Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25689448›Full record

Trial reportEpilepsia2015

Efficacy and safety of conversion to monotherapy with eslicarbazepine acetate in adults with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures: a randomized historical-control phase III study based in North America.

Michael R Sperling, Jay Harvey, Todd Grinnell, Hailong Cheng, David Blum, 045 Study Team

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Epilepsia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT00866775 (Double-Blind, Randomized, Historical Control Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Eslicarbazepine Acetate Monotherapy in Subjects With Partial Epilepsy Not Well Controlled by Current Antiepileptic Drugs), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00866775 phase3completednot on this map

Double-Blind, Randomized, Historical Control Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Eslicarbazepine Acetate Monotherapy in Subjects With Partial Epilepsy Not Well Controlled by Current Antiepileptic Drugs

TypeinterventionalSponsorSumitomo Pharma America, Inc.Ran2009 to 2013Enrolled193ConditionsEpilepsy With Simple or Complex Partial Onset SeizuresArmsEslicarbazepine acetate
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Eslicarbazepine acetate add-on for drug-resistant partial epilepsy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Efficacy and tolerability of antiseizure drugs.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michael R SperlingThomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Jay Harvey
Todd Grinnell
Hailong Cheng
David Blum
045 Study Team
Vion Pharmaceuticals (United States) · USSunovion (United States) · USThomas Jefferson University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as monotherapy in North American patients with partial-onset seizures (POS).

methodsThis multicenter, randomized, double-blind "withdrawal to monotherapy" study used historical control data as the comparator. Adults with POS medically uncontrolled by one to two antiepileptic drugs gradually converted to ESL monotherapy. Following an 8-week baseline period, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ESL 1,600 mg (n = 128) or 1,200 mg QD (n = 65) for 18 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients meeting predefined exit criteria (signifying worsening seizure control). Treatment was considered effective if the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) for the Kaplan-Meier estimated exit rate was lower than the exit rate threshold calculated from the historical control (65.3%).

resultsKaplan-Meier estimated exit rates were: ESL 1,600 mg, 28.7% (95% CI 21.2-38.1%) and 1,200 mg, 44.4% (32.5-58.3%). The difference between doses was not significant (p = 0.07). For both doses, the 95% UCLs for the exit rate were ˂ 65.3%; ESL monotherapy was considered superior to the historical control. There was no statistically significant increase in the risk of study exit related to carbamazepine use. Nine (7.6%) and five patients (8.3%) remained seizure-free during the 10-week monotherapy period, while taking ESL 1,600 and 1,200 mg, respectively. The reductions in median standardized seizure frequency (seizures per 28 days) between baseline and the 18-week treatment period were: ESL 1,600 mg, 42% and 1,200 mg, 31%. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurring in ≥ 10% of patients were dizziness, headache, fatigue, somnolence, nausea, and nasopharyngitis. The TEAE most frequently leading to discontinuation was hyponatremia (2.1%). SIGNIFICANCE: ESL was efficacious and well tolerated as monotherapy in North American patients, and led to a reduction in seizure frequency. Exit rates for ESL 1,600 and 1,200 mg QD were superior to the historical control; the difference in exit rates between doses was not statistically significant.

Indexed as

Drug SubstitutionAdolescentAdultAgedAnticonvulsantsDibenzazepinesDouble-Blind MethodEpilepsies, PartialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorth AmericaTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAnticonvulsantsDibenzazepineseslicarbazepine acetateAnticonvulsantsAntiepileptic drugsEslicarbazepine acetateMonotherapyPartial-onset seizuresRefractory epilepsy

Identifiers

PMID25689448
PMCPMC5016771
OpenAlexW2064750319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.