A systematic review and indirect treatment comparison of perampanel versus brivaracetam as adjunctive therapy in patients with focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization.

PURPOSE: To date, there has not been a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted to directly compare the efficacy and safety of perampanel to brivaracetam in the adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures. This study makes these comparisons through the use of indirect treatment comparison (ITC) methods. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify RCTs that evaluated either one of perampanel or brivaracetam in the treatment of patients with focal-onset seizures. The Bucher ITC method was then used to compare efficacy and safety outcomes between perampanel and brivaracetam. Additional subgroup analyses, by levetiracetam usage (prior or concomitant), were conducted. RESULTS: Eight RCTs (four comparing perampanel to placebo, four comparing brivaracetam to placebo) were included in the ITC. For patients taking concomitant levetiracetam, perampanel showed a significantly better responder rate compared to brivaracetam [relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI): 2.62 (1.15, 5.99)]. For patients who had previously, or never, taken levetiracetam, there was no difference in the responder rate. In the overall population, both perampanel and brivaracetam were more effective than placebo in terms of responder rate, seizure freedom, and secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizure responder rate; however, for these outcomes, no evidence of a difference between perampanel and brivaracetam was found. Patients taking brivaracetam showed significantly less dizziness compared to patients taking perampanel. No differences for any other safety outcome were found. CONCLUSION: Perampanel and brivaracetam are effective for the adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures and display similar adverse event profiles. Perampanel demonstrated an improved focal-onset seizure responder rate compared to brivaracetam in patients taking concomitant levetiracetam. This may be due to the similarity in the mechanism of action between brivaracetam and levetiracetam.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing ocrelizumab with other treatments for relapsing multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Ocrelizumab was approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) by the US Food and Drug Administration in March 2017 and by the European Medicines Agency in January 2018. These approvals were based on two pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs), OPERA I and OPERA II, comparing ocrelizumab 600 mg with an active comparator, interferon ß-1a 44 µg (Rebif), and the first trial with positive results in patients with PPMS, which compared ocrelizumab with placebo. However, direct evidence of the efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab in RMS compared with other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved for RMS is not available from RCTs. In the absence of such RCTs, network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted to compare indirectly the relative efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab with all other approved DMTs for the treatment of RMS. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, trial registers, relevant conference websites and health technology assessment agency websites. Eligible RCTs evaluated approved treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS) in which more than 75% of patients had a relapsing form of MS. NMAs were conducted for four efficacy and three safety outcomes, and treatment hierarchies were generated for each outcome using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. RESULTS: Results suggest that ocrelizumab has superior efficacy to 10 of the 17 treatments in the 12-week confirmed disability progression network and 12 of the 17 treatments in the annualized relapse rate network (both including placebo). The efficacy of ocrelizumab was comparable with the other treatments in both networks. In the serious adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events networks, ocrelizumab demonstrated a safety profile comparable with all other treatments (including placebo). SUCRA values consistently ranked ocrelizumab among the most effective or tolerable treatments across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that ocrelizumab has an efficacy superior to or comparable with all other currently approved DMTs across all endpoints analyzed, and a similar safety profile, indicating it offers a valuable package for the treatment of patients with RMS.