Ethosuximide, valproic acid, and lamotrigine in childhood absence epilepsy: initial monotherapy outcomes at 12 months
- PMID: 23167925
- PMCID: PMC3538883
- DOI: 10.1111/epi.12028
Ethosuximide, valproic acid, and lamotrigine in childhood absence epilepsy: initial monotherapy outcomes at 12 months
Abstract
Purpose: Determine the optimal initial monotherapy for children with newly diagnosed childhood absence epilepsy (CAE) based on 12 months of double-blind therapy.
Methods: A double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial compared the efficacy, tolerability, and neuropsychological effects of ethosuximide, valproic acid, and lamotrigine in children with newly diagnosed CAE. Study medications were titrated to clinical response, and subjects remained in the trial unless they reached a treatment failure criterion. Maximal target doses were ethosuximide 60 mg/kg/day or 2,000 mg/day, valproic acid 60 mg/kg/day or 3,000 mg/day, and lamotrigine 12 mg/kg/day or 600 mg/day. Original primary outcome was at 16-20 weeks and included a video-electroencephalography (EEG) assessment. For this report, the main effectiveness outcome was the freedom from failure rate 12 months after randomization and included a video-EEG assessment; differential drug effects were determined by pairwise comparisons. The main cognitive outcome was the percentage of subjects experiencing attentional dysfunction at the month 12 visit.
Key findings: A total of 453 children were enrolled and randomized; 7 were deemed ineligible and 446 subjects comprised the overall efficacy cohort. There were no demographic differences between the three cohorts. By 12 months after starting therapy, only 37% of all enrolled subjects were free from treatment failure on their first medication. At the month 12 visit, the freedom-from-failure rates for ethosuximide and valproic acid were similar (45% and 44%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]with valproic acid vs. ethosuximide 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-1.52; p = 0.82) and were higher than the rate for lamotrigine (21%; OR with ethosuximide vs. lamotrigine 3.08; 95% CI 1.81-5.33; OR with valproic acid vs. lamotrigine 2.88; 95% CI 1.68-5.02; p < 0.001 for both comparisons). The frequency of treatment failures due to lack of seizure control (p < 0.001) and intolerable adverse events (p < 0.037) was significantly different among the treatment groups. Almost two thirds of the 125 subjects with treatment failure due to lack of seizure control were in the lamotrigine cohort. The largest subgroup (42%) of the 115 subjects discontinuing due to adverse events was in the valproic acid group. The previously reported higher rate of attentional dysfunction seen at 16-20 weeks in the valproic acid group compared with the ethosuximide or lamotrigine groups persisted at 12 months (p < 0.01).
Significance: As initial monotherapy, the superior effectiveness of ethosuximide and valproic acid compared to lamotrigine in controlling seizures without intolerable adverse events noted at 16-20 weeks persisted at 12 months. The valproic acid cohort experienced a higher rate of adverse events leading to drug discontinuation as well as significant negative effects on attentional measures that were not seen in the ethosuximide cohort. These 12-month outcome data coupled with the study's prespecified decision-making algorithm indicate that ethosuximide is the optimal initial empirical monotherapy for CAE. This is the first randomized controlled trial meeting International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) criteria for class I evidence for CAE (or for any type of generalized seizure in adults or children). (NCT00088452.).
Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2012 International League Against Epilepsy.
Conflict of interest statement
The study was provided study medication free of charge by Pfizer Inc., Abbott Laboratories, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Glauser has received consulting fees from Eisai, UCB Pharma and Johnson & Johnson, Supernus, Sunovion, Questcor, Lundbeck and Upsher Smith along lecture fees from Eisai, UCB Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and Questcor. Dr. Shinnar reports receiving consulting fees from Eisai, Johnson & Johnson, King Pharmaceutical and Questcor along with lecture fees from Eisai, UCB Pharmam and Questcor. Dr Adamson reports grant support from Abbott Pharmaceutical for oncology focused research. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We confirm that we have read the Journal’s position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those guidelines.
Figures
References
-
- Achenbach T, Rescorla L. Manual for ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth & Families; Burlington, VT: 2000.
-
- Achenbach T, Rescorla L. Manual for ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth & Families; Burlington, VT: 2001.
-
- Aicardi J. Epilepsy in Children. Raven Press; New York: 1994.
-
- Beery K, Buktenica N, Beery N. Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. 5. Modern Curriculum Press; Cleveland: 1997.
-
- Berg AT, Shinnar S, Levy SR, Testa FM. Newly diagnosed epilepsy in children: presentation at diagnosis. Epilepsia. 1999;40:445–452. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
Grants and funding
- NS045803/NS/NINDS NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD031318/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- P30 HD026979/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- M01 RR008084/RR/NCRR NIH HHS/United States
- P30 HD26979/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- UL1 TR000077/TR/NCATS NIH HHS/United States
- 5 U10 HD031318/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- 5 U10 HD037249/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- NS045911/NS/NINDS NIH HHS/United States
- U01 NS045911/NS/NINDS NIH HHS/United States
- U10 NS077311/NS/NINDS NIH HHS/United States
- M01 RR 08084/RR/NCRR NIH HHS/United States
- U01 NS045803/NS/NINDS NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD037249/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
