Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, has been used for various benign tumours associated with tuberous sclerosis complex. We assessed the efficacy and safety of two trough exposure concentrations of everolimus, 3-7 ng/mL (low exposure) and 9-15 ng/mL (high exposure), compared with placebo as adjunctive therapy for treatment-resistant focal-onset seizures in tuberous sclerosis complex. METHODS:In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, eligible patients aged 2-65 years with tuberous sclerosis complex and treatment-resistant seizures (≥16 in an 8-week baseline phase) receiving one to three concomitant antiepileptic drugs were recruited from 99 centres across 25 countries. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via permuted-block randomisation (block size of six) implemented by Interactive Response Technology software, to receive placebo, low-exposure everolimus, or high-exposure everolimus. Randomisation was stratified by age subgroup (<6 years, 6 to <12 years, 12 to <18 years, and ≥18 years). Patients, investigators, site personnel, and the sponsor's study team were masked to treatment allocation. The starting dose of everolimus depended on age, body-surface area, and concomitant use of cytochrome 3A4/P-glycoprotein inducers. Dose adjustments were done to attain target trough ranges during a 6-week titration period, and as needed during a 12-week maintenance period of core phase. Patients or their caregivers recorded events in a seizure diary throughout the study. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in the frequency of seizures during the maintenance period, defined as response rate (the proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) and median percentage reduction in seizure frequency, in all randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01713946. FINDINGS:Between July 3, 2013, and May 29, 2015, 366 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to placebo (n=119), low-exposure everolimus, (n=117), or high-exposure everolimus (n=130). The response rate was 15·1% with placebo (95% CI 9·2-22·8; 18 patients) compared with 28·2% for low-exposure everolimus (95% CI 20·3-37·3; 33 patients; p=0·0077) and 40·0% for high-exposure everolimus (95% CI 31·5-49·0; 52 patients; p<0·0001). The median percentage reduction in seizure frequency was 14·9% (95% CI 0·1-21·7) with placebo versus 29·3% with low-exposure everolimus (95% CI 18·8-41·9; p=0·0028) and 39·6% with high-exposure everolimus (95% CI 35·0-48·7; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 13 (11%) patients in the placebo group, 21 (18%) in the low-exposure group, and 31 (24%) in the high-exposure group. Serious adverse events were reported in three (3%) patients who received placebo, 16 (14%) who received low-exposure everolimus, and 18 (14%) who received high-exposure everolimus. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in two (2%) patients in the placebo group versus six (5%) in the low-exposure group and four (3%) in the high-exposure group. INTERPRETATION:Adjunctive everolimus treatment significantly reduced seizure frequency with a tolerable safety profile compared with placebo in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex and treatment-resistant seizures. FUNDING:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative safety and adjunctive efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency in patients with partial-onset seizures based on prestudy modeling showing superior efficacy for pregabalin. METHODS: The design of this comparative efficacy and safety study of pregabalin and gabapentin as adjunctive treatment in adults with refractory partial-onset seizures was randomized, flexible dose, double blind, and parallel group. The study included a 6-week baseline and a 21-week treatment phase. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate to the treatment phase. RESULTS: A total of 484 patients were randomized to pregabalin (n = 242) or gabapentin (n = 242). Of these, 359 patients (187 pregabalin, 172 gabapentin) completed the treatment phase. The observed median and mean in percentage change from baseline was -58.65 and -47.7 (SD 48.3) for pregabalin and -57.43 and -45.28 (SD 60.6) for gabapentin. For the primary endpoint, there was no significant difference between treatments. The Hodges-Lehman estimated median difference was 0.0 (95% confidence interval -6.0 to 7.0). Safety profiles were comparable and consistent with prior trials. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of the anticipated efficacy difference based on modeling of prior, nearly identical trials and the larger-than-expected response rates of the 2 antiepileptic drugs were unexpected. These findings raise questions that are potentially important to consider in future comparative efficacy trials. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00537940. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with partial seizures enrolled in this study, pregabalin is not superior to gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency. Because of the atypical response rates, the results of this study are poorly generalizable to other epilepsy populations.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines medication adherence among women with epilepsy via use of an electronic diary, as part of a prospective multicenter observational study designed to evaluate fertility in women with epilepsy (WWE) versus age-matched controls. METHODS: WWE and healthy age-matched controls, seeking pregnancy, were given an iPod Touch using a customized mobile application (the WEPOD App) for daily data tracking. Eighty-six WWE tracked seizures and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Tracking of nonepilepsy medications was optional. Diary data were counted from enrollment date until date of delivery, or up to 12 months if pregnancy was not achieved. Each day that subjects reported missing one or more AED was counted as nonadherence. Because adherence can only be determined in women who track consistently, we elected to include adherence data only for women who tracked >80% of days in the study. RESULTS: Approximately 75% of WWE tracked >80% of days and were included in medication adherence data analysis. In this group, medication adherence rate was 97.71%; 44% of women admitted to missing an AED on at least 1 day. Among the subgroup of WWE who recorded nonepilepsy medications, AED adherence rate was 98.56%, versus 93.91% for non-AEDs. SIGNIFICANCE: The 75% compliance rate with an electronic diary suggests that it may be useful to track medication adherence in future studies and in the clinical setting. In those who tracked, the observed medication adherence rate was considerably higher than the 75% adherence rate seen in previous epilepsy studies. This might be explained in part by selection bias, but may also result from properties of the diary itself (daily reminders, real time feedback given to the provider). Women reported a higher rate of adherence to AEDs than to other prescribed medications and supplements, suggesting that perceived importance of medications likely influences medication adherence, and warrants future study.

In animal models, inflammation is both a cause and consequence of seizures. Less is known about the role of inflammation in human epilepsy. We performed positron emission tomography (PET) using a radiotracer sensitive to brain inflammation in a patient with frontal epilepsy ~36 h after a seizure as well as during a seizure-free period. When statistically compared to a group of 12 matched controls, both of the patient's scans identified a frontal (supplementary motor area) region of increased inflammation corresponding to his clinically defined seizure focus, but the postseizure scan showed significantly greater inflammation intensity and spatial extent. These results provide new information about transient and chronic neuroinflammation in human epilepsy and may be relevant to understanding the process of epileptogenesis and guiding therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if anti-mullerian hormone (AMH), a neuroactive peptide hormone and a measure of ovarian reserve, is different between women with epilepsy (WWE) and healthy controls (HC) seeking pregnancy and to evaluate epilepsy-related factors associated with AMH concentrations. METHODS: Subjects were participants in Women with Epilepsy: Pregnancy Outcomes and Deliveries (WEPOD), a multi-center prospective, observational cohort study evaluating fecundity in WWE compared to HC, ages 18-40 years. WWE were divided into a Sz+ group or a Sz- group, dependent on whether they had seizures within the 9 months prior to enrollment. Serum was collected, and AMH concentrations were measured as an exploratory analysis. Linear and logistic regression models were used to assess associations and control for covariates. RESULTS: Serum AMH concentrations were measured in 72 out of 90 enrolled WWE and 97 out of 109 HC; the remaining subjects became pregnant before serum was obtained. Thirty WWE were in the Sz+ group and 40 in the Sz- group (retrospective seizure information was missing for two). All AMH concentrations were within the range, however, the normal inverse correlation between age and AMH was present in the HC and in the Sz- groups, but was lacking in the Sz+ group. Mean AMH concentration was higher in the Sz- group (3982pg/ml (SD+/-2452)) compared to the Sz+ group of WWE (2776pg/ml (SD+/-2308)) and HCs (3241 (SD+/-2647)). All values were within the expected range for age. In WWE, by linear regression, after controlling for age and BMI, seizure occurrence remained associated with AMH (p=0.025). In the prospective phase of the study, AMH concentrations were also associated with seizure occurrence during the menstrual cycle in which the serum sample was obtained (p=0.012). Antiepileptic drugs and other epilepsy factors were not associated with AMH concentrations. When analyzing the Sz- WWE group and the HC group by linear regression with AMH as the dependent variable, after controlling for age and BMI, the association with AMH was also present (p=0.017). AMH concentrations of the Sz+ group and HCs did not differ. SIGNIFICANCE: In this exploratory analysis, seizure freedom was associated with higher AMH concentrations compared to women with ongoing seizures and to HCs. Future studies should further investigate the mechanism of the association of AMH with seizure occurrence, whether AMH could have a direct seizure-protective neuroactive hormone effect, as well as implications of AMH concentrations as a biomarker for ovarian reserve in women with epilepsy.

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder in adults and requires treatment with antiepileptic medication. While the majority of patients with epilepsy can be treated with medication, about one third will fail on medical treatment. Therefore, other treatment options such as surgery, devices, and the ketogenic diet are other options to consider, in addition to medical treatment. The treatment of epilepsy requires many other factors to be taken into consideration, and these include, but are not limited to, age, gender, coexistent medical conditions, and the use of concomitant medications. The goal of treatment is to provide optimal seizure control while using the least possible number of medications, particularly for young females at reproductive age or the elderly who may suffer from other medical diseases and receive other concomitant medications. Certain conditions may co-exist with epilepsy, such as migraine, mood disorder, and memory disturbances, therefore the decision to choose the most appropriate medication for epilepsy patients should also involve treatment of these conditions. Here, we review current clinical practice in epilepsy and focus on the most common problems and conditions that clinicians face on a daily basis to treat adult patients with epilepsy. Side effect profiles, spectrum of efficacy and optimal choices per predominant type of seizures are summarized and can be used for educational purposes.

Despite the current availability in the market of over two dozen antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), about one third of people with epilepsy fail to achieve complete freedom from seizures with existing medications. Moreover, currently available AEDs have significant limitations in terms of safety, tolerability and propensity to cause or be a target for clinically important adverse drug interactions. A review of the evidence shows that there are many misperceptions about the viability of investing into new therapies for epilepsy. In fact, there are clear incentives to develop newer and more efficacious medications. Developing truly innovative drugs requires a shift in the paradigms for drug discovery, which is already taking place by building on greatly expanded knowledge about the mechanisms involved in epileptogenesis, seizure generation, seizure spread and development of co-morbidities. AED development can also benefit by a review of the methodology currently applied in clinical AED development, in order to address a number of ethical and scientific concerns. As discussed in this article, many processes of clinical drug development, from proof-of-concept-studies to ambitious programmes aimed at demonstrating antiepileptogenesis and disease-modification, can be facilitated by a greater integration of preclinical and clinical science, and by application of knowledge acquired during decades of controlled epilepsy trials.