Monotherapy trials in antiepileptic drugs: are modified "presurgical studies" a way out of the dilemma?

Monotherapy trials in epilepsy are confronted with a dilemma: either they are in conflict with ethical requirements, or they are scientifically not meaningful. Monotherapy trials, which are performed as controlled studies randomizing patients to ineffective (pseudo)placebo treatment, are incompatible with the Helsinki Declaration. On the other hand, equivalence or noninferiority studies using an active-control design do not permit valid conclusions on the efficacy of the test drug. Therefore, they do not fulfill scientific requirements for trials on new drugs. As an alternative approach, a monotherapy trial design for epilepsy patients undergoing presurgical evaluation was outlined. During presurgical evaluation, antiepileptic drugs are routinely tapered down for seizure recording. This situation is used for a placebo-controlled short-term monotherapy trial. Four trials according to this design have been completed so far. Recently, several points of concern have been raised against this design, especially for matters of ethics and external validity. In the present article, these objections are outlined and discussed. In the proposed modification the randomization and the titration of the test drug or control begins prior to the presurgical investigations. The advantages are: the test drug does not have to be titrated quickly, pure monotherapy conditions are achieved, and the subjects do not have to experience more seizures than are required for the presurgical evaluation.     

Monotherapy trial design: conversion versus de novo.

It is difficult to design valid and well-controlled monotherapy trials that satisfy regulatory requirements and, at the same time, demonstrate the usefulness of a new drug in clinical practice. The conversion design is a drug-substitution trial in which patients with uncontrolled seizures are assigned to add-on treatment with an investigational drug and, usually, an appropriate control, after which pre-existing treatment is gradually discontinued. In the most utilised design, patients are randomised to receive a high dose versus low dose of the new drug, while concomitant medication is gradually discontinued. Exit criteria are predetermined to prevent excessive deterioration of seizures, and treatment retention time is used as the primary outcome variable to measure the effectiveness of the allocated treatments: the goal is to demonstrate higher retention rates in the high-dosage group. Conversion studies may help to fill some gaps in knowledge regarding efficacy and tolerability as monotherapy before larger-scale de-novo studies are started. In the de-novo design, newly diagnosed patients are randomised to receive the investigational drug or an active control. In equivalence (or non-inferiority) trials, the active control is usually an established antiepileptic drug (AED) such as carbamazepine or valproate, and outcome parameters may include proportion of patients achieving a predefined (for example, 6-month) seizure remission or the proportion of patients remaining in the trial (retention rate, a combined measure of efficacy and tolerability). In regulatory trials designed to show a difference, newly diagnosed patients are randomised to a high versus a low dose of the investigational drug, and exit criteria are again predetermined for patients whose seizures are not adequately controlled. In this case, outcome parameters may include time to first seizure in addition to retention in the trial. Comparative monotherapy trials in newly diagnosed patients are relevant to approximately 50% of the patients who develop epilepsy and can be satisfactorily managed with a single drug. These trials allow direct head-to-head comparisons and avoid the confounding effects of baseline drugs and co-medication withdrawal present in conversion studies. Long-term follow-up of patients who are receiving a drug in monotherapy at adequate doses gives the most clinically relevant answers regarding the usefulness of a new drug. It is concluded that the de-novo design is the gold standard when studying AEDs as monotherapy, but the conversion-to-monotherapy design can be used before starting the de-novo program in order to obtain estimates of efficacy and tolerability of the AED as monotherapy in a population of difficult-to-treat patients. With both designs, the use of suboptimal comparators incorporated into some of the regulatory trials is a cause of ethical concern.     

Innovative Designs of Controlled Clinical Trials in Epilepsy

Summary: Uncontrolled noncomparative clinical observations of investigational antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) often lead to overoptimistic efficacy results and are therefore of very limited value for clinical AED development. The classic add-on trial with placebo as control treatment, in contrast, has provided unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of classic and new AEDs and has also identified less useful AEDs. Drug interactions, carryover effects, difficulty in analyzing individual drug action, and the recognition that monotherapy is by far the more common way of prescribing AEDs have led to the development of classic active control monotherapy trials. A major problem of these trials is a no-difference outcome, which allows no useful interpretation. Recently, two alternative monotherapy designs have been developed to avoid the deadlock of a no-difference outcome. In these designs the active control drug is administered in an attenuated form (low dosage or low concentration) or a placebo control is used when standard treatment is discontinued during presurgical evaluation. Both designs have produced unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of the investigational AED during monotherapy. Ethical concerns are minimized by the introduction of preset escape criteria for patient protection. These designs are valuable new supplements for the clinical development of investigational AEDs for monotherapy in epilepsy. In our opinion, alternative monotherapy designs should be preceded by more than one pivotal add-on, placebo-controlled trial.     

Measuring the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs.

Clinical trials of new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) include regulatory studies aimed at demonstrating efficacy and reasonable safety, post-marketing open-open label studies and longer term outcome studies. Regulatory trials involve a carefully selected population of patients and are conducted under rigorously standardised conditions. Data from such studies cannot often be translated into clinical practice. Pragmatic post-marketing studies using flexible dosing schedules allow clinicians to better judge the utility of the new drug in a wider population of patients with epilepsy and decide the most appropriate dosing schedules. This paper discusses some of the issues surrounding the measurement of efficacy of new AEDs in both pre- and post-marketing phases of their development. All of the newer AEDs are initially used in patients with refractory partial seizures as adjunctive treatment. These trials are generally parallel-group studies although cross-over designs have been employed. The use of placebo-control is uncontroversial in this type of study. Efficacy endpoints are generally manipulations of seizure frequency on study drug compared to control. Global outcome measures and health related quality of life scores can also be used to measure efficacy. As the standard AEDs are associated with a high rate of seizure remission in patients who receive them as monotherapy, demonstration of superior efficacy of a new agent in a comparative trial will require large numbers of patients in a design that takes into account the natural history of treated epilepsy. Comparing investigational agents to a standard AED in an 'active-control' study with demonstration of equivalent efficacy would seem to be an acceptable way of assessing efficacy of new AEDs in this population. Some regulators, however, do not accept equivalence as proof of efficacy and insist on demonstration of superiority compared to a control. The use of placebo alone in the control group is ethically dubious. Several innovative study designs have, therefore, been used to satisfy regulatory requirements, while maintaining patient safety including withdrawal to monotherapy using high versus low dose comparators. Observational outcome studies provide the best opportunity of exploring the long-term utility of individual AEDs. Such studies largely follow standard clinical practice and need considerable time and resources. They can, however, yield valuable information about the effectiveness of AEDs in everyday clinical practice. Data from regulatory trials should be complemented by postmarketing studies and longer term studies of outcome to help clinicians decide the best way of utilising new AEDs and establishing their role in the therapeutic armamentarium.     

Alternatives to placebo-controlled trials

Until recently, the gold standard for assessing the efficacy and effectiveness of new medications has been the placebo-control randomized clinical trial (RCT). However, there are serious ethical concerns about placing patients on a placebo when effective treatments exist. Further, if a new agent is tested only against a placebo, there is no guarantee that it is more effective, or even as effective, as an existing agent. For these and other reasons, ethicists and regulatory bodies have said that, under these circumstances, new drugs should be tested against an active agent. There are three types of such trials: superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority. In superiority trials, the goal is to establish that the new drug is better (i.e., more effective, or with a more benign side-effect profile) than the standard. Because such trials require much larger sample sizes than placebo-control studies, and are rarely required to bring a drug onto market, they are rarely done. In equivalence trials, the aim is to show that the new and standard agents have similar degrees of effectiveness or adverse events. Due to sample size requirements, most studies of new drugs are non-inferiority trials, in which it is sufficient to demonstrate that the new drug is not significantly worse than the existing ones. However, there are methodological concerns with equivalence and non-inferiority trials, including (a) an inability to determine if the drugs were equally good or equally bad; (b) poorly executed trials with low power can be mistaken for "proving" equivalence or non-inferiority; (c) the equivalence interval is arbitrary; (d) successive non-inferiority trials may lead to a gradual reduction in effectiveness; and (e) often larger trials are necessary. The paper also discusses "add on trials." It is recommended that, even when existing drugs exist, trials should consist of at least three arms, one of which is a placebo. This paper briefly considers the ethics of placebo, and conditions are stated under which such studies can be conducted.     

Gamma Vinyl GABA: Current Role in the Management of Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

Summary: The goal of management in epilepsy is to make patients completely seizure-free without side effects. Currently, this goal can be achieved fully in only about one-half of the 50,000,000 people in the world with epilepsy. Epilepsy is not a benign condition. Uncontrolled epilepsy produces significant morbidity and mortality. Even infrequent seizures put a patient at risk of sudden death and compromise employability and other social functions. The potential risk of a new antiepileptic drug has to be weighed against the potential risk of continuing seizures and the potential for the new drug to control those seizures. Vigabatrin (gamma vinyl GABA, GVG) is one of the promising new antiepileptic drugs now under development. In four large clinical trials half of the patients in each trial had a ≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency when GVG was added to existing antiepileptic drug. This represents a significant response rate in add-on trials, which are a severe test of a new antiepileptic drug. Although microvacuoles have been seen in the white matter of the brains of rats and dogs treated with GVG, such pathological changes have not yet been observed in humans. Evoked potential studies have failed to reveal any evidence of microvacuolization in humans. Because of the potential efficacy of GVG in controlling previously therapeutic-resistant seizures and of the absence of evidence of significant toxicity in humans, carefully monitored clinical trials of GVG in therapy-resistant patients with epilepsy should continue.     

Efficacy and tolerability of the new antiepileptic drugs: comparison of two recent guidelines

BACKGROUND: Until the early 1990s six major compounds (carbamazepine, ethosuximide, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, and valproic acid) were available for the treatment of epilepsy. However, these drugs have pharmacokinetic limitations, teratogenic potential, and a negative effect on cognitive functions that impairs the quality of patients' lives and limits the use of these drugs in some patients. In addition, 20-30% of patients are refractory to these drugs. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: The development of ten new antiepileptic drugs (vigabatrin, felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, topiramate, tiagabine, oxcarbazepine, levetiracetam, zonisamide, and pregabalin) has expanded treatment options. The newer drugs may be better tolerated, have fewer drug interactions, and seem to affect cognitive functions to a lesser extent than old drugs. Guidelines on the use of new antiepileptic drugs have been developed in the USA and in the UK. Both guidelines offer a clear picture of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the new antiepileptic drugs and agree on their use as add-on treatment in patients who do not respond to conventional drugs. The guidelines differ in the type and strength of recommendations. Whereas the US guidelines recommend treatment in newly diagnosed epilepsy with a standard drug or a new drug depending on the individual patient's characteristics, the UK guidelines recommend that a new antiepileptic drug should be considered only if there is no benefit from an old antiepileptic drug, an old drug is contraindicated, there is a previous negative experience with the same drug, or the patient is a woman of childbearing potential. WHERE NEXT: The limited amount of information on the new antiepileptic drugs may explain the discrepancies among the two guidelines and between these and other recommendations. Comparative, pragmatic, long-term and open trials should be done to show long-term efficacy and comparative features of the new antiepileptic drugs, and to better assess the effect on quality-of-life, cost-effectiveness, tolerability, and teratogenic potential. In addition, the conflicts should be resolved between the needs of the regulatory bodies and those of the treating physicians. Finally, there is a need for trial designs to be standardised.     

Monotherapy trials: presurgical studies.

Presurgical evaluation of patients with refractory partial seizures provides a unique opportunity to perform a placebo-controlled, monotherapy trial. Some patients undergoing presurgical evaluations must have all of their antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) tapered in order to induce seizures and therefore such patients are possible candidates for a placebo-controlled monotherapy trial. Often, EEG monitoring is continued throughout the trial period, thus patients either receiving placebo or whose seizures do not completely respond to the active drug are still evaluated to determine whether or not surgery is feasible, supporting the validity of a trial in this setting. In addition, all patients are, in general, eligible to receive the study drug after the blinded period of the trial, and can therefore be assured of the possible therapeutic benefits of the study. Presurgical inpatients studies have been carried out using felbamate, gabapentin and oxcarbazepine. All patients randomised in these trials were refractory to previous treatment and the studies themselves were short-term and placebo-controlled. These presurgical studies are designed to elucidate AED activity and show statistically significant differences between active and control treatments during short-term therapy, and are therefore of use in fulfilling regulatory requirements. However, these measures of efficacy are distinctly different from those determined during chronic treatment and are therefore not necessarily predictive of clinical usefulness.     

Does placebo help establish equivalence in trials of new antidepressants?

Clinical trials of new antidepressants usually compare a new drug to a reference antidepressant and to a placebo. The placebo is intended to validate the trial in the case of a no-difference outcome, i.e., it helps in assessing equivalence. The aim of the present paper is to test whether placebo has indeed helped establish equivalence of effect in comparative trials of new antidepressants. We carried out an example of sample size determination first in a trial to show a difference between the new and control drug, and second in a trial to assess equivalence between two competing drugs. Finally, we retrospectively calculated the maximum difference accepted as equivalence of effect in published trials of new antidepressants. Assuming a response rate to antidepressants of 70%, 294 subjects for each treatment group are needed to show a 10% difference between two antidepressant drugs and more than 1,300 to assess equivalence at a 5% level of delta, the maximum difference acceptable as equivalence of effect. The level of delta in published trials of new antidepressants ranges between 12 and 43%, suggesting they cannot claim to demonstrate equivalence of effect. Therefore, the presence of a placebo arm for comparison didn't help establish whether both drugs really worked the same way. Comparative trials of new antidepressants should adopt a two-arm design, a suitable number of patients and a high standard in the experimental design in order to minimise possible control-event rate variation.     

Monotherapy trials with the new antiepileptic drugs: study designs, practical relevance and ethical implications

Traditional randomized clinical trials for the monotherapy assessment of antiepileptic drugs (AED) involve allocation of newly diagnosed patients to long-term treatment with different AEDs in order to determine remission rates and side effect profile. Apart from being time-consuming, however, these trials are unlikely to show significant differences in seizure control between the various drugs, which may lead some regulatory agencies to argue that remission rates could be related to the natural history of the disease rather than to efficacy of the administered drugs. To circumvent this problem, a number of innovative designs for the monotherapy assessment of new AEDs have been developed in recent years. They all share the common feature of being aimed at demonstrating a difference in response rate over a short treatment period between a high dosage of a new AED and some form of suboptimal treatment (placebo or low-dose active control). Patients allocated to suboptimal treatment show unacceptable seizure control more rapidly than patients on high-dose active treatment and therefore they exit the trial at a faster rate: evidence of antiepileptic activity is therefore based on demonstration of differences in rate of deterioration rather than improvement. These trials are conducted with titration schedules, dosages and durations of treatment which are totally unrelated to optimal use of the same AEDs in routine clinical practice. No comparative data with an established reference agent are provided, and allocation of patients to suboptimal treatment raises serious ethical concerns. For these reasons, justification for the continued implementation of these trials is questionable. Randomized long-term comparative trials should be considered the gold-standard for the monotherapy assessment of new AEDs. A review of the literature, however, reveals that long-term trials with new AEDs completed to date had significant shortcomings in their design, including excessively rigid or inappropriate dosing schedules, enrollment of patients with heterogeneous seizure disorders, low statistical power and insufficient duration of follow-up. Because these studies are usually aimed at addressing regulatory requirements, the information obtained cannot be meaningfully applied to routine clinical practice. Large longer-term randomized comparative trials using more pragmatic approaches are highly needed to determine the real value of first-line therapy with new AEDs in patients with well defined seizure disorders.     

Antiepileptic drug trials: the view from the clinic

A golden age of antiepileptic drug development has yielded over a dozen useful new compounds, but the nature of clinical trials has made translation to practical use in the clinic difficult. Most clinical trials are designed for regulatory purposes and fail to answer critical clinical questions. These questions include: which drug is best as initial therapy, which drugs work as monotherapy, what are good drug combinations, what is the best starting dose and titration schedule, what is a reasonable target dose, what is the shape of the dose-response curve and does it vary significantly between patients, what is the true incidence of side effects, and what is the long-term efficacy of the drug? Most of these questions could be answered by changing trial designs, but many changes would entail additional time and money. There are encouraging signs that trials with procedures more directly applicable to the clinic are becoming common. These include direct comparative trials, longer trials with emphasis on seizure freedom, and trials with more flexible dosing schedules. In the past, funding of longer and more naturalistic trials has fallen to government agencies, but commercial funding has been obtained for several recent studies. Better quality control, innovative endpoints, structured searching for side effects, and standardisation of data collection are also promising topics for development.     

Historical control withdrawal to monotherapy

The design of clinical trials can be explained in terms of selection of a control group. Two options have included (a) using an active comparator, usually a standard drug such as carbamazepine (active control) or (b) using a placebo or low-dose control. Because neither active control nor placebo/dose control appeared to be acceptable alternatives for monotherapy studies in epilepsy, a new concept has been considered: the use of "historical control". This method uses the "expected" (imputed) behavior of placebo, based on prior trials. Some trials have been performed in patients with refractory epilepsy, who are withdrawn from their previous antiepileptic drugs, and converted to monotherapy on a study drug, using a low-dose comparator, frequently called "pseudo-placebo." A meta-analysis of all pseudo-placebo arms was performed to determine whether they could serve as a historical control for future monotherapy trials. The estimate of the combined percent exit was 86.1% (CI 78.6% to 93.6%). These data may be able to serve as a historical control for future monotherapy studies, obviating the need for a placebo/pseudo placebo arm.     

Translation of nondopaminergic treatments for levodopa-induced dyskinesia from MPTP-lesioned nonhuman primates to phase IIa clinical studies: keys to success and roads to failure.

Studies in MPTP-lesioned nonhuman primates have demonstrated the potential of nondopaminergic drugs in reducing the problems of levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID). Here we review the process of translating findings from the monkey to man. Agents targeting glutamate, adensosine, noradrenaline, 5-hydroxytryptamine, cannabinoid, and opioid transmitter systems have been assessed for antidyskinetic potential in human studies. Eleven nondopaminergic drugs with antidyskinetic efficacy in the MPTP primate have been advanced to proof-of-concept phase IIa trials in PD patients (amantadine, istradefylline, idazoxan, fipamezole, sarizotan, quetiapine, clozapine, nabilone, rimonabant, naloxone, and naltrexone). For all six nondopaminergic transmitter systems reviewed, the MPTP-lesioned primate correctly predicted phase II efficacy of at least one drug. Of the 11 specific molecules tested in both monkeys and humans, 8 showed clear antidyskinetic properties in both human and monkey. In the instances where the primate studies did not, or did not consistently, predict the outcome of the human studies, the discrepancy may reflect limitations in the validity of the model or limitations in the design of either the clinical or the preclinical studies. We find that the major determinant of success in predicting efficacy is to ensure that primate studies are conducted in a statistically rigorous way and incorporate designs and outcome measures with clinical applicability. On the other hand, phase IIa trials should strive to replicate the preclinical study, especially in terms of protocol, drug dose equivalence, and outcome measure, so as to test the same hypothesis. Failure to meet these criteria carries the risk of false negative conclusions in phase IIa trials.     

Antiepileptic drugs: evolution of our knowledge and changes in drug trials

Clinical trials provide the evidence needed for rational use of medicines. The evolution of drug trials follows largely the evolution of regulatory requirements. This article summarizes methodological changes in antiepileptic drug trials and associated advances in knowledge starting from 1938, the year phenytoin was introduced and also the year when evidence of safety was made a requirement for the marketing of medicines in the United States. The first period (1938–1969) saw the introduction of over 20 new drugs for epilepsy, many of which did not withstand the test of time. Only few well controlled trials were completed in that period and trial designs were generally suboptimal due to methodological constraints. The intermediate period (1970–1988) did not see the introduction of any major new medication, but important therapeutic advances took place due to improved understanding of the properties of available drugs. The value of therapeutic drug monitoring and monotherapy were recognized during the intermediate period, which also saw major improvements in trial methodology. The last period (1989–2019) was dominated by the introduction of second-generation drugs, and further evolution in the design of monotherapy and adjunctive-therapy trials. The expansion of the pharmacological armamentarium has improved opportunities for tailoring drug treatment to the characteristics of the individual. However, there is still inadequate evidence from controlled trials to guide treatment selection for most epilepsy syndromes, particularly in children. Second-generation drugs had a very modest impact on drug resistance, and a change in paradigm for drug discovery and development is needed, focusing on treatments that target the causes and mechanisms of epilepsy rather than its symptoms. Testing potential disease modifying agents will require innovative trial designs and novel endpoints, and will hopefully lead to introduction of safer and more effective therapies.     

What clinical trial designs have been used to test antiepileptic drugs and do we need to change them?

Designs used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have evolved considerably over the years. A major impulse to develop methodologically sound randomised controlled trials dates back to the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendment of 1962, through which the US congress introduced the requirement of substantial evidence for proof of efficacy in a new drug application. The mainstay for the initial approval of most new AEDs has been, and still is, the placebo-controlled adjunctive therapy trial, which evolved over the years from the cross-over to the parallel-group design. In the early days, when few AEDs were available, enrolment of patients into these trials was relatively easy and prolonged placebo exposure could be justified by lack of alternative treatment options. With more than 20 drugs now available to treat epilepsy, however, exposing patients to placebo or to a potentially ineffective investigational agent faces practical and ethical concerns. Recruitment difficulties have led sponsors to markedly increase the number of trial sites, but there is evidence that this may adversely affect the ability to differentiate between effective and ineffective treatments. Methodological and practical difficulties are also encountered with monotherapy trials. Because regulatory guidelines for monotherapy approval differ between Europe and the US, sponsors need to pursue separate and costly development programs on the two sides of the Atlantic. Moreover, the scientific validity of the monotherapy trial paradigms currently used in Europe (the non-inferiority design) and in the US (the conversion to monotherapy design with historical controls) has been questioned. This article will review these issues in some detail and discuss how trial designs and regulatory approval processes may evolve in the future to address these concerns.     

Comparative effectiveness clinical trials in psychiatry: superiority, noninferiority, and the role of active comparators

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, part of the US Department of Health and Human Services, has issued several Requests for Applications to conduct comparative effectiveness research (CER). Many of the applications will involve randomized controlled clinical trials that include an active comparator. The inclusion of an active comparator has implications for clinical trial design. Despite a common misperception, a clinical trial result of no significant difference between active treatment groups does not imply equivalence or noninferiority. A noninferiority trial, on the other hand, can directly test whether one active treatment group is noninferior to the other. For example, noninferiority of an inexpensive generic could be tested in comparison with a novel, more costly intervention. Although seldom used in psychiatry, noninferiority clinical trials could play a fundamental role in CER. Features of noninferiority and the nearly ubiquitous superiority designs are contrasted. The noninferiority margin is defined and its application and interpretation are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of noninferiority can only come from well-designed and conducted noninferiority CER. Sample sizes needed in noninferiority trials and in superiority trials that include an active comparator are substantially larger than those needed in trials that can utilize a placebo control in their scientific design. As a result, trials with active comparators are more costly, require longer recruitment duration, and expose more participants to the risks of an experiment than do trials in which the only comparator is placebo.     

Monotherapy Trials of New Antiepileptic Drugs

Summary: A number of clinical trials that test the efficacy and safety of the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have recently been concluded. Two dose-response trials in inpatients with refractory partial seizures and outpatients with newly diagnosed partial epilepsy established the efficacy of gabapentin as monotherapy. Lamotrigine was found to have efficacy similar to that of phenytoin and carbamazepine (CBZ) and to be better tolerated than CBZ in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. It was also shown to have efficacy as monotherapy in partial seizures, based on the results of an active controlled trial, and in the treatment of absence seizures, based on the results of a responder-enriched study. Topiramate as monotherapy was found to be efficacious for treatment of partial-onset seizures, based on the results of a single-center dose-response trial. A dose-response trial that tested the efficacy of tiagabine monotherapy in patients with refractory partial epilepsy was uninformative. Oxcarbazepine was found to be safe and efficacious in four comparative trials in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy as well as in one placebo-controlled inpatient trial in patients with refractory partial seizures.     

Clinical trials for therapeutic assessment of antiepileptic drugs in the 21st century: obstacles and solutions

Clinical trials as part of antiepileptic drug development are increasingly expensive and complex, with many pitfalls that can derail even promising drugs and devices. Although a third of patients remain resistant to treatment, the availability of more than 20 approved antiepileptic drugs can reduce the incentive to enrol in trials of unproven agents, for which safety is not assured. The challenge of recruiting patients drives investigators to regions of the world where treatment options are more limited. This increases complexity and has potential implications for quality of the trial data. Furthermore, the availability of so many approved treatments raises questions about the ethics and safety of placebo-controlled trials in patients with epilepsy. Novel trial designs, such as time-to-event adjunctive therapy and historical-control monotherapy, might be more acceptable to patients and their doctors because they restrict exposure to placebo or ineffective treatments.     

Strategy for utilization of new antiepileptic drugs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The paper reviews strategies to incorporate new antiepileptic drugs into the treatment arsenal for patients with epilepsy. RECENT FINDINGS: Ten new antiepileptic drugs have been developed in the last two decades, making selection of optimal therapy complex; they have not been shown to have better efficacy but generally seem to be better tolerated. Newer antiepileptic drugs offer new opportunities to patients who have not had a favorable response to the old ones. Many new antiepileptic drugs exhibit a broad spectrum of activity while only one of the older ones (valproate) has a broad-spectrum profile. There are therefore more choices when trying to match treatment with epileptic seizures and syndromes. The side-effect profiles of the newer antiepileptic drugs differ from the older ones with fewer systemic reactions and better pharmacokinetics for the most part. SUMMARY: Comparative studies are needed to elucidate the specific weaknesses and strengths of each of the new antiepileptic drugs compared with the older ones. Most clinical trials do not help the physician in deciding drug, dose, or titration schedules. Thus the physician needs to understand efficacy spectrum and side-effect profiles of each new antiepileptic drug in order to be able to treat each patient optimally.     

Lessons from Darwin: evolutionary biology's implications for Alzheimer's disease research and patient care

What are the aims appropriate for a science of clinical pharmacology and clinical trials: to test drugs for efficacy and safety in the clinic, to establish the optimal effectiveness and safety of drugs in patient care or both? Current designs of clinical trials test drugs for efficacy and safety in clinical settings-they do not address the clinician's problems adequately. Clinical trials better address the effectiveness of drugs in patient care with analyses to determine drug effects for each individual in the trial. We use current standards and designs for clinical trails supplemented to control random error effects for the individuals in the trials. Test-retest standard error of measurement can control random error effects for individuals. This allows individual clinical courses to be plotted with known precision and certainty. For individuals in a clinical trial the clinical course of surrogate outcome variables can be associated with long-term health outcomes in followup to develop clinical decision rules. Clinical courses on surrogate outcome variables during patient care can be interpreted using these clinical decision rules. In this Age of the Internet, Computers and Handhelds, electronic records and interpretations of clinical examinations and tests can be a part of decision making for every patient. We conclude that practical methods are available for making clinical trials more informative for clinical practice. This modification replaces "unsystematic clinical judgments" with statistically characterized data and interpretations for individuals available as care is delivered in the doctor's office. An AD demonstration can be viewed at www.healthpragmatics.com.