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

BackgroundLevetiracetam (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.ObjectivesTo 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.DesignTwo pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel.SettingOutpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK.ParticipantsThose aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication.InterventionsParticipants 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsFocal 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.LimitationsThe SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions.Future workSANAD 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.ConclusionsFocal 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 registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64.FundingThis 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

'Motivate': the effect of a Football in the Community delivered weight loss programme on over 35-year old men and women's cardiovascular risk factors

The purpose of this study was to examine whether an innovative, inclusive and integrated 12-week exercise, behaviour change and nutrition advice-based weight management programme could significantly improve the cardiovascular risk factors of overweight and obese men and women over the age of 35. One hundred and ninety-four men and 98 women (mean age = 52.28 ± 9.74 and 51.19 ± 9.04) attending a community-based intervention delivered by Notts County Football in the Community over one year, took part in the study. Height (m), weight (kg), fitness (meters covered during a 6 min walk) and waist circumference (cm) were measured at weeks 1 and 12 as part of the intervention. Changes in body weight, waist circumference and fitness for men and women were measured by a 2-way repeated measures ANOVA, with significance set to p < 0.05.Weight, waist circumference and fitness significantly improved over time in both men (4.96 kg, 6.29 cm, 70.22 m; p < 0.05) and women (4.26 kg, 5.90 cm, 35.29 m; p < 0.05). The results demonstrated that the FITC lead weight loss intervention was successful in significantly improving cardiovascular risk factors in both men and women. In particular, the weight loss reductions achieved were comparable to those seen in similar, more costly men-only programmes. This is the first study to demonstrate the efficacy of such an intervention in an inclusive, mixed gender programme and more specifically, in women

The development and validation of a scoring tool to predict the operative duration of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: The ability to accurately predict operative duration has the potential to optimise theatre efficiency and utilisation, thus reducing costs and increasing staff and patient satisfaction. With laparoscopic cholecystectomy being one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide, a tool to predict operative duration could be extremely beneficial to healthcare organisations. Methods: Data collected from the CholeS study on patients undergoing cholecystectomy in UK and Irish hospitals between 04/2014 and 05/2014 were used to study operative duration. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was produced in order to identify significant independent predictors of long (> 90 min) operations. The resulting model was converted to a risk score, which was subsequently validated on second cohort of patients using ROC curves. Results: After exclusions, data were available for 7227 patients in the derivation (CholeS) cohort. The median operative duration was 60 min (interquartile range 45–85), with 17.7% of operations lasting longer than 90 min. Ten factors were found to be significant independent predictors of operative durations > 90 min, including ASA, age, previous surgical admissions, BMI, gallbladder wall thickness and CBD diameter. A risk score was then produced from these factors, and applied to a cohort of 2405 patients from a tertiary centre for external validation. This returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.708 (SE = 0.013, p  90 min increasing more than eightfold from 5.1 to 41.8% in the extremes of the score. Conclusion: The scoring tool produced in this study was found to be significantly predictive of long operative durations on validation in an external cohort. As such, the tool may have the potential to enable organisations to better organise theatre lists and deliver greater efficiencies in care

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

Increased rates of respiratory disease in schizophrenia:A systematic review and meta-analysis including 619,214 individuals with schizophrenia and 52,159,551 controls

Introduction: Despite respiratory disease being a major cause of excess mortality in people with schizophrenia, the prevalence of respiratory conditions in this population is poorly defined. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to establish the prevalence and association of respiratory diseases in people with schizophrenia. Material and methods: Major electronic databases were searched from inception to 27 April 2020 for articles reporting respiratory disease (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], pneumonia, and tuberculosis) in people with schizophrenia and, where possible, a control group. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018115137). Results: Of 1569 citations, 21 studies consisting of 619,214 individuals with schizophrenia and 52,159,551 controls were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the general population, people with schizophrenia had significantly higher rates of COPD (odds ratio [OR]: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.28\u20132.57), asthma (OR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.02\u20132.83), and pneumonia (OR: 2.62, 95% CI: 1.10\u20136.23). In people with schizophrenia, the prevalence of COPD was 7.7% (95% CI: 4.0\u201314.4), asthma 7.5% (95% CI: 4.9\u201311.3), pneumonia 10.3% (95% CI 5.4\u201318.6), and tuberculosis 0.3% (95% CI 0.1 \u20130.8). After adjusting for publication bias, the prevalence of COPD increased to 19.9% (95% CI: 9.6\u201336.7). Discussion: All respiratory diseases examined were significantly more prevalent in people with schizophrenia compared with the general population. Future studies should focus on improving the prevention and management of respiratory disease in this group to reduce associated excess mortality. \ua9 2021 Elsevier B.V