Impact of Ixekizumab Treatment on Depressive Symptoms and Systemic Inflammation in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: An Integrated Analysis of Three Phase 3 Clinical Studies.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common comorbidity in psoriasis, and both conditions are associated with systemic inflammation. The efficacy of ixekizumab, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin (IL)-17A, was evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (psoriasis) and depressive symptoms that were at least moderately severe. METHODS: Data were integrated from 3 randomized, double-blind, controlled phase 3 trials. At baseline and week 12, depressive symptoms and inflammation were assessed by the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology - Self-Report (QIDS-SR16) and by a high-sensitivity assay of serum C-reactive protein (hsCRP), respectively. A subgroup of patients with at least moderately severe depressive symptoms at baseline (QIDS-SR16 total score ≥11) was analyzed. Improvement in psoriasis was assessed by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). RESULTS: Approximately 10% of the overall psoriasis population had at least moderately severe depressive symptoms at baseline. At week 12, comorbid patients treated with ixekizumab had significantly greater improvements in their QIDS-SR16 total score (ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks [Q2W], -7.1; ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W], -6.1) vs. placebo (-3.4) (p < 0.001, both comparisons) and higher rates of remission of depressive symptoms (ixekizumab Q2W, 45.2%; ixekizumab Q4W, 33.6%) vs. placebo (17.8%) (p ≤ 0.01, both comparisons). Patients treated with ixekizumab also had significant reductions in hsCRP and PASI compared to placebo. Etanercept treatment was not associated with significant improvements in depressive symptoms compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this comorbid population, 12 weeks of ixekizumab therapy resulted in remission of depression for approximately 40% of patients and improved systemic inflammation as indicated by hsCRP.

Short- and long-term safety outcomes with ixekizumab from 7 clinical trials in psoriasis: Etanercept comparisons and integrated data.

BACKGROUND: Safety of biologics is important when treating patients with psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the safety of ixekizumab in psoriasis. METHODS: Integrated safety data are presented from a 12-week induction period, a 12- to 60-week maintenance period, and from all ixekizumab-treated patients from 7 clinical trials. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years are reported. RESULTS: Overall, 4209 patients received ixekizumab (total exposure: 6480 patient-years). During the induction period, the IRs of patients experiencing 1 or more treatment-emergent adverse event (AE) were 251 and 236 among ixekizumab- and etanercept-treated patients, respectively, and for serious AEs was 8.3 in both groups. During maintenance, for ixekizumab, the IRs of treatment-emergent AEs and serious AEs were 100.4 and 7.8, respectively. Among all ixekizumab-treated patients from 7 trials, the IR of Candida infections was 2.5. The IRs of treatment-emergent AEs of special interest (including serious infections, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events) were comparable for ixekizumab and etanercept during the induction period. LIMITATIONS: Additional long-term data are required. CONCLUSION: Ixekizumab had an acceptable safety profile with no unexpected safety findings during ixekizumab maintenance in psoriasis.

Inflammatory bowel disease among patients with psoriasis treated with ixekizumab: A presentation of adjudicated data from an integrated database of 7 randomized controlled and uncontrolled trials.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) occurs more frequently in patients with psoriasis. The 2 diseases have significant genetic overlap, but the pathogenesis underlying their co-occurrence is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to report adjudicated IBD cases (Crohn's disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC]) in patients exposed to ixekizumab, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin-17A. METHODS: Adverse events (AEs) integrated from 7 randomized controlled and uncontrolled trials were analyzed for the controlled induction period, controlled maintenance period, and all ixekizumab-treated patients. Suspected IBD cases were reviewed by blinded external experts using internationally recognized criteria (Registre Epidemiologique des Maladies de l'Appareil Digestif registry). RESULTS: In all, 4209 patients (6480 patient-exposure years) were exposed to ixekizumab. Suspected CD (N = 12) or UC (N = 17) AEs were reported; 19 were adjudicated as definite/probable IBD (CD, N = 7, incidence rate = 1.1/1000 patient-exposure years; UC, N = 12, incidence rate = 1.9/1000 patient-exposure years). Among these, 3 occurred during induction (CD, N = 1; UC, N = 2) and 7 during maintenance (CD, N = 4; UC, N = 3). Twelve of 16 patients with reported IBD history have not had an IBD treatment-emergent AE/serious AE to date. LIMITATIONS: Clinical review (adjudication) was not prespecified. AE data collected post-hoc may have been limited by length of time from occurrence. CONCLUSION: From an integrated database of 7 ixekizumab psoriasis trials, CD and UC cases were uncommon (<1%).

The Psoriatic Disease Payer Advisory Panel.

A collaborative exchange of ideas occurred at The Psoriatic Disease Payer Advisory Panel sponsored by International Dermatology Outcomes Measures (IDEOM) and The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) in January, 2016. Patient, provider, payer, pharmaceutical industry, IDEOM board member, and NPF leader representatives shared perspectives to address the unmet needs in the treatment of psoriatic patients. The payers who play a crucial role in controlling treatment access and improving patient outcomes played a pivotal role in the discussion. Progress made during the Payer Advisory Panel will ultimately advance psoriatic initiatives and help to address the persistent challenges of all vested stakeholders.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15(5):641-644.

A cohort study of the risk of seizures in a pediatric population treated with atomoxetine or stimulant medications.

PURPOSE: Stimulant medications used for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can be associated with an increased risk of seizures. Atomoxetine is a non-stimulant medication approved for treating ADHD. This retrospective cohort analysis evaluated risk of seizures among pediatric patients naïve to ADHD medication therapy, with exposure to atomoxetine relative to stimulant medications. METHODS: Among members of a large US health plan from 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2006, aged 6-17 years, we identified initiators of atomoxetine or stimulants with no evidence of prior study drug use. We created study cohorts using propensity score matching within 6-month calendar blocks. The outcome was a seizure event in the 6-month follow-up period verified through medical record review. Relative risks (RR) based on current use of each study drug adjusted for baseline covariates were calculated using Poisson regression. We estimated hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models for the comparison of atomoxetine to stimulants based on initial cohort assignment. RESULTS: We matched 13,398 initiators of atomoxetine to 13,322 initiators of stimulants. We identified 97 seizure events. After adjustment, current atomoxetine therapy was associated with a non-statistically significant 28% lower risk of seizure compared to current stimulant therapy (RR 0.72; 95%CI 0.37, 1.38). The adjusted RR of seizure with atomoxetine compared to stimulants based on initial cohort assignment was 0.90 (95%CI 0.54, 1.49). CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support an increase in the risk of seizure with atomoxetine therapy. The risk of seizure was not significantly different between pediatric patients taking atomoxetine compared with those taking stimulants.

Comparison of long-term (at least 24 weeks) weight gain and metabolic changes between adolescents and adults treated with olanzapine.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of these analyses was to compare the weight and other metabolic changes between adolescents and adults during long-term (at least 24 weeks) olanzapine treatment. METHOD: The adult database included 86 studies with 12,425 patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, depression, borderline personality disorder, or bipolar I disorder; the adolescent database comprised six studies with 489 patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, borderline personality disorder, bipolar I disorder, or prodromal psychosis. Patients who had at least 24 weeks of olanzapine exposure (N=4,280 from adult database and N=179 from adolescent database) were analyzed in this study. Weight data were collected for all patients, fasting glucose and lipids data were collected in some patients. For weight gain, data in 34.5% adults (4,280/12,425) and 36.6% adolescents (179/489) were analyzed while for glucose and lipids, data in 8.4% (1,038/12,425) adults and 24.9% adolescents (122/489) were analyzed. Adult patients were treated with oral (5-20 mg/day) or depot formulations (doses equivalent to oral doses of 5-20 mg/day) of olanzapine and adolescent patients were treated with oral olanzapine (2.5-20 mg/day). The incidences of potentially clinically significant categorical changes in weight and metabolic parameters were calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Nonoverlapping 95% CIs were considered as indicating a statistically significant difference. Weight, lipid, and glucose change comparisons are summarized. RESULTS: The mean age for adolescents and adults was 15.8 and 38.8, respectively. The percentage of the male population was similar for both adults (58.5%) and adolescents (62.8%). The median duration of the follow-up period was 201 days for adolescent database and 280 days for adult database. The mean weight gain from baseline to endpoint in adolescents was 11.24 kg when compared with 4.81 kg in adults. The 95% CI for adolescents (10.1, 12.4) and adults (4.57, 5.04) are not overlapping, which indicates that the difference between adolescents and adults is statistically significant. The percentage of olanzapine-treated adolescents with ≥ 7% mean weight gain was 89.4% compared with 55.4% in adults (Number need to harm [NNH]=3). Mean changes from baseline to endpoint were also greater for adolescents than for adults in fasting total cholesterol (5.49 mg/dL vs. 2.06 mg/dL), LDL (5.41 mg/dL vs. 0.49 mg/dL), and triglycerides (20.49 mg/dL vs. 16.72 mg/dL), but overlapping 95% CIs were observed for all lipid parameters. Mean changes from baseline to endpoint in fasting glucose values were similar between adolescents and adults (3.13 mg/dL vs. 3.95 mg/dL). However, the incidence of treatment-emergent significant glucose changes was greater in adults. Among olanzapine-treated adults and adolescents, 8.9% and 0.9% experienced a shift from normal to high and 12.5% and 3.3% experienced a shift from normal/impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) to high fasting glucose, respectively. The incidence of IGT to high elevations in glucose was greater in adolescents, but overlapping 95% CI was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The types of metabolic changes during the long-term olanzapine treatment in adolescents were similar to those observed in adults. However, the magnitude of changes in weight and lipid parameters was greater in adolescents. Patients should receive regular monitoring of weight, fasting blood glucose, and lipid profile at the beginning of, and periodically during, treatment with olanzapine.

Metabolic parameters in patients treated with olanzapine or other atypical antipsychotics.

The relative risk of changes in metabolic parameters during treatment with atypical antipsychotics has not been fully investigated. Baseline-to-endpoint mean and anytime-categorical changes in metabolic parameters were evaluated in Lilly active comparator-controlled clinical trials. Olanzapine-treated patients gained significantly more baseline-to-endpoint weight versus risperidone- (3.3 kg [N = 713; median exposure [ME, days] = 68] versus 1.8 kg [N = 697; ME = 65], p < 0.001), ziprasidone-(2.8 kg [N = 463; ME = 168] versus -1.3 kg [N = 443; ME = 89], p < 0.001), and aripiprazole-treated patients (3.7 kg [N = 273; ME = 104] versus 0.5 kg [N = 275; ME = 187], p < 0.001). Significantly more olanzapine-treated patients gained ≥ 7% of their baseline weight versus risperidone-(30.6% [N = 713; ME = 169] versus 20.2% [N = 697; ME = 140], p < 0.001), ziprasidone-(30.0% [N = 463; ME = 147] versus 6.5% [N = 443; ME = 165], p < 0.001), and aripiprazole-treated patients (40.3% [N = 273; ME = 170] versus 16.4% [N = 275; ME = 154], p < 0.001). Olanzapine-treated patients had significantly greater baseline-to-endpoint changes in fasting triglycerides compared with ziprasidone- (0.24 mmol/L [N = 365; ME = 168] versus -0.24 mmol/L [N = 316; ME = 140], p < 0.001) and aripiprazole-treated patients (0.28 mmol/L [N = 215; ME = 195] versus -0.19 mmol/L [N = 210; ME = 194], p < 0.001). Olanzapine-treated patients had significantly greater baseline-to-endpoint changes in fasting glucose than ziprasidone-(0.25 mmol/L [N = 379; ME = 168] versus -0.04 mmol/L [N = 333; ME = 133], p = 0.016) and aripiprazole-treated patients (0.27 mmol/L [N = 227; ME = 195] versus 0.04 mmol/L [N = 220; ME = 194], p = 0.048). The study concluded that there are changes with varying frequencies and magnitude in some metabolic parameters in patients treated with olanzapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics.

Safety and tolerability of duloxetine in the acute management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: analysis of pooled data from three placebo-controlled clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Summarize safety and tolerability of duloxetine in treating diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Pooled data from three double-blind, randomized studies with 12-week, placebo-controlled (acute) and 52-week, routine-care-controlled (extension) phases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency/discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: There were 1139 (placebo, n = 339; duloxetine, n = 800) and 867 (routine-care, n = 287; duloxetine, n = 580) patients in the acute and extension phases, respectively. Patient details were as follow: 60 years (mean age); Caucasian, 84%; and male, 57%. In the acute phase, there were significantly more TEAEs, duloxetine versus placebo (p = 0.001), the most common being nausea and somnolence. Discontinuations due to adverse events were significantly greater (12.5 vs 5.6%, p < 0.001), with similar outcomes in the extension phase. Baseline-to-endpoint aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase were significantly increased and fasting plasma glucose was increased for duloxetine (0.67 mmol/l) versus decreased in routine-care (-0.64 mmol/l, p < 0.001). HbA1c was significantly increased, duloxetine vs routine-care, in the extension phase (52 vs 19%, p < 0.001). Endpoint measures neuropathy, nephropathy and retinopathy indicated no disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine was generally safe and well tolerated, with the three most commonly reported TEAEs being nausea, somnolence and constipation. Modest changes in glycemia were associated with duloxetine. Aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase increases were transient and not considered predictive of more severe outcomes.

Hepatic effects of duloxetine-II: spontaneous reports and epidemiology of hepatic events.

OBJECTIVE: Review spontaneous reports and epidemiology of hepatic events associated with duloxetine. METHODS: Spontaneous reports of adverse events potentially associated with hepatic injury were identified. Classification schemes were Clinical Significance and Etiologic Category relative to likelihood of being related to duloxetine. RESULTS: Duloxetine has been taken by an estimated 5,083,000 patients, representing approximately 1,551,000 person-years (PY) of worldwide exposure. In the Etiologic categorization of the 406 cases containing event terms potentially related to the liver that have been reported to the manufacturer, 26 were deemed Probable and 127 Possible. Because of scantly-reported information, 182 cases were considered Indeterminate. For Severe Hepatic Injury, the observed spontaneous reporting rate was 0.7/100,000 persons exposed. Of the 406 cases, 225 experienced enzyme elevations to values <500 U/L, most with concentrations well below this level. The calculated cumulative spontaneous reporting rate of all duloxetine hepatic-related events combined was 0.00799%, in the context of other drug-induced hepatic injury rates reported in the literature of 0.7 to 40.6 per 100,000 PY of observation. CONCLUSIONS: There were few cases of true hepatic injury possibly or probably related to duloxetine. The calculated cumulative reporting rate is consistent with very rarely reported per the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences.

Hepatic effects of duloxetine-III: analysis of hepatic events using external data sources.

OBJECTIVE: Present results from two hepatic safety studies conducted within 20 months after duloxetine launch. METHODS: Signal detection based on spontaneous reports to the FDA adverse event reporting system (AERS) and on a comparison of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the i3 Drug Safety Aperio claims database, using measures of disproportionality and incidence rate ratio, respectively. RESULTS: In AERS all antidepressants had some degree of association with hepatic injury, in that at least one hepatic event was disproportionately represented for each drug. Signals were detected for duloxetine cases analyzed against full and antidepressant-only backgrounds. These signals corresponded to labeled events or events investigated during ongoing surveillance. Using a duloxetine fatal-case series, disproportional representation of clinically serious events was detected relative to both backgrounds, but the signals were refuted upon independent expert panel case review. The Aperio study showed no difference in hepatic injury between duloxetine and venlafaxine initiators after proper control for baseline risks, suggesting differential prescribing of duloxetine, perhaps preferentially as second-line therapy in some initiators. CONCLUSIONS: No new signals were identified in Aperio. New signals detected through AERS were refuted upon independently conducted case-level investigation. Hepatic signals arising from spontaneously reported data must be clarified through subsequent systematic investigation.

Answers to the most common questions about the hepatic safety profile of duloxetine.

Since its first FDA approval in 2004, duloxetine has been taken by more than 5 million patients. A small fraction of patients treated with duloxetine develop elevations in liver enzymes, which generally resolve spontaneously without any change in treatment. Very rare cases (estimated 1-2 per 100,000 exposures) of idiosyncratic hepatic toxicity have been reported in patients taking duloxetine, particularly in those with substantial alcohol use and/or preexisting liver disease. In the context of more than 23,000 patients exposed during clinical trials, and more than 1.5 million patient years of exposure subsequent to product launch, the hepatic risk after exposure to duloxetine appears to be within the range identified for other therapeutic agents. Therefore, it does not warrant hepatic enzyme monitoring. As with any medication, physicians should follow prescribing guidelines and educate patients on the risks and benefits of duloxetine.

Meta-analysis of suicide-related behavior events in patients treated with atomoxetine.

OBJECTIVE: The present work examined suicide-related events in acute, double-blind, and placebo- or active comparator-controlled trials with atomoxetine. METHOD: Fourteen trials in pediatric patients were included. Potential events were identified in the adverse events database using a text-string search. Potential suicide-related events were categorized according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration-defined codes using blinded patient summaries. The meta-analyses used the Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference and Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio methods. RESULTS: No patient in atomoxetine attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) trials committed suicide. The frequency of suicidal ideation was 0.37% (5/1357) in pediatric patients taking atomoxetine versus 0% (0/851) for the placebo group; Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference of 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.09-0.83; p =.016) and Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence interval 0.63-13.57; p =.172). Frequencies of suicide-related events in pediatric patients with ADHD did not differ between methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatments (Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference of -0.12 (95% confidence interval -0.62 to 0.38; p =.649). The number needed to harm in pediatric patients for an additional suicide-related event is 227 compared to the number needed to treat of five to achieve remission of ADHD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Although uncommon, suicidal ideation was significantly more frequent in pediatric ADHD patients treated with atomoxetine compared to those treated with placebo. Retrospective analysis has limitations in ascertaining intent.

Fluoxetine and adult suicidality revisited: an updated meta-analysis using expanded data sources from placebo-controlled trials.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatments have been suggested by some to induce emergence of suicidality (ideation and behaviors). The objective of this study was to assess suicidality emergence by adverse event and rating scale data in the largest available, adult, major depression, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fluoxetine trial database (18 trials). Adverse event reports and comments for patients (fluoxetine, n = 2200; placebo, n = 1551) were searched for suicide-related events that were then classified into Food and Drug Administration categories. For 16 trials, suicidality was also examined by Hamilton Depression Scale item 3 (suicide) scores, and these data were analyzed along with the combination of event-based data and scale-based data. Comparisons between treatments were made for various estimates of worsening (risk) and improvement (benefit) of suicidality. Fluoxetine treatment did not result in greater worsening but was associated with greater improvement and faster resolution of ideation (P < or = 0.05 vs placebo). Data sources were differentially sensitive in detecting changes in suicidal ideation and behaviors. Fluoxetine treatment led to greater benefit rather than risk for suicidality.

Meta-analysis of aggression or hostility events in randomized, controlled clinical trials of atomoxetine for ADHD.

BACKGROUND: We systematically examined potential aggression/hostility-related events in a meta-analysis of acute clinical trials of atomoxetine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Pediatric patients from 14 trials of atomoxetine were subdivided into a placebo-controlled (atomoxetine n = 1308, placebo n = 806) or active comparator databases (atomoxetine n = 566, methylphenidate n = 472). A third database comprised adult patients from placebo-controlled studies (atomoxetine n = 541, placebo n = 405). A computerized search of adverse events and comments identified patients with potential aggression/hostility events. Mantel-Haenszel incidence differences (MHID) were calculated. RESULTS: In the placebo-controlled database, we observed 21 atomoxetine and 9 placebo patients with reported aggression/hostility events, MHID of .6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -.4, 1.7). In the active comparator database, there were seven events in atomoxetine and four in methylphenidate patients, MHID = .2% (95% CI: -1.0,1.3). In the adult database, there were no events in 0 atomoxetine and one placebo patient, MHID = -.3% (95% CI: -.8, .2). CONCLUSIONS: Aggression/hostility-related events occurred in less than 2% of patients and were more frequent in pediatric patients treated with atomoxetine versus placebo (risk ratio of 1.33; not statistically significant). The risk of aggression/hostility events was similar in patients treated with atomoxetine or methylphenidate.

Duloxetine: meta-analyses of suicidal behaviors and ideation in clinical trials for major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty regarding relationships of antidepressant treatment and suicidality encouraged systematic review of data on suicidal behaviors and ideation from Phase II and III clinical trials of duloxetine for major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: We evaluated all completed duloxetine trials in MDD with data lock by February 2, 2004. We compared incidence of suicide-related events with duloxetine versus placebo in controlled trials, using Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference (MHID) and exposure time-adjusted rate difference (MHRD) methods, and analyzed changes in Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) Item-3 (suicidality) scores. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the incidence of suicide-related events with duloxetine versus placebo in 12 placebo-controlled trials (duloxetine, 1812; placebo, 1184 [corrected] patients). The MHID for suicide-related behaviors was -0.03% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.48 to 0.42) and MHRD -0.002 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02). Changes in HAMD Item-3 suicidality scores showed more improvement with duloxetine (MHID, 9.56%; 95% CI, 4.50 to 14.6; P < 0.001) and less worsening of suicidal ideation with duloxetine (MHID, -4.25%; 95% CI, -6.55 to -1.95; P < 0.001). Other Item-3 findings showed no consistent pattern; a slightly higher proportion of duloxetine-treated patients with a change from 0 (absent) to 3 was balanced against a higher proportion of placebo-treated patients changing from 0 to 2. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of an increased risk of suicidal behaviors or ideation during treatment with duloxetine compared with placebo in MDD patients. HAMD Item-3 suicidality scores had more improvement and less worsening of suicidal ideation with duloxetine than placebo.

The safety and effectiveness of newer antiepileptics: a comparative postmarketing cohort study.

Clinical trials for the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have provided inconclusive information to evaluate comparative risk benefit. The authors use data from postmarketing observational cohort studies to compare the failure of treatment with lamotrigine, vigabatrin, and gabapentin in patients with refractory epilepsy. The Drug Safety Research Unit has conducted prescription event monitoring (PEM) studies for lamotrigine, vigabatrin, and gabapentin to monitor their safety when used in primary care. The primary outcome of this study was time to treatment failure in patients who had been prescribed the drug after the start of the PEM study. Patients on gabapentin had reduced time to treatment failure compared to those on the other 2 drugs. The age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio of failure was 1.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.38-1.70) for gabapentin compared to lamotrigine and 1.19 (95% CI = 1.10-1.30) for vigabatrin compared to lamotrigine. The observed differences between the 3 study drugs might be confounded by a higher proportion of patients treated with gabapentin having refractory epilepsy, a shorter duration of the gabapentin PEM study, and a lower relative dose of gabapentin (approved at the time of the PEM study). The current study provides information about the routine usage of newer AEDs, which complements evidence from clinical trials regarding the efficacy and safety of these AEDs. Although this study showed differences on times to treatment failure between lamotrigine, vigabatrin, and gabapentin, the results are only useful when considered together with results from other studies seeking to answer the same questions.