Department of Neurology, Paracelsus Medical University, Christian Doppler Klinik, Salzburg, Austria.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013 Oct;84(10):1138-47. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2011-300376. Epub 2012 Aug 29.
To compare the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) with extended-release sodium valproate (VPA-ER) and controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.
This unblinded, randomised, 52-week superiority trial (NCT00175903) recruited patients (≥16 years of age) with ≥2 unprovoked seizures in the previous 2 years and ≥1 in the previous 6 months. The physician chose VPA or CBZ as preferred standard treatment; each patient was randomised to standard treatment or LEV. The primary outcome was time to treatment withdrawal (LEV vs standard antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)). Analyses also compared LEV with VPA-ER, and LEV with CBZ-CR.
1688 patients (mean age 41 years; 44% female) were randomised to LEV (n=841) or standard AEDs (n=847). Time to treatment withdrawal was not significantly different between LEV and standard AEDs: HR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.74 to 1.08). Time to treatment withdrawal (HR (95% CI)) was 1.02 (0.74 to 1.41) for LEV/VPA-ER and 0.84 (0.66 to 1.07) for LEV/CBZ-CR. Time to first seizure (HR, 95% CI) was significantly longer for standard AEDs, 1.20 (1.03 to 1.39), being 1.19 (0.93 to 1.54) for LEV/VPA-ER and 1.20 (0.99 to 1.46) for LEV/CBZ-CR. Estimated 12-month seizure freedom rates from randomisation: 58.7% LEV versus 64.5% VPA-ER; 50.5% LEV versus 56.7% CBZ-CR. Similar proportions of patients within each stratum reported at least one adverse event: 66.1% LEV versus 62.0% VPA-ER; 73.4% LEV versus 72.5% CBZ-CR.
LEV monotherapy was not superior to standard AEDs for the global outcome, namely time to treatment withdrawal, in patients with newly diagnosed focal or generalised seizures.
比较左乙拉西坦(LEV)与缓释型丙戊酸钠(VPA-ER)和控释型卡马西平(CBZ-CR)作为新诊断癫痫患者的单药治疗的疗效。
这是一项非盲、随机、52 周优效性试验(NCT00175903),招募了(≥16 岁)有≥2 次既往 2 年内无诱因发作和≥1 次既往 6 个月内无诱因发作的患者。医生选择 VPA 或 CBZ 作为首选标准治疗;每位患者随机分配至标准治疗或 LEV。主要结局为治疗停药时间(LEV 与标准抗癫痫药物(AEDs)比较)。分析还比较了 LEV 与 VPA-ER 以及 LEV 与 CBZ-CR。
1688 例患者(平均年龄 41 岁;44%为女性)被随机分配至 LEV(n=841)或标准 AED 组(n=847)。LEV 与标准 AED 组的治疗停药时间无显著差异:HR(95%CI)0.90(0.74 至 1.08)。LEV/VPA-ER 的治疗停药时间(HR(95%CI))为 1.02(0.74 至 1.41),LEV/CBZ-CR 为 0.84(0.66 至 1.07)。标准 AED 组的首次癫痫发作时间(HR,95%CI)显著延长,为 1.20(1.03 至 1.39),LEV/VPA-ER 为 1.19(0.93 至 1.54),LEV/CBZ-CR 为 1.20(0.99 至 1.46)。随机分组后 12 个月的癫痫无发作率:LEV 为 58.7%,VPA-ER 为 64.5%;LEV 为 50.5%,CBZ-CR 为 56.7%。每个分层中报告至少一种不良事件的患者比例相似:LEV 为 66.1%,VPA-ER 为 62.0%;LEV 为 73.4%,CBZ-CR 为 72.5%。
在新诊断的局灶性或全面性癫痫患者中,LEV 单药治疗在全球结局(即治疗停药时间)方面并不优于标准 AEDs。