Journal article 475 views 49 downloads
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
Anthony Marson,
Girvan Burnside,
Richard Appleton,
Dave Smith,
John Paul Leach,
Graeme Sills,
Catrin Tudur-Smith,
Catrin Plumpton,
Dyfrig A Hughes,
Paula Williamson,
Gus A Baker,
Silviya Balabanova,
Claire Taylor,
Richard Brown,
Dan Hindley,
Stephen Howell,
Melissa Maguire,
Rajiv Mohanraj,
Philip E Smith,
Karen Lanyon,
Mark Manford,
Manali Chitre,
Alasdair Parker,
Nina Swiderska,
Richard Appleton,
James Pauling,
Adrian Hughes,
Rajat Gupta,
Sadia Hanif,
Mostafa Awadh,
Sharmini Ragunathan,
Nicola Cable,
Paul Cooper,
Daniel Hindley,
Karl Rakshi,
Sophie Molloy,
Markus Reuber,
Kunle Ayonrinde,
Martin Wilson,
Satyanarayana Saladi,
John Gibb,
Lesley-Ann Funston,
Damhait Cassidy,
Jonathan Boyd,
Mal Ratnayaka,
Hani Faza,
Martin Sadler,
Hassan Al-Moasseb,
Clare Galtrey,
Damien Wren,
Anas Olabi,
Geraint Fuller,
Muhammed Khan,
Chetana Kallappa,
Ravi Chinthapalli,
Baba Aji,
Rhys Davies,
Kathryn Foster,
Nikolas Hitiris,
Melissa Maguire,
Nahin Hussain,
Simon Dowson,
Julie Ellison,
Basil Sharrack,
Vandna Gandhi,
Rob Powell,
Phil Tittensor,
Beatrice Summers,
Sastry Shashikiran,
Penelope J Dison,
Shanika Samarasekera,
Doug McCorry,
Kathleen White,
Kannan Nithi,
Martin Richardson,
Richard Brown,
Rupert Page,
David Deekollu,
Sean Slaght,
Stephen Warriner,
Mansoor Ahmed,
Abhijit Chaudhuri,
Gabriel Chow,
Javier Artal,
Danute Kucinskiene,
Harish Sreenivasa,
Singara Velmurugan,,
Christos S Zipitis,
Brendan McLean,
Vaithianathar Lal,
Angelous Gregoriou,
Paul Maddison,
Trevor Pickersgill,
Joseph Anderson,
Charlotte Lawthom,
Stephen Howell,
Gabriel Whitlingum,
Wojtek Rakowicz,
Lucy Kinton,
Alisa McLellan,
Sameer Zuberi,
Andrew Kelso,
Imelda Hughes,
John Martland,
Hedley Emsley,
Christian de Goede,
RP Singh,
Carl-Christian Moor,
Julia Aram,
Rajiv Mohanraj,
Kumar Sakthivel,
Suresh Nelapatla,
Chris Rittey,
Ashwin Pinto,
John Paul Leach,
Hannah Cock,
Anna Richardson,
Erika Houston,
Christopher Cooper,
Geoff Lawson,
Albert Massarano,
Christine Burness,
Anthony Marson,
Dave Smith,
Udo Wieshmann,
Indranil Dey,
Puthuval Sivakumar,
Lap-Kong Yeung,
Philip Smith,
Hemalata Bentur,
Tom Heafield,
Anna Mathew,
David Smith,
Praveen Jauhari,
Robert Powell
The Lancet, Volume: 397, Issue: 10282, Pages: 1363 - 1374
Swansea University Author: Robert Powell
-
PDF | Version of Record
© 2021 The Author(s). This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Download (1.2MB)
DOI (Published version): 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00247-6
Abstract
BackgroundLevetiracetam 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 lo...
| Published in: | The Lancet |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0140-6736 |
| Published: |
Elsevier BV
2021
|
| Online Access: |
Check full text
|
| URI: | https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa60621 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract: |
BackgroundLevetiracetam 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.MethodsThis 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).Findings990 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.InterpretationThese 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. |
|---|---|
| College: |
Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences |
| Funders: |
National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. |
| Issue: |
10282 |
| Start Page: |
1363 |
| End Page: |
1374 |