A comparison of cenobamate with other newer antiseizure medications for adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cenobamate with other newer anti-seizure medications (ASMs) including brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, approved for adjunctive treatment of drug-resistant focal-onset seizures (FOS) in adults with epilepsy. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to obtain relevant efficacy, safety, and tolerability data for ASMs for the treatment of drug-resistant FOS. All studies were thoroughly assessed for potential sources of heterogeneity and analysed via Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs). Efficacy outcomes were ≥50 % responder rate and seizure freedom during the maintenance period, which were modelled simultaneously using a multinomial Bayesian NMA. Safety and tolerability outcomes were the proportion of patients who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and the proportion who experienced at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: The SLR identified 76 studies, of which 23 were included in the Bayesian NMAs. Cenobamate was associated with statistically significant higher rates for the ≥50 % responder rate and seizure freedom outcomes compared with all ASMs analysed. The point estimates indicated that cenobamate was associated with higher rates of experiencing at least one TEAE and at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation compared with brivaracetam, lacosamide, and zonisamide; however, no results were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Cenobamate was associated with increased efficacy compared with all ASMs analysed. There were no statistically significant differences in the safety and tolerability outcomes. The results presented corroborate the conclusions drawn from previous published NMAs, which also highlight the notable efficacy of cenobamate in comparison with other ASMs.

A discrete choice experiment to elicit preferences for a liver screening programme in Queensland, Australia: a mixed methods study to select attributes and levels.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, the overall prevalence of liver disease is increasing. Maximising uptake of community screening programmes by understanding patient preferences is integral to developing consumer-centred care models for liver disease. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to elicit preferences for various healthcare services. Attribute development is a vital component of a well-designed DCE and should be described in sufficient detail for others to assess the validity of outcomes. Hence, this study aimed to create a list of potential attributes and levels which can be used in a DCE study to elicit preferences for chronic liver disease screening programmes. METHODS: Key attributes were developed through a multi-stage, mixed methods design. Focus groups were held with consumers and health care providers on attributes of community screening programmes for liver disease. Stakeholders then prioritised attributes generated from the focus group in order of importance via an online prioritisation survey. The outcomes of the prioritisation exercise were then reviewed and refined by an expert panel to ensure clinically meaningful levels and relevance for a DCE survey. RESULTS: Fifteen attributes were generated during the focus group sessions deemed necessary to design liver disease screening services. Outcomes of the prioritisation exercise and expert panel stages recognised five attributes, with three levels each, for inclusion in a DCE survey to elicit consumer preferences for community screening for liver disease. This study also highlights broader social issues such as the stigma around liver disease that require careful consideration by policy makers when designing or implementing a liver screening programme. CONCLUSIONS: The attributes and levels identified will inform future DCE surveys to understand consumer preferences for community screening programmes for liver disease. In addition, the outcomes will help inform the implementation of the LOCATE-NAFLD programme in real-world practice, and could be relevant for other liver and non-liver related chronic disease screening programmes.