Incidence of Acute Renal Failure in Patients Using Levetiracetam Versus Other Antiseizure Medications: A Voluntary Post-Authorization Safety Study.

INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury is an expected adverse drug reaction listed in the European Union (EU) Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) for levetiracetam, one of the most widely used modern antiseizure medications (ASMs). OBJECTIVE: We conducted a voluntary post-authorization safety study to characterize the rate of acute renal failure (ARF) in patients exposed to levetiracetam versus other ASMs. METHODS: New users of ASMs without prior renal dysfunction were identified and followed for 30 days in the IBM® MarketScan® database (USA, January 2008-December 2017). ARF was defined as a diagnosis on inpatient or emergency department claims. We estimated adjusted incidence rates, incidence rate ratios (IRRs), and incidence rate differences (IRDs) of ARF in patients initiating levetiracetam versus other ASMs. RESULTS: Overall, 110,336 patients were eligible for the monotherapy cohort and 96,215 were eligible for the polytherapy cohort. The overall crude rate of ARF following a new ASM was 6.0 and 6.5 per 10,000 patients for the 'monotherapy' and 'polytherapy' cohorts, respectively, in the first 30 days after the index date. In the monotherapy cohort, the IRR for ARF was 1.37 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-2.34) and the corresponding IRD was 2.0 (95% CI - 1.12 to 5.12) additional ARFs per 10,000 patient-months. In the polytherapy cohort, the adjusted IRR for ARF was 0.94 (95% CI 0.51-1.74) and the corresponding IRD was - 0.42 cases per 10,000 patient-months (95% CI - 4.01 to 3.17). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of ARFs in ASM new users was very low. In patients without prior ASMs, the estimated difference in risk of ARF associated with initiation of levetiracetam versus initiation of other ASMs was small, with 95% CIs compatible with small protective or harmful effects. In patients receiving polytherapy, the difference was compatible with the null and the 95% CI with small protective or harmful effects.

A randomized, open-label, multicenter comparative trial of levetiracetam and topiramate as adjunctive treatment for patients with focal epilepsy in Korea.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this trial was to compare the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) and topiramate (TPM) as adjunctive treatment for patients with focal seizures in Korea. METHODS: In this Phase IV, open-label, multicenter trial (NCT01229735), adults were randomized to treatment with LEV (1000-3000 mg/day) or TPM (200-400 mg/day). Only patients achieving LEV ≥1000 mg/day or TPM ≥100 mg/day after a 4-week up-titration entered the 20-week dose-finding and subsequent 28-week maintenance periods. The primary outcome was the 52-week retention rate; others included safety and exploratory efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: Of 343 randomized patients (LEV 177; TPM 166), 211 (61.5%) completed the trial. In the full analysis set (FAS), retention rate was 59.1% with LEV vs 56.6% with TPM (p = 0.7007), while in the prespecified sensitivity analysis, based on data from patients who received drug doses in the recommended range (LEV 176; TPM 113), it was 59.1% with LEV vs 42.5% with TPM (p = 0.0086). In the FAS, median percent reduction in seizure frequency from baseline was 74.47% with LEV and 67.86% with TPM (p = 0.0665); ≥50% responder rate was 69.0% vs 64.8% (p = 0.4205), and the 6-month seizure-freedom rate was 35.8% vs 22.3% (p = 0.0061). In the sensitivity analysis, differences between groups were greater, favoring LEV. Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 70.6% with LEV vs 77.1% with TPM; most frequently somnolence (20.3%), dizziness (18.1%), and nasopharyngitis (13.6%) with LEV; and decreased appetite (15.7%), dizziness (14.5%), and headache (14.5%) with TPM. Discontinuations due to TEAEs were 7.9% with LEV and 12.7% with TPM. CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label trial, the 52-week retention rate was not significantly different between LEV and TPM. However, LEV was associated with a substantially higher seizure freedom rate and a more favorable safety profile than TPM in this population of Korean patients with focal seizures.

Comparison of levetiracetam and oxcarbazepine monotherapy among Korean patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: A long-term, randomized, open-label trial.

This open-label, multicenter, randomized phase IV trial (NCT01498822) of noninferiority design compared the long-term effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of levetiracetam (LEV) monotherapy with those of oxcarbazepine (OXC) monotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Korean patients (16-80 years), with ≥2 unprovoked focal seizures in the year preceding the trial, who had not taken any antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the last 6 months, were randomized to receive LEV or OXC (1:1). Effectiveness, safety, and tolerability were assessed over a 50-week period. Treatment failure rates (per protocol set) were 15/118 (12.7%) in the LEV-treated group and 30/128 (23.4%) in the OXC-treated group, an absolute difference of -10.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] -20.2, -1.2). Because the upper 95% CI limit was less than the pre-specified noninferiority margin of 15%, LEV was considered noninferior to OXC. Twenty-four-week and 48-week seizure freedom rates were 53.8% and 34.7% for LEV vs. 58.5% and 40.9% for OXC. Both LEV and OXC were well tolerated, with 8.7% and 8.6% of patients reporting serious treatment-emergent adverse events, respectively. By comparing LEV with OXC, another newer AED, LEV can be considered a useful option as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

A retrospective study on the efficacy of total absorbed orbital doses of 12, 16 and 20 Gy combined with systemic steroid treatment in patients with Graves' orbitopathy.

BACKGROUND: Graves' disease (GD) is an autoimmune disease that typically affects the thyroid gland. Thirty to sixty percent of patients also suffer from orbital inflammation. Retrobulbar radiotherapy for Graves' orbitopathy (GO) has been used for decades, though there is no direct evidence for the influence of dose and fractionation schedules on various signs and symptoms. Indeed, optimal fractionation schedules and recommended total irradiation doses are still a matter of discussion. Our aim was to investigate treatment efficacy of retrobulbar irradiation for GO at different total absorbed doses and fractionation schedules. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of 129 patients who were examined before, as well as 6-8 months after irradiation with different treatment schedules at eight radiotherapeutic departments. Total absorbed doses were 12, 16, or 20 Gy. All patients were additionally treated with systemic application of corticosteroids. Treatment efficacy was evaluated through assessment of proptosis, horizontal and vertical ocular motility and of clinical activity (CAS). Overall group and individual responses were evaluated. Treatment response was defined as inactivation of GO, reduction of proptosis by at least 2 mm, improvement of motility by > or = 8 degrees or unchanged normal parameters. RESULTS: Prior to irradiation, neither age, disease duration, gender distribution, smoking behavior or serologic parameters, nor clinical activity or severity stages varied significantly between groups. Neither did outcome measures, except proptosis, differ significantly. Retrobulbar irradiation led to inactivity of GO in approximately 80% of patients, with no significant group difference. After irradiation with 16 and 20 Gy, vertical motility improved in a significantly higher percentage of patients than after irradiation with 12 Gy. Median improvement of vertical motility in responding patients was excellent in all groups (15 degrees at 12 Gy, 10 degrees at 16 Gy, 10 degrees at 20 Gy). Horizontal motility did not change significantly. CONCLUSION: If the aim of retrobulbar irradiation is primarily to reduce soft-tissue signs, lower doses are sufficient. If a patient also suffers from dysmotility, doses exceeding 12 Gy may be more effective.