Monotherapy in Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy: Levetiracetam Versus Standard Anticonvulsants

Transcription

1 Monotherapy in Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy: Levetiracetam Versus Standard Anticonvulsants Current Literature In Clinical Science KOMET: An Unblinded, Randomised, Two Parallel-Group, Stratified Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Levetiracetam With Controlled-Release Carbamazepine and Extended-Release Sodium Valproate as Monotherapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy. Trinka, E, Marson, AG, Van Paesschen W, Kalviainen R, Marovac J, Duncan B, Buyle S, Hallstrom Y, Hon P, Muscas GC, Newton M, Meencke HJ, Smith PE, Pohlmann-Eden B. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84: H. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) with extended-release sodium valproate (VPA-ER) and controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. METHODS: This unblinded, randomised, 52-week superiority trial (NCT ) recruited patients (>/=16 years of age) with >/=2 unprovoked seizures in the previous 2 years and >/=1 in the previous 6 months. The physician chose VPA or CBZ as preferred standard treatment; each patient was randomised to standard treatment or LEV. The primary outcome was time to treatment withdrawal (LEV vs standard antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)). Analyses also compared LEV with VPA-ER, and LEV with CBZ-CR. FINDINGS: 1688 patients (mean age 41 years; 44% female) were randomised to LEV (n=841) or standard AEDs (n=847). Time to treatment withdrawal was not significantly different between LEV and standard AEDs: HR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.74 to 1.08). Time to treatment withdrawal (HR (95% CI)) was 1.02 (0.74 to 1.41) for LEV/VPA-ER and 0.84 (0.66 to 1.07) for LEV/CBZ-CR. Time to first seizure (HR, 95% CI) was significantly longer for standard AEDs, 1.20 (1.03 to 1.39), being 1.19 (0.93 to 1.54) for LEV/VPA-ER and 1.20 (0.99 to 1.46) for LEV/CBZ-CR. Estimated 12-month seizure freedom rates from randomisation: 58.7% LEV versus 64.5% VPA-ER; 50.5% LEV versus 56.7% CBZ-CR. Similar proportions of patients within each stratum reported at least one adverse event: 66.1% LEV versus 62.0% VPA-ER; 73.4% LEV versus 72.5% CBZ-CR. CONCLUSIONS: LEV monotherapy was not superior to standard AEDs for the global outcome, namely time to treatment withdrawal, in patients with newly diagnosed focal or generalised seizures. Epilepsy Currents, Vol. 14, No. 5 (September/October) 2014 pp American Epilepsy Society Commentary The choice of initial antiseizure medication (ASM) in newly diagnosed patients with epilepsy is of utmost importance. This choice is made based on the seizure type, patient comorbidities, concomitant medications and possible interactions, safety in pregnancy and lactation, and adverse event profile. A proper choice may improve compliance and minimize the time before driving and resumption of other baseline activities. Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard for studying the efficacy and tolerability of ASM. However, they have short duration and are conducted in settings that do not resemble actual clinical practice. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a new generation ASM whose use has increased tremendously over the past several years by epileptologists as well as neurologists, emergency physicians, neurointensivists, and neurosurgeons, owing to its ease of use, linear pharmacokinetics, and lack of interactions with other drugs (1). LEV was compared with controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) in a prospective study in patients with partial or generalized seizures in a setting that mimicked clinical practice (2). The authors reported similar efficacy, with 73% of patients randomized to LEV and 72.8% of those randomized to CBZ-CR in achieving seizure freedom at the last evaluated dose in a per protocol analysis. Another trial, the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs (SANAD) trial, also mimicked routine clinical practice and was unblinded for up to 6 years (3). In that trial 1721 patients considered appropriate candidates for CBZ treatment were randomized to CBZ versus other newer generation ASMs, excluding LEV, and the authors concluded that lamotrigine was better than CBZ regarding time to treatment failure. The current study, Keppra Versus Older Monotherapy in Epilepsy Trial (KOMET), resembles the SANAD trial in design, but the aim was to study LEV versus older generation medications (4). This multicenter, unblinded, randomized, 52-week, controlled superiority trial was carried out in 269 centers in Europe and Australia. The authors divided newly diagnosed patients with epilepsy into two arms, one in which valproic acid (VPA) was considered the best-recommended treatment, and the other in which CBZ was considered best. They then randomized the first arm into the extended-release formula- 255

2 Levetiracetam Versus Standard Antiseizure Medications tion of valproic acid (VPA-ER) versus LEV, and the other into CBZ-CR versus LEV. The controlled-release formulation of the standard ASM was chosen because of better reported tolerability (5, 6). The decision whether VPA or CBZ was considered standard initial treatment was made by the clinician, and did not require neuroimaging or EEG. The target doses of each medication (LEV 1000 mg/d, VPA-ER 1000 mg/d, and CBZ-CR 600 mg/d) were reached in 2 weeks, and further titration depended on the clinical situation with maximum doses of each medication set a priori: LEV 3000 mg/d, VPA-ER 2000 mg/d, and CBZ-CR 1600 mg/d). The primary outcome measure was time to withdrawal from treatment with the aim of comparing LEV with the other two standard ASMs, and the primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. Randomization occurred in 1698 patients and the intention-to-treat analysis included 1688 patients with similar demographics and epilepsy characteristics between the LEV and the standard ASM treatments. Similar proportions in the LEV and the standard ASM groups were still taking the randomized treatment at 12 months (1266 patients, 75%, total). Median daily doses, including the titration period, were 987 mg/d for both LEV and VPA-ER, and 588 mg/d for CBZ-CR. The time to treatment withdrawal was not statistically significantly different between LEV and standard ASMs, with a trend for longer such time with LEV. However, the time to first seizure, a secondary outcome measure, was longer in the standard ASM arm than with LEV (1.20, 95% CI ). Subanalyses concluded similar time to treatment withdrawal for LEV and VPA-ER, as well as for LEV and CBZ-CR, with no statistically significant difference between patients who had focal seizures only and those who had generalized seizures only. Although not statistically significant, time to first seizure slightly favored VPA-ER and CBZ-CR over LEV. In one subanalysis, estimated seizure-freedom rates at 1 year were lower (58.7%) for LEV compared with VPA-ER (64.5%), and in the other, these rates were also lower for LEV (50.5%) compared with CBZ-CR (56.7%). There were no differences in the quality of life or adverse events between LEV and standard ASMs. Lack of confirmation of seizures types by EEG or neuroimaging before assigning a patient to either arm of the study is not a significant limitation in the KOMET trial since it is consistent with actual clinical practice, as often an ASM is prescribed prior to obtaining imaging or EEG studies. Whereas CBZ may not be appropriate for idiopathic generalized epilepsies, both LEV and VPA can be considered broad-spectrum ASMs, and their similarity to treatment withdrawal was seen in the stratum where 70% of patients had generalized seizures. Similarly, the unblinded treatment and lack of standardization of best treatment option that takes into consideration co-morbidities and other factors are in line with routine clinical practice. We need more such studies that directly inform clinical practice, and for durations that are longer than one year. Although in the United States, for example, LEV is not approved as a first-line ASM, it is often used as first-line in both outpatient and inpatient settings. For many clinicians, it is considered an important addition to our armamentarium owing to its favorable pharmacokinetic profile, as mentioned above, efficacy in focal and generalized epilepsies, and tolerable adverse event profile. In addition, accumulating evidence of the safety of LEV in pregnancy (7) further increases its utility in clinical practice. Indeed, the study at hand confirms its usefulness as first-line therapy. The rate of treatment retention (75%), a rough composite of both efficacy and tolerability, in this trial is consistent with figures from other studies. Similarly, the seizure-freedom rates are also consistent with previous studies. It is classic teaching in epilepsy now that initial antiseizure treatment can achieve seizure freedom in two-thirds of newly diagnosed patients (8). Interestingly, this rate remains fixed even after the plethora of newer generation ASMs, including ones with novel mechanisms of action (9). This underlines questions about mechanisms of pharmacoresistance, highlights the need for early surgical evaluations, and calls for more research in the area of neuromodulation. by Mohamad Z. Koubeissi, MD References 1. Koubeissi MZ, Amina S, Pita I, Bergey GK, Werz MA. Tolerability and efficacy of oral loading of levetiracetam. Neurology 2008;70: Brodie MJ, Perucca E, Ryvlin P, Ben-Menachem E, Meencke HJ. Comparison of levetiracetam and controlled-release carbamazepine in newly diagnosed epilepsy. Neurology 2007;68: Marson AG, Al-Kharusi AM, Alwaidh M, Appleton R, Baker GA, Chadwick DW, Cramp C, Cockerell OC, Cooper PN, Doughty J, Eaton B, Gamble C, Goulding PJ, Howell SJ, Hughes A, Jackson M, Jacoby A, Kellett M, Lawson GR, Leach JP, Nicolaides P, Roberts R, Shackley P, Shen J, Smith DF, Smith PE, Smith CT, Vanoli A, Williamson PR. The SANAD study of effectiveness of carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate for treatment of partial epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369: Trinka E, Marson AG, Van Paesschen W, Kalviainen R, Marovac J, Duncan B, Buyle S, Hallstrom Y, Hon P, Muscas GC, Newton M, Meencke HJ, Smith PE, Pohlmann-Eden B. KOMET: an unblinded, randomised, two parallel-group, stratified trial comparing the effectiveness of levetiracetam with controlled-release carbamazepine and extendedrelease sodium valproate as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013;84: Ficker DM, Privitera M, Krauss G, Kanner A, Moore JL, Glauser T. Improved tolerability and efficacy in epilepsy patients with extendedrelease carbamazepine. Neurology 2005;65: McCabe PH, Michel NC, McNew CD, Lehman EB. Conversion from delayed-release sodium valproate to extended-release sodium valproate: initial results and long-term follow-up. Epilepsy Behav 2006;8: Koubeissi M. Levetiracetam: more evidence of safety in pregnancy. Epilepsy Curr 2013;13: Kwan P, Brodie MJ. Early identification of refractory epilepsy. N Engl J Med 2000;342: Brodie MJ, Barry SJ, Bamagous GA, Norrie JD, Kwan P. Patterns of treatment response in newly diagnosed epilepsy. Neurology 2012;78:

3 American Epilepsy Society Epilepsy Currents Journal Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest Instructions The purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in four parts. 1. Identifying information. Enter your full name. If you are NOT the main contributing author, please check the box no and enter the name of the main contributing author in the space that appears. Provide the requested manuscript information. 2. The work under consideration for publication. This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking No means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check Yes. Then complete the appropriate boxes to indicate the type of support and whether the payment went to you, or to your institution, or both. 3. Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (DGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer. Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work s sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so. For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed. For example, if a government agency sponsored a study in which you have been involved and drugs were provided by a pharmaceutical company, you need only list the pharmaceutical company. 4. Other relationships Use this section to report other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work.

4 American Epilepsy Society Epilepsy Currents Journal Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest Section #1 Identifying Information 1. Today s Date: 6/12/ First Name Mohamad Last Name Koubeissi Degree MD 3. Are you the Main Assigned Author? Yes No If no, enter your name as co-author: 4. Manuscript/Article Title: Monotherapy in Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy: Levetiracetam vs Standard Anticonvulsants 5. Journal Issue you are submitting for: 14.5 Section #2 The Work Under Consideration for Publication Did you or your institution at any time receive payment or services from a third party for any aspect of the submitted work (including but not limited to grants, data monitoring board, study design, manuscript preparation, statistical analysis, etc.)? Complete each row by checking No or providing the requested information. If you have more than one relationship just add rows to this table. Type No Money Paid to You Money to Your Institution* Name of Entity Comments** 1. Grant 2. Consulting fee or honorarium 3. Support for travel to meetings for the study or other purposes 4. Fees for participating in review activities such as data monitoring boards, statistical analysis, end point committees, and the like 5. Payment for writing or reviewing the manuscript 6. Provision of writing assistance, medicines, equipment, or administrative support. 7. Other * This means money that your institution received for your efforts on this study. ** Use this section to provide any needed explanation. Page 2 10/17/2014

5 Section #3 Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. Place a check in the appropriate boxes in the table to indicate whether you have financial relationships (regardless of amount of compensation) with entities as described in the instructions. Use one line for each entity; add as many lines as you need by clicking the Add box. You should report relationships that were present during the 36 months prior to submission. Complete each row by checking No or providing the requested information. If you have more than one relationship just add rows to this table. Type of relationship (in alphabetical order) No Name of Entity Comments** 1. Board membership 2. Consultancy 3. Employment 4. Expert testimony Money Paid to You 5. Grants/grants pending The authors is a Spitz scholar and has received Grants from the Coulter Foundatio n and Medtronic Money to Your Institution* 6. Payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus From UCB, Cyberonic s and Pfizer 7. Payment for manuscript preparation. 8. Patents (planned, pending or issued) 9. Royalties 10. Payment for development of educational presentations 11. Stock/stock options 12. Travel/accommodations/meeti ng expenses unrelated to activities listed.** 13. Other (err on the side of full disclosure) * This means money that your institution received for your efforts. Page 3 10/17/2014

6 ** For example, if you report a consultancy above there is no need to report travel related to that consultancy on this line. Section #4 Other relationships Are there other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work? No other relationships/conditions/circumstances that present a potential conflict of interest. Yes, the following relationships/conditions/circumstances are present: Thank you for your assistance. Epilepsy Currents Editorial Board Page 4 10/17/2014