (all OR?>?1). Perampanel, topiramate and pregabalin were related to elevated risks of somnolence compared to placebo (all OR?>?1). Moreover, topiramate ranked highest with respect to 50% RR (SUCRA?=?0.968) whereas levetiracetam appeared to have balanced efficacy and tolerability (SUCRA?=?0.769, 0.743, 0.604 and 0.659). In conclusion, topiramate was the most efficacious AED, while levetiracetam was able to provide patients with balanced efficacy and tolerability.
| S-EPMC5451432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The incidence of epilepsy is high within the first few years of life, stabilizes over the second through fifth decades, and then rises again. Treatment of elderly patients with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is complicated by increased sensitivity to drug effects, altered pharmacokinetics and an increased risk for drug interactions due to polytherapy. On the other hand, the safety and efficacy data of AEDs attained during clinical development programmes are relatively limited for this age group. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive therapy in patients aged???65 years with focal-onset seizures (FOS). METHODS:This was an international, multicentre, open-label, non-controlled, single-arm, post-European approval commitment study with flexible doses of ESL between 400 and 1200 mg/day. Seventy-two elderly patients with at least two FOS in the prior 4 weeks, and treated with one or two AEDs, were enrolled. The study consisted of an 8-week baseline, followed by a 26-week treatment period during which the investigator was allowed to up- or down-titrate the ESL dose, and a 4-week follow-up period. Safety and tolerability were assessed as well as mental sedation, cognitive mental state and suicidal ideation. Efficacy was assessed based on patient diaries regarding the absolute and relative changes in seizure frequency, change in intellectual impairment and quality of life. RESULTS:Overall, 47 (65.3%) patients experienced 152 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The most frequent were dizziness (12.5%), somnolence (9.7%), fatigue, convulsion and hyponatraemia (8.3% each). All patients that experienced hyponatraemia (6/72) recovered without sequelae. Three patients died during the study (due to cardiac failure, glioblastoma multiforme and ischaemic stroke, all considered unrelated to ESL). Overall, 16 (22.2%) patients discontinued prematurely due to TEAEs. The incidences of clinically significant findings were low for vital signs, ECG, physical and neurological examinations. No TEAEs of hypothyroidism were reported; however, 24 (33.3%) patients presented post-baseline shifts from normal to decreased free T4 levels (not clinically significant). ESL decreased standardized seizure frequency from a mean of 4.8 seizures at baseline to 3.6 seizures at endpoint (p?>?0.05); and mean number of days with seizures significantly decreased from 4.1 (baseline) to 2.8 at endpoint (p?=?0.0408). CONCLUSION:ESL taken once daily (400-1200 mg) as adjunctive therapy in patients aged???65 years was found to be safe, well tolerated and efficacious (EudraCT number: 2009-012587-14).
| S-EPMC6267536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSeveral antiseizure medications (ASMs) have been approved for the treatment of focal epilepsy. However, there is a paucity of evidence on direct comparison of ASMs. We evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of all approved add-on ASMs for the treatment of focal epilepsy using network meta-analysis.MethodsData through extensive literature search was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrial.gov databases using predefined search terms from inception through March 2023. PRISMA reporting guidelines (CRD42023403450) were followed in this study. Efficacy outcomes assessed were ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% responder rates. Patient retention rate and safety outcomes such as overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and individual TEAEs were assessed. "Gemtc" 4.0.4 package was used to perform Bayesian analysis. Outcomes are reported as relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsLiterature search retrieved 5807 studies of which, 75 studies were included in the analysis. All ASMs showed significantly higher ≥50% responder rate compared with placebo. Except the ≥75% seizure frequency reduction for zonisamide (2.23; 95% CI: 1.00-5.70) and 100% for rufinamide (2.03; 95% CI: 0.54-11.00), all other interventions showed significantly higher ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared with placebo. Among treatments, significantly higher 100% responder rate was observed with cenobamate compared to eslicarbazepine (10.71; 95% CI: 1.56-323.9) and zonisamide (10.63; 95% CI: 1.37-261.2). All ASMs showed a lower patient retention rate compared to placebo, with the least significant value observed for oxcarbazepine (0.77; 95% CI: 0.7-0.84). Levetiracetam showed a lower risk of incidence (1.0; 95%CI: 0.94-1.1; SUCRA: 0.885067) for overall TEAE compared with other medications.SignificanceAll approved ASMs were effective as add-on treatment for focal epilepsy. Of the ASMs included, cenobamate had the greatest likelihood of allowing patients to attain seizure freedom.Plain language summaryThis article compares the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs) currently available to neurologists in the treatment of epileptic patients. Several newer generation ASMs that have been developed may be as effective or better than the older medications. We included 75 studies in the analysis. In comparison, all drugs improved ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared to control, except for Zonisamide and Rufinamide in the ≥75% and 100% responder rate categories. Retention of patients undergoing treatment was lower in drugs than placebo. All drugs were tolerated, the levetiracetam showed the best tolerability. Cenobamate more likely help completely to reduce seizures.
| S-EPMC11296132 | biostudies-literature