-
Current Neuropharmacology 2021It is challenging to balance the fetal risks associated with the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) against maternal and fetal risks of seizure worsening, and therefore... (Review)
Review
Use of Phenytoin, Phenobarbital Carbamazepine, Levetiracetam Lamotrigine and Valproate in Pregnancy and Breastfeeding: Risk of Major Malformations, Dose-dependency, Monotherapy vs Polytherapy, Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Implications.
It is challenging to balance the fetal risks associated with the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) against maternal and fetal risks of seizure worsening, and therefore it is very important to define and distinguish the possible risks entailed by different AEDs. This paper aims to undertake a comprehensive review regarding the possible risks of four classical (phenytoin, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and valproate) and two newer (lamotrigine and levetiracetam) AEDs during pregnancy. The review focuses on major and organ-specific malformations, dose-dependent risks, mono vs polytherapy, and clinical pharmacokinetics. A discussion regarding the safety of AED use during breastfeeding is also provided.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Breast Feeding; Carbamazepine; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 33573557
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X19666210211150856 -
Psychopharmacology Bulletin Mar 2021Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) is a rare life-threatening condition characterized by severe mucocutaneous epidermal necrolysis and detachment of the epidermis. The... (Review)
Review
Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) is a rare life-threatening condition characterized by severe mucocutaneous epidermal necrolysis and detachment of the epidermis. The condition centers around a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction with a complex etiology stemming from a variety of causes. The number one cause is medication-related-common ones including sulfonamides, antiepileptics, allopurinol, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Genetics also play a role as several human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotypes within certain ethnic groups have been implicated in adverse reactions to specific drugs. HLAB*15:02 has been identified in the Chinese and others of Southeast Asian origin to increase susceptibility to lamotrigine and carbamazepine-induced SJS. Furthermore, patients of Japanese origin with HLAB*31:01 and Koreans with HLA-B*44:03 are also at increased risk of SJS after receiving the same two drugs. Of the antiepileptics, one most commonly associated with SJS is lamotrigine, a pre-synaptic voltage-gated sodium channel inhibitor. Lamotrigine is an antiepileptic drug of the phenyltriazine class that is indicated for the prevention of focal and generalized seizures in epileptic patients as well as monotherapy or adjunctive maintenance treatment for Bipolar disorder. The occurrence of SJS is not a rigid contraindication to lamotrigine reintroduction in the same patient. To facilitate this, manufacturers have developed a strict re-challenge dosing regimen to facilitate successful reintroduction of lamotrigine. In order to prevent the recurrence of SJS during a re-challenge, timing of re-dose and initial rash severity must be considered. Therefore, to prevent SJS recurrence, prime lamotrigine re-challenge patients are those with mild initial rash that has not occurred within the previous 4 weeks. The Federal Food and Drug Administration recommends the testing HLA subtypes for those associated with SJS prior to starting lamotrigine.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; HLA-B Antigens; Humans; Lamotrigine; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; United States
PubMed: 34092825
DOI: No ID Found -
Bipolar Disorders Mar 2018The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) previously published treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder in 2005, along with international...
Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder.
The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) previously published treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder in 2005, along with international commentaries and subsequent updates in 2007, 2009, and 2013. The last two updates were published in collaboration with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD). These 2018 CANMAT and ISBD Bipolar Treatment Guidelines represent the significant advances in the field since the last full edition was published in 2005, including updates to diagnosis and management as well as new research into pharmacological and psychological treatments. These advances have been translated into clear and easy to use recommendations for first, second, and third- line treatments, with consideration given to levels of evidence for efficacy, clinical support based on experience, and consensus ratings of safety, tolerability, and treatment-emergent switch risk. New to these guidelines, hierarchical rankings were created for first and second- line treatments recommended for acute mania, acute depression, and maintenance treatment in bipolar I disorder. Created by considering the impact of each treatment across all phases of illness, this hierarchy will further assist clinicians in making evidence-based treatment decisions. Lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, asenapine, aripiprazole, paliperidone, risperidone, and cariprazine alone or in combination are recommended as first-line treatments for acute mania. First-line options for bipolar I depression include quetiapine, lurasidone plus lithium or divalproex, lithium, lamotrigine, lurasidone, or adjunctive lamotrigine. While medications that have been shown to be effective for the acute phase should generally be continued for the maintenance phase in bipolar I disorder, there are some exceptions (such as with antidepressants); and available data suggest that lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, lamotrigine, asenapine, and aripiprazole monotherapy or combination treatments should be considered first-line for those initiating or switching treatment during the maintenance phase. In addition to addressing issues in bipolar I disorder, these guidelines also provide an overview of, and recommendations for, clinical management of bipolar II disorder, as well as advice on specific populations, such as women at various stages of the reproductive cycle, children and adolescents, and older adults. There are also discussions on the impact of specific psychiatric and medical comorbidities such as substance use, anxiety, and metabolic disorders. Finally, an overview of issues related to safety and monitoring is provided. The CANMAT and ISBD groups hope that these guidelines become a valuable tool for practitioners across the globe.
Topics: Adolescent; Aged; Algorithms; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Bupropion; Child; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Lithium Compounds; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Societies, Medical; Suicide; Valproic Acid; Suicide Prevention
PubMed: 29536616
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.12609 -
Paediatric Drugs Feb 2019Childhood absence epilepsy (CAE) is a common pediatric epilepsy syndrome with distinct seizure semiology, electroencephalography (EEG) features, and treatment. A... (Review)
Review
Childhood absence epilepsy (CAE) is a common pediatric epilepsy syndrome with distinct seizure semiology, electroencephalography (EEG) features, and treatment. A diagnosis of CAE can be obtained during an office visit with a careful history, physical exam including prolonged hyperventilation, and a routine EEG. The treatment of choice for CAE with absence seizures only is ethosuximide. Valproic acid and lamotrigine are also effective treatments for many patients, but when compared to ethosuximide, valproic acid has more adverse effects and lamotrigine is less effective. Attention to predictors of response to treatment, including clinical, electrographic, and genetic factors, is increasing. Refractory CAE occurs in fewer than half of patients, and treatment strategies are available, though efficacy data are lacking. Careful assessment and treatment of psychosocial comorbidities is essential in caring for patients with CAE.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Child; Child, Preschool; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Electroencephalography; Epilepsy, Absence; Ethosuximide; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Male; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Seizures; Treatment Outcome; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 30734897
DOI: 10.1007/s40272-019-00325-x -
The Lancet. Neurology Jun 2018Evidence for the comparative teratogenic risk of antiepileptic drugs is insufficient, particularly in relation to the dosage used. Therefore, we aimed to compare the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Evidence for the comparative teratogenic risk of antiepileptic drugs is insufficient, particularly in relation to the dosage used. Therefore, we aimed to compare the occurrence of major congenital malformations following prenatal exposure to the eight most commonly used antiepileptic drugs in monotherapy.
METHODS
We did a longitudinal, prospective cohort study based on the EURAP international registry. We included data from pregnancies in women who were exposed to antiepileptic drug monotherapy at conception, prospectively identified from 42 countries contributing to EURAP. Follow-up data were obtained after each trimester, at birth, and 1 year after birth. The primary objective was to compare the risk of major congenital malformations assessed at 1 year after birth in offspring exposed prenatally to one of eight commonly used antiepileptic drugs (carbamazepine, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, topiramate, and valproate) and, whenever a dose dependency was identified, to compare the risks at different dose ranges. Logistic regression was used to make direct comparisons between treatments after adjustment for potential confounders and prognostic factors.
FINDINGS
Between June 20, 1999, and May 20, 2016, 7555 prospective pregnancies met the eligibility criteria. Of those eligible, 7355 pregnancies were exposed to one of the eight antiepileptic drugs for which the prevalence of major congenital malformations was 142 (10·3%) of 1381 pregnancies for valproate, 19 (6·5%) of 294 for phenobarbital, eight (6·4%) of 125 for phenytoin, 107 (5·5%) of 1957 for carbamazepine, six (3·9%) of 152 for topiramate, ten (3·0%) of 333 for oxcarbazepine, 74 (2·9%) of 2514 for lamotrigine, and 17 (2·8%) of 599 for levetiracetam. The prevalence of major congenital malformations increased with the dose at time of conception for carbamazepine (p=0·0140), lamotrigine (p=0·0145), phenobarbital (p=0·0390), and valproate (p<0·0001). After adjustment, multivariable analysis showed that the prevalence of major congenital malformations was significantly higher for all doses of carbamazepine and valproate as well as for phenobarbital at doses of more than 80 mg/day than for lamotrigine at doses of 325 mg/day or less. Valproate at doses of 650 mg/day or less was also associated with increased risk of major congenital malformations compared with levetiracetam at doses of 250-4000 mg/day (odds ratio [OR] 2·43, 95% CI 1·30-4·55; p=0·0069). Carbamazepine at doses of more than 700 mg/day was associated with increased risk of major congenital malformations compared with levetiracetam at doses of 250-4000 mg/day (OR 2·41, 95% CI 1·33-4·38; p=0·0055) and oxcarbazepine at doses of 75-4500 mg/day (2·37, 1·17-4·80; p=0·0169).
INTERPRETATION
Different antiepileptic drugs and dosages have different teratogenic risks. Risks of major congenital malformation associated with lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and oxcarbazepine were within the range reported in the literature for offspring unexposed to antiepileptic drugs. These findings facilitate rational selection of these drugs, taking into account comparative risks associated with treatment alternatives. Data for topiramate and phenytoin should be interpreted cautiously because of the small number of exposures in this study.
FUNDING
Bial, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, the Netherlands Epilepsy Foundation, and Stockholm County Council.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Logistic Models; Male; Oxcarbazepine; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Topiramate; Valproic Acid; Young Adult
PubMed: 29680205
DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30107-8 -
CNS Drugs Oct 2022The developmental and epileptic encephalopathies encompass a group of rare syndromes characterised by severe drug-resistant epilepsy with onset in childhood and... (Review)
Review
The developmental and epileptic encephalopathies encompass a group of rare syndromes characterised by severe drug-resistant epilepsy with onset in childhood and significant neurodevelopmental comorbidities. The latter include intellectual disability, developmental delay, behavioural problems including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder, psychiatric problems including anxiety and depression, speech impairment and sleep problems. Classical examples of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies include Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and tuberous sclerosis complex. The mainstay of treatment is with multiple anti-seizure medications (ASMs); however, the ASMs themselves can be associated with psychobehavioural adverse events, and effects (negative or positive) on cognition and sleep. We have performed a targeted literature review of ASMs commonly used in the treatment of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies to discuss the latest evidence on their effects on behaviour, mood, cognition, sedation and sleep. The ASMs include valproate (VPA), clobazam, topiramate (TPM), cannabidiol (CBD), fenfluramine (FFA), levetiracetam (LEV), brivaracetam (BRV), zonisamide (ZNS), perampanel (PER), ethosuximide, stiripentol, lamotrigine (LTG), rufinamide, vigabatrin, lacosamide (LCM) and everolimus. Bromide, felbamate and other sodium channel ASMs are discussed briefly. Overall, the current evidence suggest that LEV, PER and to a lesser extent BRV are associated with psychobehavioural adverse events including aggressiveness and irritability; TPM and to a lesser extent ZNS are associated with language impairment and cognitive dulling/memory problems. Patients with a history of behavioural and psychiatric comorbidities may be more at risk of developing psychobehavioural adverse events. Topiramate and ZNS may be associated with negative effects in some aspects of cognition; CBD, FFA, LEV, BRV and LTG may have some positive effects, while the remaining ASMs do not appear to have a detrimental effect. All the ASMs are associated with sedation to a certain extent, which is pronounced during uptitration. Cannabidiol, PER and pregabalin may be associated with improvements in sleep, LTG is associated with insomnia, while VPA, TPM, LEV, ZNS and LCM do not appear to have detrimental effects. There was variability in the extent of evidence for each ASM: for many first-generation and some second-generation ASMs, there is scant documented evidence; however, their extensive use suggests favourable tolerability and safety (e.g. VPA); second-generation and some third-generation ASMs tend to have the most robust evidence documented over several years of use (TPM, LEV, PER, ZNS, BRV), while evidence is still being generated for newer ASMs such as CBD and FFA. Finally, we discuss how a variety of factors can affect mood, behaviour and cognition, and untangling the associations between the effects of the underlying syndrome and those of the ASMs can be challenging. In particular, there is enormous heterogeneity in cognitive, behavioural and developmental impairments that is complex and can change naturally over time; there is a lack of standardised instruments for evaluating these outcomes in developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, with a reliance on subjective evaluations by proxy (caregivers); and treatment regimes are complex involving multiple ASMs as well as other drugs.
Topics: Autism Spectrum Disorder; Bromides; Cannabidiol; Clobazam; Cognition; Ethosuximide; Everolimus; Felbamate; Fenfluramine; Humans; Lacosamide; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Pregabalin; Spasms, Infantile; Sulfides; Topiramate; Valproic Acid; Vigabatrin; Zinc Compounds; Zonisamide
PubMed: 36194365
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-022-00955-9 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Oct 2022Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise the evidence of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of treatments for individuals with rapid cycling bipolar disorder (RCBD).
METHOD
A systematic search was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials assigning participants with RCBD to pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological interventions. Study inclusion and data extraction were undertaken by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was continuous within-subject RCBD illness severity before and after treatment. Pre-post random effects meta-analyses were conducted for each outcome/intervention arm studied, generating a standardised effect size (hedge's g) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 34 articles describing 30 studies were included. A total of 16 separate pharmacological treatments were examined in contrast to 1 psychological therapy study. Only quetiapine and lamotrigine were assessed in >5 studies. By assessing 95% CI overlap of within-subject efficacy effects compared to placebo, the only interventions suggesting significant depression benefits (placebo g = 0.60) were olanzapine (with/without fluoxetine; g = 1.01), citalopram (g = 1.10) and venlafaxine (g = 2.48). For mania, benefits were indicated for quetiapine (g = 1.01), olanzapine (g = 1.19) and aripiprazole (g = 1.09), versus placebo (g = 0.33). Most of these effect sizes were from only one trial per treatment. Heterogeneity between studies was variable, and 20% were rated to have a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
While many interventions appeared efficacious, there was a lack of robust evidence for most treatments. Given the limited and heterogeneous evidence base, the optimal treatment strategies for people with RCBD are yet to be established.
Topics: Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Citalopram; Fluoxetine; Humans; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 35778967
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13471 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder with repetitive mania/hypomania as well as depressive episodes, which eventually results in marked impairment in overall... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder with repetitive mania/hypomania as well as depressive episodes, which eventually results in marked impairment in overall functioning and health-related quality of life. A worldwide prevalence rate of 2.4% has been reported. The risk of suicide is higher in people with bipolar disorder than those with other mental disorders. Therefore, effective management of bipolar disorder in the maintenance period is warranted to minimize the risk of relapse or recurrence. Although lithium has been the standard treatment of bipolar disorder for many years, it is associated with adverse effects and teratogenicity. Lamotrigine is approved to be expected for prevention of recurrence for the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. In addition, lamotrigine is as effective as lithium. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to confirm the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialized Register (CCMDCTR) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to 21 May 2021. We also searched international trial registries and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with bipolar disorder who were treated with lamotrigine, placebo or lithium.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviews authors independently checked the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a standardized form. Data extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcome measures in the term of efficacy and tolerability. Study information were then entered into RevMan web.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies with a total of 2314 participants in this review; 1146 were randomized to lamotrigine, 869 were randomized to placebo and, 299 to lithium. We rated all studies as having an unclear risk of bias in at least one domain of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias, with the most commonly observed weakness being selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment). We judged five studies to be at a high risk of detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment). These potential biases pose as major threat to the validity of the included studies in this review. Outcomes of efficacy showed a possible advantage of lamotrigine over placebo. The estimated risk ratio (RR) for recurrence of manic symptom at one year as measured by the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) was 0.67, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.87; 3 studies, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence) in favor of lamotrigine. The RR of clinical worsening with the need for additional psychotropic treatment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98; 4 studies, 756 participants) based on moderate-certainty evidence. The possible benefits of lamotrigine were also seen for the outcome of treatment withdrawal due to any reason at 6-12 months after treatment (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; 4 studies, 700 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding tolerability, our analyses showed that the incidence rates of adverse effects were similar between the lamotrigine group and the placebo group (short-term effect: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.42; 5 studies, 1138 participants; very low-certainty evidence; long-term effect: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; 4 studies, 756 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the comparison between lamotrigine and lithium, efficacy was similar between groups except for recurrence of mania episode at one year. Recurrence of manic symptoms was higher in the lamotrigine group than that of the lithium group (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.44; 3 studies, 602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Analysis of adverse effects at 6-12 months showed that a lower proportion of participants experienced at least one adverse effect when treated with lamotrigine compared to lithium (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; 4 studies, 691 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- to moderate-certainty evidence collectively suggests that lamotrigine may be superior to placebo as a treatment modality for bipolar disorder. In comparison to lithium, people with bipolar disorder seem to tolerate lamotrigine better in the long run; however, the demonstrated efficacy in the maintenance of bipolar disorder was similar between the two groups.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lamotrigine; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34523118
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013575.pub2 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of... Sep 2018Bipolar disorder affects women throughout their childbearing years. During the perinatal period, women with bipolar disorder are vulnerable to depressive episode... (Review)
Review
Bipolar disorder affects women throughout their childbearing years. During the perinatal period, women with bipolar disorder are vulnerable to depressive episode recurrences and have an increased risk for postpartum psychosis. Perinatal screening is critical to identify women at risk. Although medications are the mainstay of treatment, the choice of pharmacotherapy must be made by the patient based on a risk-benefit discussion with her physician. For optimal dosing in pregnancy, therapeutic drug monitoring may be required to maintain effective drug concentrations. Residual symptoms of bipolar depression are treatable with bright light therapy as an alternative to medication augmentation.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Peripartum Period; Phototherapy; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnant Women; Recurrence; Triazines
PubMed: 30092918
DOI: 10.1016/j.ogc.2018.05.002 -
Health Technology Assessment... Dec 2021Levetiracetam (Keppra, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs.
BACKGROUND
Levetiracetam (Keppra, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy.
DESIGN
Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel.
SETTING
Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK.
PARTICIPANTS
Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication.
INTERVENTIONS
Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.
RESULTS
. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. . Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective.
LIMITATIONS
The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions.
FUTURE WORK
SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel.
CONCLUSIONS
- The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Child, Preschool; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Quality of Life; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide
PubMed: 34931602
DOI: 10.3310/hta25750