Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33838757›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2021

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 and 10 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IVMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 72 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
20.8field-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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 185 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

Anthony MarsonDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. Electronic address: a.g.marson@liverpool.ac.uk.
Girvan BurnsideDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Richard AppletonThe Roald Dahl EEG Unit, Alder Hey Children's Health Park, Liverpool, UK.
Dave SmithThe Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
John Paul LeachSchool of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Graeme SillsDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Catrin Tudur-SmithDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Catrin PlumptonCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK.
Dyfrig A HughesCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK.
Paula WilliamsonDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Gus A BakerDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Silviya BalabanovaLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Claire TaylorLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Richard BrownAddenbrooke's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Dan HindleyBolton NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Bolton Hospital, Lancashire, UK.
Stephen HowellDepartment of Neurology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
Melissa MaguireSchool of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rajiv MohanrajSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Philip E SmithThe Alan Richens Epilepsy Unit, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
SANAD II collaborators
University of Liverpool · GBBangor University · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBRoyal Hallamshire Hospital · GBSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospital of Wales · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBWalton Centre · GBAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBBolton NHS Foundation Trust · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBRoyal Bolton Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

fundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisTreatment OutcomeAdministration, OralAdolescentAdultAgedAnticonvulsantsChildEpilepsies, PartialFemaleHumansLamotrigineLevetiracetamMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultAnticonvulsantsLamotrigineLevetiracetamZonisamide

Identifiers

PMID33838757
PMCPMC8047799
OpenAlexW3147714437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.