Levetiracetam

BackgroundValproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy.MethodsWe did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64).Findings520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years.InterpretationCompared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

BackgroundLevetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.MethodsThis randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64).Findings990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs.InterpretationThese findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are effective against seizures, but their use is often limited by adverse effects, among them psychiatric and behavioral ones including aggressive behavior (AB). Knowledge of the incidence, risk factors, and the underlying mechanisms of AB induced by AEDs may help to facilitate management and reduce the risk of such side effects. The exact incidence of AB as an adverse effect of AEDs is difficult to estimate, but frequencies up to 16% have been reported. Primarily, levetiracetam (LEV), perampanel (PER), and topiramate (TPM), which have diverse mechanisms of action, have been associated with AB. Currently, there is no evidence for a specific pharmacological mechanism solely explaining the increased incidence of AB with LEV, PER, and TPM. Serotonin (5-HT) and GABA, and particularly glutamate (via the AMPA receptor), seem to play key roles. Other mechanisms involve hormones, epigenetics, and "alternative psychosis" and related phenomena. Increased individual susceptibility due to an underlying neurological and/or a mental health disorder may further explain why people with epilepsy are at an increased risk of AB when using AEDs. Remarkably, AB may occur with a delay of weeks or months after start of treatment. Information to patients, relatives, and caregivers, as well as sufficient clinical follow-up, is crucial, and there is a need for further research to understand the complex relationship between AED mechanisms of action and the induction/worsening of AB.

ObjectiveThis study was undertaken to evaluate whether synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A) expression on peripheral immune cells predicts treatment response to levetiracetam in epilepsy.MethodsHigh-dimensional flow cytometry was used to prospectively assess SV2A expression on immune cells from levetiracetam responders, nonresponders, and healthy controls. SV2A expression levels were further validated using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) in an independent retrospective cohort. The predictive value of SV2A expression on naive CD8+ T cell-specific SV2A/CD3+ median fluorescence intensity (MFI) ratio was determined, and correlations with central nervous system (CNS)-resident cell expression were examined in the wild-type (WT) C57BL6 mouse model.ResultsNaive CD8+ T cells showed significantly lower SV2A expression (p = .0029) in nonresponders compared to responders, confirmed by RT-qPCR (p = .0022), with no difference in overall CD8+ T-cell abundance. The naive CD8+ T cell-specific SV2A/CD3+ MFI ratio (>.4733) correctly identified most responders, with a positive predictive value of 81.8%. SV2A concentration was stable over time (mean interval = 121.2 days, 95% confidence interval = 93.64-148.7 days), unaffected by age, gender, dose, or treatment duration, and neuronal SV2A expression in the CNS of WT C57BL6 mice correlated with SV2A expression of CD8+ in circulating blood cells (r = .655, p = .008).SignificanceNaive CD8+ T cell-specific SV2A MFI ratio may represent a potential indicator of treatment response for levetiracetam. Pending further validation, its stability and accessibility suggest that it could potentially support treatment decisions and help to reduce ineffective drug trials.