Testing for pharmacogenomic predictors of ppRNFL thinning in individuals exposed to vigabatrin.

Background: The anti-seizure medication vigabatrin (VGB) is effective for controlling seizures, especially infantile spasms. However, use is limited by VGB-associated visual field loss (VAVFL). The mechanisms by which VGB causes VAVFL remains unknown. Average peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (ppRNFL) thickness correlates with the degree of visual field loss (measured by mean radial degrees). Duration of VGB exposure, maximum daily VGB dose, and male sex are associated with ppRNFL thinning. Here we test the hypothesis that common genetic variation is a predictor of ppRNFL thinning in VGB exposed individuals. Identifying pharmacogenomic predictors of ppRNFL thinning in VGB exposed individuals could potentially enable safe prescribing of VGB and broader use of a highly effective drug. Methods: Optical coherence topography (OCT) and GWAS data were processed from VGB-exposed individuals (n = 71) recruited through the EpiPGX Consortium. We conducted quantitative GWAS analyses for the following OCT measurements: (1) average ppRNFL, (2) inferior quadrant, (3) nasal quadrant, (4) superior quadrant, (5) temporal quadrant, (6) inferior nasal sector, (7) nasal inferior sector, (8) superior nasal sector, and (9) nasal superior sector. Using the summary statistics from the GWAS analyses we conducted gene-based testing using VEGAS2. We conducted nine different PRS analyses using the OCT measurements. To determine if VGB-exposed individuals were predisposed to having a thinner RNFL, we calculated their polygenic burden for retinal thickness. PRS alleles for retinal thickness were calculated using published summary statistics from a large-scale GWAS of inner retinal morphology using the OCT images of UK Biobank participants. Results: The GWAS analyses did not identify a significant association after correction for multiple testing. Similarly, the gene-based and PRS analyses did not reveal a significant association that survived multiple testing. Conclusion: We set out to identify common genetic predictors for VGB induced ppRNFL thinning. Results suggest that large-effect common genetic predictors are unlikely to exist for ppRNFL thinning (as a marker of VAVFL). Sample size was a limitation of this study. However, further recruitment is a challenge as VGB is rarely used today because of this adverse reaction. Rare variants may be predictors of this adverse drug reaction and were not studied here.

Pharmacological diversity amongst approved and emerging antiseizure medications for the treatment of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies.

Developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs) are rare neurodevelopmental disorders characterised by early-onset and often intractable seizures and developmental delay/regression, and include Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS). Rufinamide, fenfluramine, stiripentol, cannabidiol and ganaxolone are antiseizure medications (ASMs) with diverse mechanisms of action that have been approved for treating specific DEEs. Rufinamide is thought to suppress neuronal hyperexcitability by preventing the functional recycling of voltage-gated sodium channels from the inactivated to resting state. It is licensed for adjunctive treatment of seizures associated with LGS. Fenfluramine increases extracellular serotonin levels and may reduce seizures via activation of specific serotonin receptors and positive modulation of the sigma-1 receptor. Fenfluramine is licensed for adjunctive treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome and LGS. Stiripentol is a positive allosteric modulator of type-A gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABAA) receptors. As a broad-spectrum inhibitor of cytochrome P450 enzymes, its antiseizure effects may additionally arise through pharmacokinetic interactions with co-administered ASMs. Stiripentol is licensed for treating seizures associated with Dravet syndrome in patients taking clobazam and/or valproate. The mechanism(s) of action of cannabidiol remains largely unclear although multiple targets have been proposed, including transient receptor potential vanilloid 1, G protein-coupled receptor 55 and equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1. Cannabidiol is licensed as adjunctive treatment in conjunction with clobazam for seizures associated with Dravet syndrome and LGS, and as adjunctive treatment of seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex. Like stiripentol, ganaxolone is a positive allosteric modulator at GABAA receptors. It has recently been licensed in the USA for the treatment of seizures associated with cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 deficiency disorder. Greater understanding of the causes of DEEs has driven research into the potential use of other novel and repurposed agents. Putative ASMs currently in clinical development for use in DEEs include soticlestat, carisbamate, verapamil, radiprodil, clemizole and lorcaserin.

A pharmacogenomic assessment of psychiatric adverse drug reactions to levetiracetam.

OBJECTIVE: Levetiracetam (LEV) is an effective antiseizure medicine, but 10%-20% of people treated with LEV report psychiatric side-effects, and up to 1% may have psychotic episodes. Pharmacogenomic predictors of these adverse drug reactions (ADRs) have yet to be identified. We sought to determine the contribution of both common and rare genetic variation to psychiatric and behavioral ADRs associated with LEV. METHODS: This case-control study compared cases of LEV-associated behavioral disorder (n = 149) or psychotic reaction (n = 37) to LEV-exposed people with no history of psychiatric ADRs (n = 920). All samples were of European ancestry. We performed genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis comparing those with LEV ADRs to controls. We estimated the polygenic risk scores (PRS) for schizophrenia and compared cases with LEV-associated psychotic reaction to controls. Rare variant burden analysis was performed using exome sequence data of cases with psychotic reactions (n = 18) and controls (n = 122). RESULTS: Univariate GWAS found no significant associations with either LEV-associated behavioural disorder or LEV-psychotic reaction. PRS analysis showed that cases of LEV-associated psychotic reaction had an increased PRS for schizophrenia relative to contr ols (p = .0097, estimate = .4886). The rare-variant analysis found no evidence of an increased burden of rare genetic variants in people who had experienced LEV-associated psychotic reaction relative to controls. SIGNIFICANCE: The polygenic burden for schizophrenia is a risk factor for LEV-associated psychotic reaction. To assess the clinical utility of PRS as a predictor, it should be tested in an independent and ideally prospective cohort. Larger sample sizes are required for the identification of significant univariate common genetic signals or rare genetic signals associated with psychiatric LEV ADRs.

High-mobility group box 1 as a predictive biomarker for drug-resistant epilepsy: A proof-of-concept study.

Currently no sensitive and specific biomarkers exist to predict drug-resistant epilepsy. We determined whether blood levels of high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), a mediator of neuroinflammation implicated in drug-resistant epilepsies, identifies patients with drug-resistant seizures. Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy express significantly higher levels of blood HMGB1 than those with drug-responsive, well-controlled seizures and healthy controls. No correlation existed between blood HMGB1 levels and total pretreatment seizure count or days since last seizure at new epilepsy diagnosis, indicating that blood HMGB1 does not solely reflect ongoing seizures. HMGB1 distinguishes with high specificity and selectivity drug-resistant versus drug-responsive patients. This protein therefore has potential clinical utility to act as a biomarker for predicting response to therapy, which should be addressed in prospective clinical studies.

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy. DESIGN: Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel. SETTING: Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication. INTERVENTIONS: Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Focal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions. FUTURE WORK: SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel. CONCLUSIONS: Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The SANAD II trial was a clinical trial designed to identify the most clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for adults and children aged > 5 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. There are two main epilepsy types: focal and generalised. In focal epilepsy, seizures start at a single place in the brain (a focus), whereas in generalised epilepsy seizures start in both sides of the brain at the same time. Anti-seizure medications are the main treatment. For people with newly diagnosed epilepsy, the first anti-seizure medication should control the seizures as quickly as possible while avoiding side effects. The first-choice treatments are lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) for focal epilepsy and valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) for generalised epilepsy (however, the latter should be avoided in women who could become pregnant). A number of newer anti-seizure medications have been approved for NHS use, but it is unclear whether or not they should be used as first-line treatments. The SANAD II trial focused on the new medicines levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). We recruited 1510 people aged ≥ 5 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy: 990 with focal epilepsy and 520 with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. FINDINGS: FOCAL EPILEPSY: People starting treatment with levetiracetam or zonisamide were significantly less likely to have a 12-month remission from seizures than people starting treatment with lamotrigine, unless they were changed to another anti-seizure medication. Side effects that were thought to be caused by anti-seizure medications were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% of those starting levetiracetam and 45% of those starting zonisamide. The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that neither levetiracetam nor zonisamide is value for money for the NHS when compared with lamotrigine. The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. FINDINGS: GENERALISED AND UNCLASSIFIABLE EPILEPSY: People starting treatment with levetiracetam were significantly less likely to have a 12-month remission from seizures than people starting valproate, unless they were changed to another anti-seizure medication. Side effects that were thought to be caused by anti-seizure medications were reported by 37% of participants starting valproate and 42% of participants starting levetiracetam. The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that levetiracetam is not good value for money for the NHS when compared with valproate. The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. Importantly, our results will inform treatment decisions for women, who may choose a less effective treatment that is safer in pregnancy.

The Impacts of Surgery and Intracerebral Electrodes in C57BL/6J Mouse Kainate Model of Epileptogenesis: Seizure Threshold, Proteomics, and Cytokine Profiles.

Intracranial electroencephalography (EEG) is commonly used to study epileptogenesis and epilepsy in experimental models. Chronic gliosis and neurodegeneration at the injury site are known to be associated with surgically implanted electrodes in both humans and experimental models. Currently, however, there are no reports on the impact of intracerebral electrodes on proteins in the hippocampus and proinflammatory cytokines in the cerebral cortex and plasma in experimental models. We used an unbiased, label-free proteomics approach to identify the altered proteins in the hippocampus, and multiplex assay for cytokines in the cerebral cortex and plasma of C57BL/6J mice following bilateral surgical implantation of electrodes into the cerebral hemispheres. Seven days following surgery, a repeated low dose kainate (KA) regimen was followed to induce status epilepticus (SE). Surgical implantation of electrodes reduced the amount of KA necessary to induce SE by 50%, compared with mice without surgery. Tissues were harvested 7 days post-SE (i.e., 14 days post-surgery) and compared with vehicle-treated mice. Proteomic profiling showed more proteins (103, 6.8% of all proteins identified) with significantly changed expression (p < 0.01) driven by surgery than by KA treatment itself without surgery (27, 1.8% of all proteins identified). Further, electrode implantation approximately doubled the number of KA-induced changes in protein expression (55, 3.6% of all identified proteins). Further analysis revealed that intracerebral electrodes and KA altered the expression of proteins associated with epileptogenesis such as inflammation (C1q system), neurodegeneration (cystatin-C, galectin-1, cathepsin B, heat-shock protein 25), blood-brain barrier dysfunction (fibrinogen-α, serum albumin, α2 macroglobulin), and gliosis (vimentin, GFAP, filamin-A). The multiplex assay revealed a significant increase in key cytokines such as TNFα, IL-1ß, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL12p70, IFN-γ, and KC/GRO in the cerebral cortex and some in the plasma in the surgery group. Overall, these findings demonstrate that surgical implantation of depth electrodes alters some of the molecules that may have a role in epileptogenesis in experimental models.

Role of Common Genetic Variants for Drug-Resistance to Specific Anti-Seizure Medications.

Objective: Resistance to anti-seizure medications (ASMs) presents a significant hurdle in the treatment of people with epilepsy. Genetic markers for resistance to individual ASMs could support clinicians to make better-informed choices for their patients. In this study, we aimed to elucidate whether the response to individual ASMs was associated with common genetic variation. Methods: A cohort of 3,649 individuals of European descent with epilepsy was deeply phenotyped and underwent single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-genotyping. We conducted genome-wide association analyses (GWASs) on responders to specific ASMs or groups of functionally related ASMs, using non-responders as controls. We performed a polygenic risk score (PRS) analyses based on risk variants for epilepsy and neuropsychiatric disorders and ASM resistance itself to delineate the polygenic burden of ASM-specific drug resistance. Results: We identified several potential regions of interest but did not detect genome-wide significant loci for ASM-specific response. We did not find polygenic risk for epilepsy, neuropsychiatric disorders, and drug-resistance associated with drug response to specific ASMs or mechanistically related groups of ASMs. Significance: This study could not ascertain the predictive value of common genetic variants for ASM responder status. The identified suggestive loci will need replication in future studies of a larger scale.

Assessing the role of rare genetic variants in drug-resistant, non-lesional focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Resistance to antiseizure medications (ASMs) is one of the major concerns in the treatment of epilepsy. Despite the increasing number of ASMs available, the proportion of individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy remains unchanged. In this study, we aimed to investigate the role of rare genetic variants in ASM resistance. METHODS: We performed exome sequencing of 1,128 individuals with non-familial non-acquired focal epilepsy (NAFE) (762 non-responders, 366 responders) and were provided with 1,734 healthy controls. We undertook replication in a cohort of 350 individuals with NAFE (165 non-responders, 185 responders). We performed gene-based and gene-set-based kernel association tests to investigate potential enrichment of rare variants in relation to drug response status and to risk for NAFE. RESULTS: We found no gene or gene set that reached genome-wide significance. Yet, we identified several prospective candidate genes - among them DEPDC5, which showed a potential association with resistance to ASMs. We found some evidence for an enrichment of truncating variants in dominant familial NAFE genes in our cohort of non-familial NAFE and in association with drug-resistant NAFE. INTERPRETATION: Our study identifies potential candidate genes for ASM resistance. Our results corroborate the role of rare variants for non-familial NAFE and imply their involvement in drug-resistant epilepsy. Future large-scale genetic research studies are needed to substantiate these findings.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam 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. METHODS: This 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). FINDINGS: 990 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. INTERPRETATION: These 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. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valproate 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. METHODS: We 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). FINDINGS: 520 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. INTERPRETATION: Compared 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. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

The ups and downs of alkyl-carbamates in epilepsy therapy: How does cenobamate differ?

Since 1955, several alkyl-carbamates have been developed for the treatment of anxiety and epilepsy, including meprobamate, flupirtine, felbamate, retigabine, carisbamate, and cenobamate. They have each enjoyed varying levels of success as antiseizure drugs; however, they have all been plagued by the emergence of serious and sometimes life-threatening adverse events. In this review, we compare and contrast their predominant molecular mechanisms of action, their antiseizure profile, and where possible, their clinical efficacy. The preclinical, clinical, and mechanistic profile of the prototypical γ-aminobutyric acidergic (GABAergic) modulator phenobarbital is included for comparison. Like phenobarbital, all of the clinically approved alkyl-carbamates share an ability to enhance inhibitory neurotransmission through modulation of the GABAA receptor, although the specific mechanism of interaction differs among the different drugs discussed. In addition, several alkyl-carbamates have been shown to interact with voltage-gated ion channels. Flupirtine and retigabine share an ability to activate K+ currents mediated by KCNQ (Kv7) K+ channels, and felbamate, carisbamate, and cenobamate have been shown to block Na+ channels. In contrast to other alkyl-carbamates, cenobamate seems to be unique in its ability to preferentially attenuate the persistent rather than transient Na+ current. Results from recent randomized controlled clinical trials with cenobamate suggest that this newest antiseizure alkyl-carbamate possesses a degree of efficacy not witnessed since felbamate was approved in 1993. Given that ceno-bamate's mechanistic profile is unique among the alkyl-carbamates, it is not clear whether this impressive efficacy reflects an as yet undescribed mechanism of action or whether it possesses a unique synergy between its actions at the GABAA receptor and on persistent Na+ currents. The high efficacy of cenobamate is, however, tempered by the risk of serious rash and low tolerability at higher doses, meaning that further safety studies and clinical experience are needed to determine the true clinical value of cenobamate.

Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide versus standard treatments for epilepsy: a comparison of standard and new antiepileptic drugs (SANAD-II).

INTRODUCTION: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Over the past 20 years, a number of new drugs have been approved for National Health Service (NHS) use on the basis of information from short-term trials that demonstrate efficacy. These trials do not provide information about the longer term outcomes, which inform treatment policy. This trial will assess the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the newer treatment levetiracetam and zonisamide. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing new and standard treatments for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Arm A of the trial randomised 990 patients with focal epilepsy to standard AED lamotrigine or new AED levetiracetam or zonisamide. Arm B randomised 520 patients with generalised epilepsy to standard AED sodium valproate or new AED levetiracetam. Patients are recruited from UK NHS outpatient epilepsy, general neurology and paediatric clinics. Included patients are aged 5 years or older with two or more spontaneous seizures requiring AED monotherapy, who are not previously treated with AEDs. Patients are followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is time to 12-month remission from seizures. Secondary outcomes include time to treatment failure (including due to inadequate seizure control or unacceptable adverse reactions); time to first seizure; time to 24-month remission; adverse reactions and quality of life. All primary analyses will be on an intention to treat basis. Separate analyses will be undertaken for each arm. Health economic analysis will be conducted from the perspective of the NHS to assess the cost-effectiveness of each AED. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the North West-Liverpool East REC (Ref. 12/NW/0361). The trial team will disseminate the results through scientific meetings, peer-reviewed publications and patient and public involvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2012-001884-64; ISRCTN30294119.

A multiorganism pipeline for antiseizure drug discovery: Identification of chlorothymol as a novel γ-aminobutyric acidergic anticonvulsant.

OBJECTIVE: Current medicines are ineffective in approximately one-third of people with epilepsy. Therefore, new antiseizure drugs are urgently needed to address this problem of pharmacoresistance. However, traditional rodent seizure and epilepsy models are poorly suited to high-throughput compound screening. Furthermore, testing in a single species increases the chance that therapeutic compounds act on molecular targets that may not be conserved in humans. To address these issues, we developed a pipeline approach using four different organisms. METHODS: We sequentially employed compound library screening in the zebrafish, Danio rerio, chemical genetics in the worm, Caenorhabditis elegans, electrophysiological analysis in mouse and human brain slices, and preclinical validation in mouse seizure models to identify novel antiseizure drugs and their molecular mechanism of action. RESULTS: Initially, a library of 1690 compounds was screened in an acute pentylenetetrazol seizure model using D rerio. From this screen, the compound chlorothymol was identified as an effective anticonvulsant not only in fish, but also in worms. A subsequent genetic screen in C elegans revealed the molecular target of chlorothymol to be LGC-37, a worm γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA ) receptor subunit. This GABAergic effect was confirmed using in vitro brain slice preparations from both mice and humans, as chlorothymol was shown to enhance tonic and phasic inhibition and this action was reversed by the GABAA receptor antagonist, bicuculline. Finally, chlorothymol exhibited in vivo anticonvulsant efficacy in several mouse seizure assays, including the 6-Hz 44-mA model of pharmacoresistant seizures. SIGNIFICANCE: These findings establish a multiorganism approach that can identify compounds with evolutionarily conserved molecular targets and translational potential, and so may be useful in drug discovery for epilepsy and possibly other conditions.

Pharmacoresponse in genetic generalized epilepsy: a genome-wide association study.

Aim: Pharmacoresistance is a major burden in epilepsy treatment. We aimed to identify genetic biomarkers in response to specific antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in genetic generalized epilepsies (GGE). Materials & methods: We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 3.3 million autosomal SNPs in 893 European subjects with GGE - responsive or nonresponsive to lamotrigine, levetiracetam and valproic acid. Results: Our GWAS of AED response revealed suggestive evidence for association at 29 genomic loci (p <10-5) but no significant association reflecting its limited power. The suggestive associations highlight candidate genes that are implicated in epileptogenesis and neurodevelopment. Conclusion: This first GWAS of AED response in GGE provides a comprehensive reference of SNP associations for hypothesis-driven candidate gene analyses in upcoming pharmacogenetic studies.

Testing association of rare genetic variants with resistance to three common antiseizure medications.

OBJECTIVE: Drug resistance is a major concern in the treatment of individuals with epilepsy. No genetic markers for resistance to individual antiseizure medication (ASM) have yet been identified. We aimed to identify the role of rare genetic variants in drug resistance for three common ASMs: levetiracetam (LEV), lamotrigine (LTG), and valproic acid (VPA). METHODS: A cohort of 1622 individuals of European descent with epilepsy was deeply phenotyped and underwent whole exome sequencing (WES), comprising 575 taking LEV, 826 LTG, and 782 VPA. We performed gene- and gene set-based collapsing analyses comparing responders and nonresponders to the three drugs to determine the burden of different categories of rare genetic variants. RESULTS: We observed a marginally significant enrichment of rare missense, truncating, and splice region variants in individuals who were resistant to VPA compared to VPA responders for genes involved in VPA pharmacokinetics. We also found a borderline significant enrichment of truncating and splice region variants in the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein (SV2) gene family in nonresponders compared to responders to LEV. We did not see any significant enrichment using a gene-based approach. SIGNIFICANCE: In our pharmacogenetic study, we identified a slightly increased burden of damaging variants in gene groups related to drug kinetics or targeting in individuals presenting with drug resistance to VPA or LEV. Such variants could thus determine a genetic contribution to drug resistance.

Mechanisms of action of currently used antiseizure drugs.

Antiseizure drugs (ASDs) prevent the occurrence of seizures; there is no evidence that they have disease-modifying properties. In the more than 160 years that orally administered ASDs have been available for epilepsy therapy, most agents entering clinical practice were either discovered serendipitously or with the use of animal seizure models. The ASDs originating from these approaches act on brain excitability mechanisms to interfere with the generation and spread of epileptic hyperexcitability, but they do not address the specific defects that are pathogenic in the epilepsies for which they are prescribed, which in most cases are not well understood. There are four broad classes of such ASD mechanisms: (1) modulation of voltage-gated sodium channels (e.g. phenytoin, carbamazepine, lamotrigine), voltage-gated calcium channels (e.g. ethosuximide), and voltage-gated potassium channels [e.g. retigabine (ezogabine)]; (2) enhancement of GABA-mediated inhibitory neurotransmission (e.g. benzodiazepines, tiagabine, vigabatrin); (3) attenuation of glutamate-mediated excitatory neurotransmission (e.g. perampanel); and (4) modulation of neurotransmitter release via a presynaptic action (e.g. levetiracetam, brivaracetam, gabapentin, pregabalin). In the past two decades there has been great progress in identifying the pathophysiological mechanisms of many genetic epilepsies. Given this new understanding, attempts are being made to engineer specific small molecule, antisense and gene therapies that functionally reverse or structurally correct pathogenic defects in epilepsy syndromes. In the near future, these new therapies will begin a paradigm shift in the treatment of some rare genetic epilepsy syndromes, but targeted therapies will remain elusive for the vast majority of epilepsies until their causes are identified. This article is part of the special issue entitled 'New Epilepsy Therapies for the 21st Century - From Antiseizure Drugs to Prevention, Modification and Cure of Epilepsy'.

Functional analysis of epilepsy-associated variants in STXBP1/Munc18-1 using humanized Caenorhabditis elegans.

OBJECTIVE: Genetic variants in STXBP1, which encodes the conserved exocytosis protein Munc18-1, are associated with a variety of infantile epilepsy syndromes. We aimed to develop an in vivo Caenorhabditis elegans model that could be used to test the pathogenicity of such variants in a cost-effective manner. METHODS: The CRISPR/Cas9 method was used to introduce a null mutation into the unc-18 gene (the C. elegans orthologue of STXBP1), thereby creating a paralyzed worm strain. We subsequently rescued this strain with transgenes encoding the human STXBP1/Munc18-1 protein (wild-type and eight different epilepsy-associated missense variants). The resulting humanized worm strains were then analyzed via behavioral, electrophysiological, and biochemical approaches. RESULTS: Transgenic expression of wild-type human STXBP1 protein fully rescued locomotion in both solid and liquid media to the same level as the standard wild-type worm strain, Bristol N2. Six variant strains (E59K, V84D, C180Y, R292H, L341P, R551C) exhibited impaired locomotion, whereas two (P335L, R406H) were no different from worms expressing wild-type STXBP1. Electrophysiological recordings revealed that all eight variant strains displayed less frequent and more irregular pharyngeal pumping in comparison to wild-type STXBP1-expressing strains. Four strains (V84D, C180Y, R292H, P335L) exhibited pentylenetetrazol-induced convulsions in an acute assay of seizure-like activity, in contrast to worms expressing wild-type STXBP1. No differences were seen between wild-type and variant STXBP1 strains in terms of mRNA abundance. However, STXBP1 protein levels were reduced to 20%-30% of wild-type in all variants, suggesting that the mutations result in STXBP1 protein instability. SIGNIFICANCE: The approach described here is a cost-effective in vivo method for establishing the pathogenicity of genetic variants in STXBP1 and potentially other conserved neuronal proteins. Furthermore, the humanized strains we created could potentially be used in the future for high-throughput drug screens to identify novel therapeutics.

Genomic and clinical predictors of lacosamide response in refractory epilepsies.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical and genetic predictors of response to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are largely unknown. We examined predictors of lacosamide response in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: We tested the association of clinical predictors with treatment response using regression modeling in a cohort of people with refractory epilepsy. Genetic assessment for lacosamide response was conducted via genome-wide association studies and exome studies, comprising 281 candidate genes. RESULTS: Most patients (479/483) were treated with LCM in addition to other AEDs. Our results corroborate previous findings that patients with refractory genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE) may respond to treatment with LCM. No clear clinical predictors were identified. We then compared 73 lacosamide responders, defined as those experiencing greater than 75% seizure reduction or seizure freedom, to 495 nonresponders (<25% seizure reduction). No variants reached the genome-wide significance threshold in our case-control analysis. SIGNIFICANCE: No genetic predictor of lacosamide response was identified. Patients with refractory GGE might benefit from treatment with lacosamide.

Sulthiame add-on therapy for epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 10. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people respond to conventional antiepileptic drugs, however, around 30% will continue to experience seizures, despite treatment with multiple antiepileptic drugs. Sulthiame, also known as sultiame, is a widely used antiepileptic drug in Europe and Israel. We present a summary of the evidence for the use of sulthiame as add-on therapy in epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of sulthiame as add-on therapy for people with epilepsy of any aetiology compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL (17 January 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to January 16, 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP Search Portal (17 January 2019). We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of sulthiame, and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of add-on sulthiame, with any level of blinding (single, double or unblinded) in people of any age, with epilepsy of any aetiology. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, and extracted relevant data. We assessed these outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency between baseline and end of follow-up; (2) complete cessation of seizures during follow-up; (3) mean seizure frequency; (4) time-to-treatment withdrawal; (5) adverse effects; and (6) quality of life. We used intention-to-treat for primary analyses. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). However, due to the paucity of trials, we mainly conducted a narrative analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included one placebo-controlled trial that recruited 37 infants with newly diagnosed West syndrome. This trial was funded by DESITIN Pharma, Germany. During the study, sulthiame was given as an add-on therapy to pyridoxine. No data were reported for the outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency between baseline and end of follow-up; mean seizure frequency; or quality of life. For complete cessation of seizures during a nine-day follow-up period for add-on sulthiame versus placebo, the RR was 11.14 (95% CI 0.67 to 184.47; very low-certainty evidence), however, this difference was not shown to be statistically significant (P = 0.09). The number of infants experiencing one or more adverse events was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.64; very low-certainty evidence; P = 0.63). Somnolence was more prevalent amongst infants randomised to add-on sulthiame compared to placebo, but again, the difference was not statistically significant (RR 3.40, 95% CI 0.42 to 27.59; very low-certainty evidence; P = 0.25). We were unable to conduct meaningful analysis of time-to-treatment withdrawal and adverse effects due to incomplete data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Sulthiame may lead to a cessation of seizures when used as an add-on therapy to pyridoxine in infants with West syndrome, however, we are very uncertain about the reliability of this finding. The included study was small and had a significant risk of bias, largely due to the lack of details regarding blinding and the incomplete reporting of outcomes. Both issues negatively impacted the certainty of the evidence. No conclusions can be drawn about the occurrence of adverse effects, change in quality of life, or mean reduction in seizure frequency. No evidence exists for the use of sulthiame as an add-on therapy in people with epilepsy outside West syndrome.Large, multi-centre randomised controlled trials are needed to inform clinical practice, if sulthiame is to be used as an add-on therapy for epilepsy.

Comparative effectiveness of antiepileptic drugs in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) commonly used in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME). METHODS: People with JME were identified from a large database of individuals with epilepsy, which includes detailed retrospective information on AED use. We assessed secular changes in AED use and calculated rates of response (12-month seizure freedom) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for the five most common AEDs. Retention was modeled with a Cox proportional hazards model. We compared valproate use between males and females. RESULTS: We included 305 people with 688 AED trials of valproate, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, carbamazepine, and topiramate. Valproate and carbamazepine were most often prescribed as the first AED. The response rate to valproate was highest among the five AEDs (42.7%), and significantly higher than response rates for lamotrigine, carbamazepine, and topiramate; the difference to the response rate to levetiracetam (37.1%) was not significant. The rates of ADRs were highest for topiramate (45.5%) and valproate (37.5%). Commonest ADRs included weight change, lethargy, and tremor. In the Cox proportional hazards model, later start year (1.10 [1.08-1.13], P < 0.001) and female sex (1.41 [1.07-1.85], P = 0.02) were associated with shorter trial duration. Valproate was associated with the longest treatment duration; trials with carbamazepine and topiramate were significantly shorter (HR [CI]: 3.29 [2.15-5.02], P < 0.001 and 1.93 [1.31-2.86], P < 0.001). The relative frequency of valproate trials shows a decreasing trend since 2003 while there is an increasing trend for levetiracetam. Fewer females than males received valproate (76.2% vs 92.6%, P = 0.001). SIGNIFICANCE: In people with JME, valproate is an effective AED; levetiracetam emerged as an alternative. Valproate is now contraindicated in women of childbearing potential without special precautions. With appropriate selection and safeguards in place, valproate should remain available as a therapy, including as an alternative for women of childbearing potential whose seizures are resistant to other treatments.