Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Therapeutic monitoring of antiepileptic drugs for epilepsy

This is not the most recent version

Collapse all Expand all

Abstract

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess if the use of therapeutic drug monitoring improves the outcome of drug treatment for epilepsy in terms of improved seizure control and reduced adverse drug effects.

Background

Epilepsy is a disorder characterised by spontaneously occurring recurrent epileptic seizures. It has been estimated that more than 40 million people in the world have epilepsy; the main treatment is with antiepileptic drugs. The aim of treatment is to prevent seizures without causing side effects. The treatment of epilepsy needs to be individualised with respect to both choice of drugs and drug dosage. The latter became apparent during the 1960s when methods for measuring serum concentrations of antiepileptic drugs were developed (Buchtal 1960). The serum concentration of an antiepileptic drug varies markedly between patients given the same dosage; the reason for this is that people differ in their ability to absorb, distribute, metabolise and excrete drugs. These processes are summarised in the term 'pharmacokinetics'. The rate at which these pharmacokinetic processes proceed may be influenced by factors such as the formulation of the drug, concurrent disease, concomitant medication and genetic variables of the individual patient. Thus, many factors contribute to differences in pharmacokinetics and to the individual variability in the serum concentration of a drug. As a consequence of this variability, there may be a wide variation in response to a drug given in a standard dose. Some patients may suffer from poor efficacy whereas others may experience toxic effects unless the dosage is individualised.

Phenytoin was the drug of choice for most seizure types when drug level measurements were introduced in the 1960s and it was found to exhibit particularly complex dose‐dependent pharmacokinetics. As a consequence, it is extremely difficult to predict the effect of a dose change of this drug. Studies carried out in the 1960s and 1970s demonstrated a correlation between the concentration of phenytoin in serum and its therapeutic and toxic effects, thus measuring the serum concentration of phenytoin was soon established as a guide to individualised dosing (Kutt 1968; Kutt 1974; Lund 1974). Since then, drug level monitoring (therapeutic drug monitoring) has been established as a routine aid to optimising treatment with other antiepileptic drugs. The goal of therapeutic drug monitoring is to optimise a patient's clinical outcome by managing the medication regimen, assisted by the measurement of drug concentrations. In general, therapeutic drug monitoring is considered to be of potential value when there is a need for individualised dosing owing to marked inter‐individual differences in drug response when such differences are accounted for by variations in pharmacokinetics, and when it is difficult to monitor drug treatment by direct observation of the therapeutic response and adverse effects, as is sometimes the case in epilepsy. Although most antiepileptic drugs do not share the problems of dose‐dependent kinetics that phenytoin has, many display pronounced inter‐individual variability in pharmacokinetics that suggest the need for individualised dosing. Furthermore, the serum concentration of many antiepileptic drugs can be affected by interactions with other drugs. Therapeutic drug monitoring may facilitate the identification of such interactions.

The concept of therapeutic drug monitoring rests on the assumption that drug concentration correlates better with clinical effects than dose. For some antiepileptic drugs, target ranges of serum concentration have been determined. These are drug concentrations known to be associated with a high probability of seizure control and low risk of toxicity. However, comparatively few studies have been designed specifically to explore the relationship between serum concentrations and effects of antiepileptic drugs, and the documentation in this respect for many of the drugs is scarce (Tomson 2000). Provided there is a distinct concentration‐effect relationship within the individual, therapeutic drug monitoring may be justifiable to control for changes due to drug interactions. This is also possible in the absence of a defined target drug concentration range. It is, however, likely that the value of therapeutic drug monitoring will vary with the different antiepileptic drugs, depending on their pharmacological properties.

The therapeutic drug monitoring service may vary in its methods. Drug concentrations can be measured in specimens other than serum, such as saliva, while analytical methods with varying specificities may also be used. Moreover, there are different ways in which the results of the analysis are presented to the treating physician. This may be just the crude drug concentration or, in some settings, it may be part of a more comprehensive pharmacokinetic service with suggestions for dose adjustments.

Given the heterogeneity in the concept of therapeutic drug monitoring and in the pharmacological characteristics of antiepileptic drugs, it is not surprising that the use of therapeutic drug monitoring varies markedly and that we lack consensus concerning the value of its application in epilepsy (Chadwick 1987). The focus of this review is, therefore, on studies assessing the extent to which therapeutic drug monitoring contributes towards the greater effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatment.

Objectives

To assess if the use of therapeutic drug monitoring improves the outcome of drug treatment for epilepsy in terms of improved seizure control and reduced adverse drug effects.

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Randomised controlled trials comparing the outcomes of antiepileptic drug therapy guided by therapeutic drug monitoring with drug treatment without the aid of drug monitoring. Both adequately and quasi‐randomised, and blinded and unblinded trials will be included.

Types of participants

People with epilepsy receiving treatment with antiepileptic drugs as monotherapy. The review will include patients of all ages with different seizure types and the use of all established antiepileptic drugs to prevent seizures. Two separate cohorts of patients will be analysed:
(1) patients with newly‐diagnosed epilepsy starting treatment;
(2) patients with established epilepsy on continuous treatment with antiepileptic drugs.
Children (under 16 years of age) and adults will be analysed separately, if sufficient data are available.

Types of interventions

The use of therapeutic drug monitoring to optimise antiepileptic drug therapy versus drug therapy without guidance by therapeutic drug monitoring.

It is recognised that antiepileptic drug levels may be analysed in many ways. Drug concentrations may be measured in different specimens, such as serum, plasma or saliva. Total as well as unbound serum concentrations may be analysed, and various analytical methods can be used. Moreover, the results of the analysis can be presented to the treating physician in different ways: as the actual drug concentration, as the drug level together with a suggested target range, or together with an interpretation with suggestions for dose adjustments as part of a more comprehensive pharmacokinetic service.

In this review any measurement of antiepileptic drug concentration that is made in order to assist the treating physician in his or her therapeutic decision making will be considered.

Types of outcome measures

(1) Proportion of patients achieving a 12‐month remission from seizures.
(2) Proportion of patients reporting adverse effects considered by the investigator to be drug related during the observation period.
(3) Proportion of patients withdrawn from the treatment to which they had been randomised.
(4) Proportion of patients achieving at least a 50% reduction in number of seizures during the period of observation. This outcome measure is not applicable to cohorts with newly‐diagnosed epilepsy.

The review will not consider surrogate outcomes such as number of patients achieving serum concentrations of antiepileptic drugs within a specific target range.

Search methods for identification of studies

We will search the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2005) and EMBASE (1974 to May 2005). The following search terms will be used and modified, as necessary, to suit the different databases. No language restrictions will be imposed.

1 RANDOMISED‐CONTROLLED TRIAL in PT
2 CONTROLLED‐CLINICAL TRIAL in PT
3 RANDOMISED‐CONTROLLED‐TRIALS / ALL
4 RANDOM‐ALLOCATION / ALL
5 DOUBLE‐BLIND‐METHOD / ALL
6 SINGLE‐BLIND‐METHOD / ALL
7 #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6
8 TG=ANIMAL not (TG=HUMAN and TG=ANIMAL)
9 #7 not #8
10 CLINICAL TRIAL in PT
11 Explode CLINICAL‐TRIALS / ALL
12 CLIN* and TRIAL* in TI
13 CLIN* and TRIAL* in AB
14 (SINGL* or DOUBL* or TREBL* or TRIPL*) and (BLIND* or MASK*) in TI
15 (SINGL* or DOUBL* or TREBL* or TRIPL*) and (BLIND* or MASK*) in AB
16 PLACEBOS / ALL
17 PLACEBO*in TI
18 PLACEBO* in AB
19 RANDOM* in TI
20 RANDOM* in AB
21 Explode RESEARCH‐DESIGN / ALL
22 #10 or #11or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21
23 #22 not #8
24 #23 or #9
25 TDM
26 DRUG‐MONITORING (MeSH)
27 (THERAP* or DRUG*) and MONITOR*
28 (SERUM or PLASMA) and MONITOR*
29 (SALIVA and MONITOR*)
30 #25 or #26 or #27 or #28 or #29
31 DRUG‐ADMINISTRATION‐SCHEDULE (MeSH)
32 DOSE‐RESPONSE‐RELATIONSHIP‐DRUG (MeSH)
33 PHARMACOKINETICS (MeSH)
34 (DRUG and ANALYSIS)
35 (SERUM or PLASMA) and DRUG‐CONCENTRATION
36 (THERAPEUTIC and RANGE)
37 EPILEPSY (MeSH)
38 EPILEP*
39 ANTICONVULSANTS (MeSH)
40 ANTICONVULSANT*
41 ANTIEPILEP*
42 SEIZURE (MeSH)
43 SEIZURE*
44 CONVULSION*
45 PHENOBARBITAL (MeSH)
46 PHENOBARBITA*
47 PHENYTOIN (MeSH)
48 PHENYTOIN
49 CARBAMAZEPINE (MeSH)
50 CARBAMAZEPIN*
51 TOPIRAMATE
52 GABAPENTIN
53 FELBAMATE
54 OXCARBAZEPIN*
55 TIAGABINE
56 ZONISAMIDE
57 # 30 or #31 or #32 or #33 or #34 or #35 or #36
58 #37 or #38 or #39 or #40 or #41 or #42 or #43 or #44 or #45 or #46 or #47 or #48 or #49 or #50 or #51 or #52 or #53 or #54 or #55 or #56
59 #57 and #58
60 #59 and #24

We will check the reference lists of retrieved articles for additional reports of relevant studies.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies
Two review authors (TT and MD) will discard irrelevant citations based on the titles of publications and their abstracts. If there is any suggestion that an article could possibly be relevant it will be retrieved for further assessment.

The same two review authors will assess independently the methodological quality of each trial. They will record details of method of randomisation, concealment of randomisation and use of intention‐to‐treat analysis. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion.

Data extraction
Descriptive characteristics and study data will be extracted by the same two review authors using a standard form.

Data analysis plan
(1) The two cohorts, patients with newly‐diagnosed epilepsy starting treatment and patients with established epilepsy on continuous treatment with antiepileptic drugs, will be analysed separately; a separate analysis for children and adults will also undertaken.
(2) The primary analysis will include therapeutic drug monitoring of all antiepileptic drugs. However, it is envisaged that the impact of drug monitoring may vary with different drugs, depending at least in part on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the drugs. Subgroup analyses will therefore be undertaken separately for the different antiepileptic drugs.
(3) Clinical heterogeneity between trials will be assessed by comparing the following.
(a) Patient characteristics: age; type of epilepsy; aetiology of epilepsy.
(b) Therapeutic drug monitoring method: measurement of bound or unbound drug concentrations; nature of specimens analysed (for example, saliva versus plasma); relation of timing of taking sample for analysis and dosing; whether the therapeutic drug monitoring results given to treating physicians included interpretation of results and suggestions for dose adjustments versus provision of crude drug levels only; whether the laboratory analysing drug levels was taking part in a quality control program or not.
(4) Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using the chi‐squared test for heterogeneity and I‐squared statistic. Provided no significant heterogeneity is found, results will be summarised in a fixed‐effect meta‐analysis.
(5) The primary analysis will be by intention to treat, including all patients randomised to treatment guided by therapeutic drug monitoring or treatment without drug monitoring, whether the randomised patients completed the evaluation period or not.
(6) Dichotomous data will be presented as odds ratios and relative risks, and analysed using both fixed‐effect and random‐effects models.
(7) Sensitivity analyses will be made including all studies and also only those using adequate methods of randomisation.