Characteristics of patients initiated on the new antiepileptic drugs: a PADS study

Whereas randomized controlled trials remain a standard for evaluating and comparing efficacy and safety of the new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), postmarketing drug research offers a useful means of comparing efficacy and safety of new AEDs. However, differences in baseline characteristics of patients in different drug groups create the potential for bias in drug comparison studies. In this study, baseline demographic characteristics of 1,386 patients initiating lamotrigine (LTG), tiagabine (TGB), or topiramate (TPM) were compared to identify patient characteristics that may influence AED use in epilepsy patients. Data were collected at 14 epilepsy centers and included medications, seizure types and syndromes, and prior adverse events. There were 402 patients in the LTG group, 725 TPM, and 259 TGB. The groups differed both in their number of concurrent AEDs (p<0.001) and in their number of prior AEDs (p<0.01). There was no difference in proportion with partial versus generalized epilepsy syndromes. The groups differed in the proportions of patients with complex partial seizures (p=0.049), primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (p=0.01), and myoclonic seizures (p=0.03). Baseline behavioral adverse event rate was lowest in patients initiating TPM (p<0.01); LTG patients had the lowest rate of prior AED-related rash (p=0.02). There was no relationship between AED assignment and patient age, age of epilepsy onset, epilepsy duration, institutionalization status, gender, or psychiatric history. Numerous epidemiological differences were identified among patients placed on the new AEDs, including current and prior AED profiles, seizure types, and prior adverse event history. Accounting for these differences is of crucial importance because they may bias conclusions of nonrandomized post-marketing trials comparing the drugs.     

Practical Aspects of the Use of Topiramate in Patients with Epilepsy

Summary: Practical recommendations for the treatment of patients with the new antiepileptic drug (AED) topiramate (TPM) were developed on the basis of review of the results of controlled and open studies of TPM reported to date and on postmarketing clinical experience with TPM at two specialized epilepsy clinics in the United Kingdom. Recommendations considered important for optimal utilization of TPM include dosage titration guidelines, options for managing side effects occurring early in treatment, advice concerning the withdrawal of concomitant AEDs, indications for discontinuation of TPM, and recognition of the need for adequate patient counseling.     

Long-Term Experience with Topiramate as Adjunctive Therapy and as Monotherapy in Patients with Partial Onset Seizures: Retrospective Survey of Open-Label Treatment

Summary: Because initial studies of new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are add-on trials in refractory patient populations, their effectiveness as monotherapy is usually not apparent until relatively later in their development programs. The novel AED topiramate (TPM) has been found efficacious as adjunctive therapy in controlled, randomized trials in adults with partial onset seizures. We report a retrospective analysis of TPM as AED monotherapy in 214 patients from five centers who received TPM in investigational trials. Of this total, 136 (64%) were still receiving TPM at the time of the analysis, with a mean treatment duration of 2.5 years. One-third of the patients have been successfully converted to TPM monotherapy, and 62% of those converted have been seizure-free for at least 3 months. The results of this analysis suggest that TPM may prove to be a valuable new AED for both monotherapy and add-on therapy in partial onset epilepsy.     

Epilepsy and antiepileptic drug therapy in juvenile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis

PURPOSE: To survey the characteristics of epilepsy in patients with juvenile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (JNCL) and determine the antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment most suitable for these patients. METHODS: The study included 60 patients with JNCL; their mean age was 16.5 years (range 5-33). The age at onset of epilepsy, type of seizures, effect of the first AED on seizures, and the current seizure frequency and AED therapy were studied. The side effects of the AEDs were also clarified. RESULTS: Fifty of the 60 patients had epilepsy. Patients' first epileptic seizure occurred at a mean age of 10.0 years (range 5-16), the most common type being generalized seizures. As the first AED tried, valproate (VPA) and lamotrigine (LTG) appeared equally effective, with 80% of the patients responding to these AEDs. During the study year, the median seizure frequency was four seizures a year (range 0-120), and 72% of the patients had good or satisfactory seizure control (0-6 seizures a year). In the different AED therapy groups, the proportion of patients with good or satisfactory seizure control ranged from 25% to 100%. LTG in monotherapy or in combination with clonazepam (CZP) was superior to other AEDs or combinations, but VPA also seemed effective. Adverse effects leading to the discontinuation of an AED were observed in 25% of the patients, most frequently in patients receiving phenobarbital (PB). No patient receiving LTG had to discontinue the drug due to adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Epilepsy in JNCL can usually be successfully treated with the current AEDs. In Finnish patients with JNCL, treatment is based on LTG, or, secondarily, VPA. In combination therapy, CZP seems a valuable add-on AED.     

Parent-reported subjective complaints in children using antiepileptic drugs: what do they mean?

We used a parent-completed 20-item "side effect scale" quantifying complaints that parents perceive to be caused by antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in 108 children with active epilepsy. We studied the associations between parent-reported complaints, severity of seizures, and restrictions due to epilepsy, and clinical data including number and AED load. In 85% of the children at least one complaint was reported, in less than 20% complaints were perceived as a substantial problem. In a multivariate analysis, there was no significant relationship between the "side effect scale" score and AED load, or the number of AEDs. However, complaints were associated with parent-reported frequency and severity of seizures. We conclude that the adverse effects of seizures or parental concern about the severity and intractability of seizures in their children may have influenced the reported complaints.     

Etiology and management of refractory epilepsies

The epilepsies are an important, common and diverse group of symptom complexes characterized by recurrent spontaneous seizures. Although many patients with epilepsy have their seizures controlled effectively by antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), about one-third of patients continue to have seizures, despite trying a range of AEDs. Such patients bear the heaviest burden of epilepsy, with increased morbidity and risk of premature mortality. Our current understanding of the refractory epilepsies--the most common of which are focal--is limited; even their definition is problematic. Standard treatments for refractory epilepsies include optimization of existing AED regimens, trials of further AEDs, and, for some patients, therapeutic resective neurosurgery. Recent basic research has explored possible underlying causes of refractory epilepsy, and two main hypotheses have emerged to account for the failure of AED treatment. According to one hypothesis, AEDs might fail because of alterations in the properties of their usual targets. Alternatively, they might fail because multidrug transporter mechanisms limit concentrations of the drugs at their targets. The refractory epilepsies can be viewed as offering remarkable insights into biological processes in the epilepsies, and their effective treatment remains an important aim; treatment would potentially bring much-needed relief to hundreds of thousands of patients across the world.     

Lacosamide neurotoxicity associated with concomitant use of sodium channel-blocking antiepileptic drugs: A pharmacodynamic interaction?

Lacosamide is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) apparently devoid of major pharmacokinetic interactions. Data from a small postmarketing assessment suggest people who had lacosamide co-prescribed with a voltage-gated sodium channel (VGSC)-blocking AED seemed more likely to discontinue lacosamide because of tolerability problems. Among 39 people with refractory epilepsy who developed neurotoxicity (diplopia, dizziness, drowsiness) on lacosamide treatment given in combination with VGSC-blocking AEDs, we identified 7 (17.9%) without any changes in serum levels of other AEDs in whom the symptoms were ameliorated by dose reduction of the concomitant VGSC-blocking AED. Symptoms in these people seem to have arisen from a pharmacodynamic interaction between lacosamide and other VGSC-blocking AEDs. Slow-inactivated VGSCs targeted by lacosamide might be more sensitive to the effects of conventional VGSC-blocking AEDs. Advising people to reduce concomitantly the conventional VGSC-blocking AEDs during lacosamide uptitration in cases of neurotoxicity might improve the tolerability of combination treatment.     

Felbamate: consensus of current clinical experience

An expert panel convened to evaluate data and review current clinical practices regarding the novel antiepileptic drug (AED) felbamate. Felbamate has demonstrated efficacy against a variety of refractory seizures types, including seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, but postmarketing experience revealed serious idiosyncratic adverse effects that were not observed during clinical trials. Although felbamate is not indicated as first-line antiepileptic therapy, its utility in treating seizures that are refractory to other AEDs is undisputed, as shown by the number of patients who continue to use it. New exposures to felbamate number approximately 3200-4200 patients annually, and it is estimated that over the past 10 years, approximately 35,000 new starts have occurred. Recommendations by the American Academy of Neurology and a review of felbamate literature were evaluated in conjunction with the clinical experience of the expert panel to determine current medical opinion and practice regarding felbamate. The past 10 years of clinical experience have demonstrated that when used in accordance with existing recommendations and close clinical monitoring, felbamate is an effective treatment for some patients with seizures refractory to other AEDs. This review of clinical data and discussion of the current understanding of the risk:benefit of felbamate therapy supports its use as an important therapeutic option for some patients with refractory epilepsy.     

Complaints associated with the use of antiepileptic drugs: results from a community-based study.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist with respect to the occurrence of chronic side effects due to antiepileptic drugs (AED) in routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of subjective complaints which patients with epilepsy regard as side effects of their AED treatment in a community-based population. METHODS: Cross-sectional study. Subjects were identified through the database of AED-use in the pharmacies in a suburban area in The Netherlands. Respondents completed a brief questionnaire about their epilepsy, including a checklist with 30 complaints, which are common in AED users. RESULTS: We present data of 346 responding adults with treated epilepsy from a population of 107,000 adult inhabitants. Eighty percent was using monotherapy, with few patients taking new AEDs. Almost 60% of the patients reported complaints probably due to side effects in at least three domains. General CNS-related side effects were reported most often; memory problems (21.4% of the patients) and fatigue (20.3%) were dominant. Polytherapy was associated with more side effects than monotherapy. We identified differences in profiles of complaints between valproate, carbamazepine and phenytoin monotherapy. Complaints were not substantially associated with ongoing seizures or other treatment factors. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients taking AEDs for epilepsy think they have side effects form their drugs, even when seizures were in remission and when monotherapy was used. Our findings suggest a need to improve monitoring of complaints of side effects of AEDs and to explore the feasibility of interventions aimed at reduction of such complaints in everyday clinical practice.     

Antiepileptic monotherapy in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. A network meta‐analysis

Second and third generation AEDs have been directly compared to controlled‐release carbamazepine (CBZ‐CR) as initial monotherapy for new‐onset focal epilepsy. Conversely, no head‐to‐head trials have been performed. The aim of this study was to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of the antiepileptic monotherapies in adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy through a network meta‐analysis (NMA). Randomized, double‐blinded, parallel group, monotherapy studies comparing any AED to CBZ‐CR in adults with newly diagnosed untreated epilepsy with focal‐onset seizures was identified. The outcome measures were the seizure freedom for 6 and 12 months, the occurrence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and the treatment withdrawal due to TEAEs. Mixed treatment comparisons were conducted by a Bayesian NMA using the Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Effect sizes were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Four trials were included involving 2856 participants, 1445 for CBZ‐CR and 1411 for the comparative AEDs. Monotherapy AEDs compared to CBR‐CR were levetiracetam (LEV), zonisamide (ZNS), lacosamide (LCM), and eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL). There were no statistical differences in the 6‐ and 12‐month seizure freedom and TEAEs occurrence between LEV, ZNS, LCM, ESL, and CBZ‐CR In the analysis of drug withdrawal due to TEAEs, LCM treatment was associated with a significantly lower discontinuation rate than CBZ‐CR (OR 0.659, 95% CrI 0.428‐0.950). LEV, ZNS, LCM, and ESL are effective initial monotherapy treatments in adult patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and represent suitable alternatives to CBZ‐CR     

The Effect of Antiepileptic Drugs on Cognition: Patient Perceived Cognitive Problems of Topiramate versus Levetiracetam in Clinical Practice

Summary:  Introduction: Neurocognitive complaints may interfere with long-term antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment and are an important issue in clinical practice. Most data about drug-induced cognitive problems are derived from highly controlled short-term clinical trials. We analyzed such cognitive complaints for the two most commonly used AEDs in a clinical setting using patient perceived problems as primary outcome measure.
Method: All patients of the epilepsy center Kempenhaeghe that received topiramate (TPM) or levetiracetam (LEV) from the introduction to mid 2004 were analyzed using a medical information system, an automated medical file. Patients were analyzed after 6, 12, and 18 months of treatment.
Results: Four hundred and two patients used either TPM (n = 260) or LEV (n = 142); 18 months retention showed a statistically significant difference, revealing 15% more patients that continued LEV compared to TPM: 18 months retention 46% for TPM and 61% for LEV [F (1.400) = 3.313, p = 0.043]. Neurocognitive complaints accounted for a significant number of drug discontinuations and especially the high frequency of neurocognitive complaints in the first period of TPM treatment appeared to be significant different from LEV [F(2,547) = 3.192, p = 0.042]. In the remaining patients, the difference in neurocognitive complaints was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: cognitive complaints are common in TPM treatment and frequently lead to drug withdrawal. The impact of LEV on cognitive function is only mild. This leads to a much higher (15%) drug discontinuation rate for TPM compared to LEV.     

Randomized controlled antiepileptic drug trials miss almost all patients with ongoing seizures

In spite of the marketing of numerous new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), their real-life effectiveness has often been disappointing. We therefore retrospectively investigated how many adult patients with drug-resistant epilepsy would have been potential candidates for the last five phase II and III trials that have been performed at our center. Out of a group of 216 consecutively collected patients, only 18 (8.3%) would have been acceptable for recruitment. Treatment with enzyme-inducing AEDs or concomitant medications (47.2%), too few seizures during a baseline period (41.7%), and EEGs showing a pattern not consistent with a diagnosis of focal epilepsy (e.g. generalized spike-wave) (31.5%) were the leading exclusion criteria. If only one criterion prevented recruitment, too few seizures during the baseline period and treatment with enzyme-inducing medications were the most frequent limitations for potential recruitment. Due to the limiting inclusion and exclusion factors of clinical AED trials, only a small fraction of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy is suitable. When new AEDs have passed such trials and are introduced, we have no information about the potential efficacy and tolerability in > 90% of our patients with AED-resistant epilepsies. This may be one reason for the disappointing efficacy of many new AEDs after launch.     

The specialist nurse role in the treatment of refractory epilepsy.

The main aim of epilepsy treatment is rapid and complete control of seizures without antiepileptic drug (AED) side effects. This outcome is achieved in 60-70% of newly diagnosed patients. In refractory epilepsy, new AEDs render some additional patients seizure free but make treatment more complex. The choice of AEDs, their differing pharmacokinetics, efficacy, tolerability and potential interactions are multiplied. Up to of 75% of patients develop AED side effects, most AEDs can cause paradoxical reactions, and when AED doses are changed seizures may worsen. Despite the increased complexity of epilepsy treatment and the biomedical and psychosocial consequences of uncontrolled seizures, many patients have difficulty accessing specialist services. A service that involves the epilepsy nurse specialist (ENS) giving patients and General Practitioners (GPs) free access to treatment advice has recently been established to improve care. Over a 2-week period 60 treatment-related telephone or outpatient consultations were provided out of a total of 124 contacts. Changes to the AED regimen were implemented in 44/60, and the GP was notified by letter in 31/44. The audit results are presented and epilepsy treatment including AED efficacy, tolerability, interactions and side effects are discussed.     

Antiepileptic Drugs in Pediatric Practice

Summary: Several factors characterize the current medical treatment of epilepsy during childhood. Children do not present the same types of seizures or epilepsies as adults, and certain epilepsy syndromes are seen only during childhood. Accordingly, the choice of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may differ in children. In addition, certain medical therapies, such as ACTH or pyridoxine, are used only in children. It is also common practice to prescribe AEDs in children for indications that are "off-label," such as the treatment of partial-onset seizures with car-bamazepine before the age of 6 years. The natural history of epilepsy and the risk for seizure recurrence may be different in the pediatric age range, and this may influence the decision to institute chronic prophylactic therapy in children. Similar considerations may apply to the decision to discontinue AED therapy. The pharmacokinetics of several AEDs are age-dependent, and dosages are more variable among patients. The adverse effects of AEDs may be age-dependent, and the pattern of exacerbation of certain seizures by AEDs may be different in children. In addition, several new AEDs are now available, or are about to be released, and the preferential sequence of AEDs of choice in children with epilepsy will need to be reassessed as experience grows and as the results of comparative studies become available.     

Preliminary Observations on Topiramate in Pediatric Epilepsies

Summary: Preliminary results of studies of topiramate (TPM) in children are now available. In a pharmacokinetic study among 18 male and female children, target daily dosages of up to 9 mg/kg/day were evaluated. TPM pharmacokinetics in children were linear. Mean TPM oral clearance (CL/F) was 44–54% higher in children [depending on concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)] compared with historical data from adults, and steady-state plasma TPM concentrations for the same mg/kg dose were 33% lower in children compared with historical adult data. In a long-term, open-label pilot study of adjunctive TPM therapy in 18 patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, six of the eight patients (75%) still receiving TPM report a greater than 50% reduction in total seizures, with the best results observed in tonic-atonic, atypical absence, and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Subsequent large double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adjunctive TPM therapy in Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and refractory partial-onset pediatric epilepsy are ongoing, with high percentages of enrolled patients in both studies completing double-blind treatment and entering long-term TPM open extension trials. A small TPM monotherapy substitution trial in children with well controlled partial onset seizures showed that TPM monotherapeutic substitution can be achieved successfully with an acceptable amount of adverse experiences with a weekly increase of 1 mg/kg/day to a maximal dose of 3 mg/kg/day. These preliminary results suggest that TPM may be a useful new AED in pediatric patients with a variety of seizure disorders.     

Prognostic factors affecting long-term retention of topiramate in patients with chronic epilepsy

PURPOSE: To determine the long-term retention rate of topiramate (TPM) therapy in patients with chronic epilepsy and to identify the relevant prognostic factors that influence retention. METHODS: All patients with chronic epilepsy (n = 393) prescribed TPM between October 1, 1995, and December 31, 1998, at a tertiary referral centre for epilepsy were analysed. The retention rate for TPM was calculated by using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and the prognostic factors influencing retention were analysed by using Cox regression. RESULTS: Of patients prescribed TPM, 30% continued taking the drug beyond 3 years. Discontinuation was mainly due to adverse events and lack of efficacy. Use of more than one new concurrent antiepileptic drug (AED) and lower maximal daily doses were more likely to result in treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. Older age at onset of epilepsy, a history of having previously taken more than one new AED [lamotrigine (LTG), gabapentin (GBP), or vigabatrin (VGB)], and lower maximal daily doses were more likely to lead to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: A third of patients with chronic epilepsy started on TPM therapy will continue on treatment for >3 years. Absence of learning disabilities, late age at onset of seizures, previous use of more than one new AED, two or more concurrent AED use, and low maximal daily doses of TPM are more likely to result in discontinuation of medication. These factors should be taken into account when considering the use of TPM for the treatment of chronic epilepsy.     

The efficacy of topiramate in adult refractory status epilepticus: experience of a tertiary care center

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) occurs in patients with SE when they fail to respond to traditional medical therapy. Because there are very few case reports of topiramate (TPM) treatment of RSE in adult patients, we examined our experience with TPM with regard to its safety and efficacy in seizure termination in RSE in an adult patient population. We report a retrospective review of 35 adult patients with RSE who were treated with TPM in addition to other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) between 2003 and 2010. After failure of initial treatments of benzodiazepines and weight-based intravenous loading doses of standard AEDs, TPM tablets were crushed and administered via nasogastric tube. Data were collected on age, gender, history of epilepsy, etiology of RSE, daily dose of TPM, co-therapeutic agents, treatment response, and disposition. Following initiation of TPM use and discontinuation of continuous intravenous anesthetics with no additional AEDs administered, cumulative cessation of RSE in patients was 4/35 (11%) at one day, 10/35 (29%) at two days, and 14/35 (40%) at three days. However, when including all patients and comparing the two patient groups in which RSE was or was not terminated within three days of initiating TPM as the last or not last AED given, there was no significant difference. Time to TPM response was not associated with the type of seizures, etiology of SE, or whether there was a history of epilepsy. There were no documented side effects or complications of therapy with TPM. This study provides support for the use of TPM as an adjunctive agent in the treatment of RSE.     

An Overview of the Efficacy and Tolerability of New Antiepileptic Drugs

Summary: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of recently developed antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), a systematic review of placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the AEDs as add-on therapy in refractory partial epilepsy was conducted. Two or more RCTs meeting our inclusion criteria were found for gabapentin (GBP), lamotrigine (LTG), tiagabine (TGB), topiramate (TPM), vigabatrin (VGB), and zonisamide (ZNS). The outcome selected for estimation of efficacy was the proportion of patients experiencing a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline. Tolerability was estimated on the basis of rates of patient withdrawal from study for any reason. Efficacy and tolerability odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for each measure were generated for each trial included in the analysis, and overall efficacy and tolerability ORs were calculated for each AED across all trials and drug dosages evaluated. Because 95% CIs for both efficacy and tolerability overlapped for the six drugs, conclusive evidence of between-drug differences in effectiveness or safety were not obtained from the analysis. However, the data suggest that the drug with the highest OR for efficacy (TPM) may be approximately twice as effective as the AED with the lowest OR for efficacy (GBP), and that the treatment that appears to most frequently cause withdrawal (ZNS) may be about four times more likely to do so that the AED with the lowest withdrawal rate (LTG). RCTs comparing newer AEDs with the older standard drugs and with each other are needed to further evaluate their relative utility.     

Survey of current practices among US epileptologists of antiepileptic drug withdrawal after epilepsy surgery

In order to identify the current practices of antiepileptic drug (AED) withdrawal after epilepsy surgery, a survey was administered to 204 adult and pediatric epileptologists. The responses from 58 epileptologists revealed wide variations regarding the time course and extent of AED withdrawal after successful epilepsy surgery. For most of the epileptologists, the likelihood of the surgery being successful is an important factor in determining whether or not AEDs are tapered. Most of the respondents started to taper AEDs more rapidly than suggested by previous reports. The majority of the epileptologists were able to stop all AEDs completely in a substantial number of patients. The most important factors considered when deciding to taper AEDs were the presence of ongoing auras and the occurrence of postoperative seizures prior to seizure remission. In the absence of data from well-designed prospective trials, such survey results can inform practice and, hopefully, aid in the design of future trials.