slide dini jurnal
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
1/34
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
2/34
IntroductionIntroduction Levetiracetam (LEV) is a newer antiepileptic drug with better pharmacokinetic profile.
Currently, it is freuently used for the treatment of partial sei!ures. "he present study
was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety of LEV and Carbama!epine
(C#$) in partial epilepsy. Methods. "his was a prospective, open labeled, randomi!ed
study. %t was conducted in participants suffering from partial sei!ures after the
approval of ethics committee and written informed consent."he first group received
"ab LEV (&'' to '''mgday) and the second group received "ab C#$ ('' to
*''mgday). "he primary outcomes were efficacy and safety. "he secondary outcome
was the +uality of Life (+L). Efficacy was assessed by comparing the sei!ure
freedom rates at the end of * months. -afety profile was evaluated by comparing the
adverse effects. +L was assessed by +L%E/' scale. Results. "he overall sei!ure
freedom rate at the end of * months was 0/.123 in C#$ group compared to 04.&03
in LEV group 5 '.2&26). #oth LEV and C#$ reported a similar incidence of adverse(
reactions. LEV group reported more behavioral changes like increased aggression
and an7iety. 8lso, it showed better +L compared to the C#$ group. Conclusion. LEV
monotherapy and C#$ monotherapy demonstrated similar efficacy for treatment of
partial epilepsy and were found to be well tolerated.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
3/34
I. Introduction
Epilepsy is a chronic disorder characteri!ed by 2 or
recurrent sei!ures of cerebral origin. %t is the second most
common neurological condition after headache. "he
estimated average prevalence of epilepsy is *.4 per /'''people in 9-, &.& per /''' people in Europe, and /.& to /1
per /''' people in 8sia, respectively. Epilepsy is classified
based on the source of sei!ure into partial and generali!ed
sei!ures :/;.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
4/34
"he mainstay of treatment of epilepsy is
pharmacological therapy with antiepileptic drugs
(8E>s). %n epilepsy, optimal treatment is important
as the condition is associated with increased
morbidity and mortality and une7pected deaths
without clear structural or pathological cause :&,
*;.8E>s are selected based on the nature of the
disease, the efficacy and tolerability of the agent,and the characteristics of the patient :0;.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
5/34
"reatment options for epilepsy include the older 8E>s (carbama!epine,
ethosu7imide, phenytoin, phenobarbital, primidone, and valproic acid)
as well as several newer drugs (Levetiracetam, felbamate, gabapentin,
lacosamide, lamotrigine, o7carba!epine, pregabalin, rufinamide,
tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, and !onisamide) :4;.Carbama!epine(C#$) is the preferred drug for the treatment of partial sei!ures but it
has the disadvantages of reuirement for freuent dosing, dose related
adverse reactions, and drug interactions. ?ecently, Levetiracetam
(LEV) has become one of the most freuently prescribed newer drugs
for the treatment of partial sei!ures. %t offers several advantages like
twice daily dosing, better safety profile, less drug interactions, and noreuirement of serum level monitoring. "his advantageous
pharmacologic profile makes LEV an attractive firstline or ad@unctive
therapy for epileptic sei!ures :6, /';.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
6/34
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Setting.
"his was a randomi!ed, prospective, open label, comparative monotherapy
study. "he study was conducted in the >epartment of Aeurology at Vydehi
%nstitute of Bedical -ciences and ?esearch Center, #engaluru, %ndia. "he
institute is a /'''bed tertiary care hospital euipped with modern diagnosticand treatment facilities. atients visiting this hospital come from different
geographical regions including -outhern Darnataka, 8ndhra radesh, and
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
7/34
2.2. Selection of the Participants.
"he participants were included in the study after obtaining written
informed consent. "he study inclusion criteria included sub@ects of
age between /4 and *' years diagnosed newly with focal or partial
sei!ures with or without secondary generali!ation. "he e7clusion
criteria were pregnant and lactating mothers, patients withnonepileptic sei!ures, auras or absence of sei!ures, and patients
with acute symptomatic sei!ures occurring within /1 days of an acute
brain in@ury such as stroke and patients with history of psychiatric
illness.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
8/34
2.3. ata Collection. -ub@ects who consented to participate were then interviewed and were
divided into two groups by the toss of a coin. Each group recruited '
participants.
Froup / participants were prescribed "ab LEV, /'''G '''
mgdayoralH and group 2 participants were prescribed "ab C#$, 1''G
/2''mgdayoral. "he participants were started with minimum dose,
&''mg of LEV and 2''mg of C#$, given twice daily after food and thentitrated depending on the sei!ure control. LEV dose was increased by
&'' mg twice daily every 2 weeks up to a ma7imum of '''mgday if
sei!ure control was not achieved. -imilarly, C#$ dose was increased by
2''mg twice daily up to a ma7imum of /2''mgday if sei!ure control
was not achieved. %n cases where the sei!ure was not controlled after
titration of drug dose, the participant was shifted to ad@uvant therapybased on the clinical condition. "he participant was also discontinued
from the study.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
9/34
8ll the participants were given a diary and were asked to note down any
adverse effects (8E)."hey were advised to come after 1, /2, and 2* weeks
after the initiation of therapy for followup.
>uring followup visits, the participants were thoroughly e7amined, history of
breakthrough sei!ures was elicited, and any 8Es were noted. +L wasassessed by using the+L%E/' uestionnaire before initiation of the
treatment and after 2* weeks of therapy ://;.+L%E/' comprises seven
componentsI (/) sei!ureworry, (2)overall+L, () emotional wellbeing, (1)
cognitive function, (&) energyfatigue, (*) medication effectsI physical effects
and psychological effects, and (0) social functioningIwork, driving, and social
function. "he English version of +L%E/' was used for this study.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
10/34
2.!. ata "nalysis.
"he baseline data like demography, efficacy, and
8Es were sub@ected to descriptive statistical
analysis and e7pressed as mean J ->,
freuencies, and percentages. "he +L%E/'scores were e7pressed as mean J -> scores. "he
categorical variables were compared using Chi
suare ( 2) test. Comparison of continuous
variables between groups was carried out usingunpaired -tudentKs test. -tatistical significance
was set at '.'&.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
11/34
3. #esults
8 total of 06sub@ects were screened
for the study. ut of them, *' (0&.*3)
participants who fulfilled the eligibilitycriteria were randomi!ed into the two
study groups. Mollowing is the
summari!ation of the observed results.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
12/34
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
13/34
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
14/34
8ll participants were followed up at 1, /2, and 2* weeks after
the initiation of monotherapy. 8t the 1th week of follow up, both
groups had eual sei!ure freedom of 4&.023 which is notstatistically significant value of /.'''). 8t /2 weeks of follow(
up, C#$ group had 46.263 of sei!ure freedom compared to LEV
group which had 6.13 sei!ure freedom which is not
statistically significant value, '.1&6&). "wentytwo (04.&03) of(
those taking LEV and 2' (0/.123) sub@ects on C#$ weresei!urefree for at least * months during the monotherapy
treatment, which is not statistically significant value, '.2&26).(
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
15/34
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
16/34
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
17/34
3.3. $reatment Safety.
articipants who e7perienced at least ne 8E constituted *.**3 in
C#$ group and 1'3 in the LEV group value, '.00/1), which is not(
statistically significant. ne participant (.3) on LEV therapy
discontinued the treatment due to 8E of increased nausea and
vomiting and 2 patients (*.**3) discontinued the treatment due to 8Eof di!!iness and increased nausea. %n LEV group, & participants
e7perienced behavioral changes like increased aggressive behavior, /
participant e7perienced suicidal tendency, participants had increased
an7iety, participants suffered from increased sleep, 2 participants
reportedweight gain of around G& kilograms in months of duration,
and 2 participants reported constipation. "he other 8Es reported weregiddiness, decreased sleep, nausea, itching, and vomiting. %n C#$
group, * participants e7perienced somnolence, and 1 patients reported
di!!iness. "he other adverse events reported were constipation,
itching, poor concentration, nausea, and vomiting.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
18/34
3.!. %&L "ssessment.
%n clinical practice, +L%E/' score ranges from ' to /''. 8
total score range of less than &' indicates the poor uality of
life, a score from &' to 0' indicates the optimal +L, and a
score more than 0' implies better +L. +L assessment wasdone in the participants in both groups at ' weeks and at the
end of 21 weeks."he mean +L score inC#$ group at
'weekswas /./1J/.4 and in the LEV group it was 26.0* J
/.0/ value, '.&4*/) which is not statistically significant. "he(
mean +L score in C#$ group at the end of 2*th week was
&4.1/ J /.46 and the mean +L score inLEVgroup at the
endof 2*thweekwas *1.&4J2.'2 value of '.''2, '.'&)(
which was found to be statistically significant.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
19/34
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
20/34
!. iscussion
"he aim of 8E> treatment is to achieve sei!ure freedom with minimal
or ideally no 8E and with an optimal +L. Aumerous 8E>s are
licensed as monotherapy for focal sei!ure in adults. "hese include
the older 8E> like C#$. Even though C#$ has many 8Es and
tolerability issues, it was considered as gold standard firstline drug totreat focal sei!ures from past many years. %n 2'/, %LE8 has
produced an updated review in epilepsy treatment, which highlighted
the fact that newer 8E>s like LEV and !onisamide have class /2
evidence to be used as monotherapy:2, /2;.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
21/34
"ill date, there have been very few studies to compare the
efficacy and tolerability of LEV versus C#$ as monotherapy in
focal sei!ures all over the world. -ince the usage of LEV is
very high in %ndia, comparative study of efficacy andtolerability of LEV versus C#$ was e7pected to give more
confidence for the use of the drug. Evaluation of +L
outcomes has been increasingly adopted into the standard
management plan for epilepsy along with traditional measures
of sei!ure freuency and 8E.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
22/34
!.2. Efficacy &utcome
%n this study, the efficacy was mainly assessed by sei!ure
freedomrate.8ccording to %L8E, a patient is considered as
sei!urefree following an intervention after a period without
sei!ures has elapsed eual to three times the longestpreintervention intersei!ure interval over the previous year
:/2;. %n this study, we assessed sei!ure freedom rate at 1, /2,
and 2* weeks.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
23/34
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
24/34
articipants were asked to come for followup visits at 1, /2, and 2*
weeks after initiation of the 8t 1 weeks of followup, the sei!ure
freedom rate in both C#$ and LEV groups was the same (4&.023).
-ince the pretreatment sei!ure freuency in LEV group was high, the
sei!ure freedom at 1 weeks goes in the favor of LEV group. -imilarly,in LaLiBo trial, the sei!ure freedom at * weeks in LEV group was
4.*3 compared to 06.43 in Lamotrigine group 5 '.10) with no(
statistical significance :/2;. %n this study, both groups showed better
sei!ure freedom even though the results were not statistically
significant."he increased sei!ure freedom may be due to better drug
adherence.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
25/34
%n most of the comparative studies of LEV versus
C#$, the main efficacy outcome was sei!ure
freedom rate at * months and /2months. -ince this
was time bound academic study,we could not followup the cases for long term.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
26/34
"he final efficacy outcome was assessed on sei!ure freedom at the
end of * months. %n our study overall sei!ure freedom rate at the end
of *months was 0/.123in C#$ group compared to 04.&03 in LEV
group 5 '.2&26), which is not statistically significant. 8s per erry(
et al.Ks study, where they have compared LEV versus C#$ asmonotherapy for partial epilepsy, the efficacy outcome was sei!ure
freedom at *, /2, and 21 months."he sei!ure freedom rate at the end
of * months was 03 in LEV group compared to *&3 in C#$ group
5 '.&4) which showed no statistical significance like our study :/';.(
-imilarly, in DBE" trial, the authors compared LEV with C#$ in
newly diagnosed focal epilepsyH sei!ure freedom rate at *months forC#$ was *23which was comparatively higher than LEV which had
sei!ure freedom rate of &0.&3. "he results were not statistically
significant :/;.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
27/34
!.3. Safety
"he ultimate goal of treatment of epilepsy is the fact that patients
should not have sei!ures, less 8E, and an optimal +L. %n this study,
both LEV and C#$ were well tolerated as initial monotherapy. nly
*.**3 of patients on C#$ and .3 of patients on LEV withdrew
from the study due to 8E.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
28/34
%n this study, the participants taking C#$ mostly
reported 8Es like increased sleep (2'3) and
di!!iness (/.3) similar to the study conducted
by erry et al., where 1'3 of patients on C#$reported increased sleep and /'3 of patients
reported di!!iness.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
29/34
%n this study, sub@ects assigned to the LEV group most
commonly (/0.4&3) reported behavioral changes in terms of
increased aggressive behavior, increased an7iety, and
suicidal tendency. -imilarly, in erry et al.Ks study, LEV was
associated with increased behavioral changes in terms of
irritability ('.&3). Bany of the case reports do suggest that
LEV is associated with increased behavioral changes :/1, /&;.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
30/34
%n this study, 2 patients on LEV reported weight gain of G& kg in
months. "ill date, there have been reports of LEV induced weight
loss. =ere, weight gain can be correlated with improved +L. ther
8Es observed in this study were giddiness, increased sleep, itching,
and nausea. Long term 8Es of C#$ have been reported to beleukopenia, hyponatremia, disturbances of vitamin > metabolism,
agranulocytosis, and hepatitis. LEV is a comparatively new drug. "he
studies till date mention that the drug is well tolerated on long term
use."here are reports of discontinuation of the drug due to irritability
but this was related to previous history ofmood disorders :/0, /4;.
%n this regard, LEV appears to be a better option compared to C#$
for long term use. "o avoid the behavioral 8E, prescribers should
thoroughly evaluate a patient of past psychiatric illness.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
31/34
!.!. %uality of Life.
"he +L evaluation is a relatively new measure to evaluate
patient related outcome of treatment for epilepsy. ?ecently,
other studies have tried to determine the effects of various
demographic and clinical variables on the overall +L among
patients with epilepsy :2;.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
32/34
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
33/34
8mong both drugs, LEV has been shown to be
superior to C#$ in terms of +L, which can be due
to the fact that LEV was associated with increased
sei!ure freedom compared toC#$."his increasedsei!ure freuency can be correlated with decreased
+L in C#$ group. -imilarly, another study
conducted by"homas et al. -uggests that patients
on monotherapy have a significant better +L :2;.LEV thus demonstrated better +L after * months
of therapy compared to C#$.
-
8/16/2019 Slide Dini Jurnal
34/34