The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

Project description:BackgroundFew clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) as initial monotherapy for elderly patients.MethodsThis post-hoc subgroup analysis of data from an unblinded, randomized, 52-week superiority study (KOMET) compared the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) with extended-release sodium valproate (VPA-ER) and controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as monotherapy in patients aged ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. The physician chose VPA or CBZ as preferred standard treatment; patients were randomized to standard AEDs or LEV. The primary endpoint was time to treatment withdrawal. Results are exploratory, since KOMET was not powered for a subgroup analysis by age.ResultsPatients (n = 308) were randomized to LEV (n = 48) or VPA-ER (n = 53) in the VPE-ER stratum or to LEV (n = 104) or CBZ-CR (n = 103) in the CBZ-CR stratum. Mean age was 69.6 years, range 60.2-89.9 years (intention-to-treat population n = 307). Time to treatment withdrawal hazard ratio [HR] (95 % confidence interval [CI]) for LEV vs. standard AEDs was 0.44 (0.28-0.67); LEV vs.Vpa-er0.46 (0.16-1.33); LEV vs.Cbz-cr0.45 (0.28-0.72). Twelve-month withdrawal rates were: LEV vs. standard AEDs, 20.4 vs. 38.7 %; LEV vs. VPA-ER, 10.4 vs. 23.1 %; LEV vs. CBZ-CR, 25.0 vs. 46.6 %. Time to first seizure was similar between LEV and standard AEDs (HR: 0.92, 95 % CI: 0.63-1.35), LEV and VPA-ER (0.77, 0.38-1.56), and LEV and CBZ-CR (1.02, 0.64-1.63). Adverse events were reported by 76.2, 67.3, and 82.5 % of patients for LEV, VPA-ER, and CBZ-CR, respectively. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were 11.3, 10.2, and 35.0 % for LEV, VPA-ER, and CBZ-CR, respectively.ConclusionsTime to treatment withdrawal was longer with LEV compared with standard AEDs. This finding was driven primarly by the result in the CBZ-CR stratum, which in turn was likely due to the more favorable tolerability profile of LEV. Results of this post-hoc analysis suggest that LEV may be a suitable option for initial monotherapy for patients aged ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00175903 ; September 9, 2005.

Project description:Importance:More than half of infants with new-onset epilepsy have electroencephalographic and clinical features that do not conform to known electroclinical syndromes (ie, nonsyndromic epilepsy). Levetiracetam and phenobarbital are the most commonly prescribed medications for epilepsy in infants, but their comparative effectiveness is unknown. Objective:To compare the effectiveness of levetiracetam vs phenobarbital for nonsyndromic infantile epilepsy. Design, Setting, and Participants:The Early Life Epilepsy Study-a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study conducted from March 1, 2012, to April 30, 2015, in 17 US medical centers-enrolled infants with nonsyndromic epilepsy and a first afebrile seizure between 1 month and 1 year of age. Exposures:Use of levetiracetam or phenobarbital as initial monotherapy within 1 year of the first seizure. Main Outcomes and Measures:The binary outcome was freedom from monotherapy failure at 6 months, defined as no second prescribed antiepileptic medication and freedom from seizures beginning within 3 months of initiation of treatment. Outcomes were adjusted for demographics, epilepsy characteristics, and neurologic history, as well as for observable selection bias using propensity score weighting and for within-center correlation using generalized estimating equations. Results:Of the 155 infants in the study (81 girls and 74 boys; median age, 4.7 months [interquartile range, 3.0-7.1 months]), those treated with levetiracetam (n?=?117) were older at the time of the first seizure than those treated with phenobarbital (n?=?38) (median age, 5.2 months [interquartile range, 3.5-8.2 months] vs 3.0 months [interquartile range, 2.0-4.4 months]; P?<?.001). There were no other significant bivariate differences. Infants treated with levetiracetam were free from monotherapy failure more often than those treated with phenobarbital (47 [40.2%] vs 6 [15.8%]; P?=?.01). The superiority of levetiracetam over phenobarbital persisted after adjusting for covariates, observable selection bias, and within-center correlation (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.1-16; number needed to treat, 3.5 [95% CI, 1.7-60]). Conclusions and Relevance:Levetiracetam may have superior effectiveness compared with phenobarbital for initial monotherapy of nonsyndromic epilepsy in infants. If 100 infants who received phenobarbital were instead treated with levetiracetam, 44 would be free from monotherapy failure instead of 16 by the estimates in this study. Randomized clinical trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Over the past 20 years, a number of new drugs have been approved for National Health Service (NHS) use on the basis of information from short-term trials that demonstrate efficacy. These trials do not provide information about the longer term outcomes, which inform treatment policy. This trial will assess the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the newer treatment levetiracetam and zonisamide. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing new and standard treatments for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Arm A of the trial randomised 990 patients with focal epilepsy to standard AED lamotrigine or new AED levetiracetam or zonisamide. Arm B randomised 520 patients with generalised epilepsy to standard AED sodium valproate or new AED levetiracetam. Patients are recruited from UK NHS outpatient epilepsy, general neurology and paediatric clinics. Included patients are aged 5 years or older with two or more spontaneous seizures requiring AED monotherapy, who are not previously treated with AEDs. Patients are followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is time to 12-month remission from seizures. Secondary outcomes include time to treatment failure (including due to inadequate seizure control or unacceptable adverse reactions); time to first seizure; time to 24-month remission; adverse reactions and quality of life. All primary analyses will be on an intention to treat basis. Separate analyses will be undertaken for each arm. Health economic analysis will be conducted from the perspective of the NHS to assess the cost-effectiveness of each AED. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This trial has been approved by the North West-Liverpool East REC (Ref. 12/NW/0361). The trial team will disseminate the results through scientific meetings, peer-reviewed publications and patient and public involvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS:EudraCT 2012-001884-64; ISRCTN30294119.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the behavioral functioning of children prenatally exposed to carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), levetiracetam (LEV), or valproate (VPA) monotherapy.MethodsIn collaboration with the European Registry of Antiepileptic Drugs and Pregnancy (EURAP), the Dutch EURAP & Development study was designed, a prospective observational study. Between January 2015 and March 2018, the Child Behavior Checklist and the Social Emotional Questionnaire were used to examine the nature and severity of behavioral problems. VPA-exposed children were compared to children exposed to CBZ, LTG, or LEV, taking potential confounders into account. A direct comparison was also made between LTG and LEV, as these are first-choice treatments for many women with epilepsy of childbearing potential.ResultsOf the 405 invited, 181 children were included; 26 were exposed to VPA, 37 to CBZ, 88 to LTG, and 30 to LEV. For most children, both parents completed the behavioral questionnaires. Across all four antiepileptic drug (AED) exposure groups, high percentages of children with clinically relevant behavior problems were found, with behavioral problems occurring in 32% of VPA-exposed children, 14% of CBZ, 16% of LTG, and 14% of LEV. After controlling for potential confounders, VPA-exposed children had significantly more social problems than those exposed to LTG (-2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -5.2 to -0.4; P = 0.022) or LEV (-3.2, CI: -6.1 to -0.3; P = 0.028), and significantly more attention problems than LEV-exposed children (-3.7, CI: -6.7 to -0.8; P = 0.013). LTG-exposed children had significantly more attention deficit (-9.2, CI: -17.3 to 1.1; P = 0.026), but significantly less anxious behavior when compared to LEV-exposed children (9.0, CI: 0.3-17.6; P = 0.042).SignificanceCompared to population norms, a high proportion of children of mothers with epilepsy exposed prenatally to monotherapy with four common AEDs had clinical behavioral problems reported by parents. Different patterns were seen, with some but not all subscales raised for all AED exposure groups. It is important that prenatally AED-exposed children are regularly screened for behavioral problems so that appropriate help can be provided.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy, safety and economics of levetiracetam (LEV) for epilepsy.Materials and methodsPubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, OpenGrey.eu and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case reports and economic studies published from January 2007 to April 2018. We used a bubble plot to graphically display information of included studies and conducted meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesize the evidence.ResultsA total of 14,803 records were obtained. We included 30 SRs/meta-analyses, 34 RCTs, 18 observational studies, 58 case reports and 2 economic studies after the screening process. The included SRs enrolled patients with pediatric epilepsy, epilepsy in pregnancy, focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy and refractory focal epilepsy. Meta-analysis of the included RCTs indicated that LEV was as effective as carbamazepine (CBZ; treatment for 6 months: 58.9% vs 64.8%, OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.50-1.16; 12 months: 54.9% vs 55.5%, OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.79-1.93), oxcarbazepine (57.7% vs 59.8%, OR=1.34, 95% CI: 0.34-5.23), phenobarbital (50.0% vs 50.9%, OR=1.20, 95% CI: 0.51-2.82) and lamotrigine (LTG; 61.5% vs 57.7%, OR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.90-1.66). SRs and observational studies indicated a low malformation rate and intrauterine death rate for pregnant women, as well as low risk of cognitive side effects. But psychiatric and behavioral side effects could not be ruled out. LEV decreased discontinuation due to adverse events compared with CBZ (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.65), while no difference was found when LEV was compared with placebo and LTG. Two cost-effectiveness evaluations for refractory epilepsy with decision-tree model showed US$ 76.18 per seizure-free day gained in Canada and US$ 44 per seizure-free day gained in Korea.ConclusionLEV is as effective as CBZ, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital and LTG and has an advantage for pregnant women and in cognitive functions. Limited evidence supports its cost-effectiveness.Registered numberPROSPERO (No CRD 42017069367).

Dataset Information

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure