What clinical trial designs have been used to test antiepileptic drugs and do we need to change them?
- 147 Downloads
Designs used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have evolved considerably over the years. A major impulse to develop methodologically sound randomised controlled trials dates back to the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendment of 1962, through which the US congress introduced the requirement of substantial evidence for proof of efficacy in a new drug application. The mainstay for the initial approval of most new AEDs has been, and still is, the placebo-controlled adjunctive therapy trial, which evolved over the years from the cross-over to the parallel-group design. In the early days, when few AEDs were available, enrolment of patients into these trials was relatively easy and prolonged placebo exposure could be justified by lack of alternative treatment options. With more than 20 drugs now available to treat epilepsy, however, exposing patients to placebo or to a potentially ineffective investigational agent faces practical and ethical concerns. Recruitment difficulties have led sponsors to markedly increase the number of trial sites, but there is evidence that this may adversely affect the ability to differentiate between effective and ineffective treatments. Methodological and practical difficulties are also encountered with monotherapy trials. Because regulatory guidelines for monotherapy approval differ between Europe and the US, sponsors need to pursue separate and costly development programs on the two sides of the Atlantic. Moreover, the scientific validity of the monotherapy trial paradigms currently used in Europe (the non-inferiority design) and in the US (the conversion to monotherapy design with historical controls) has been questioned. This article will review these issues in some detail and discuss how trial designs and regulatory approval processes may evolve in the future to address these concerns.
Key wordsepilepsy antiepileptic drug trial design regulatory guideline randomised controlled trial review
- Coatsworth JJ. Studies on the Clinical Efficacy of Marketed Antiepileptic Drugs. NINDS Monograph # 12. Washington (DC): US Government Printing Office, 1971.Google Scholar
- Coatsworth JJ, Penry JK. General principles. Clinical efficacy and use. In: Woodbury DM, Penry JK, Schmidt RP. Antiepileptic Drugs. New York: Raven Press, 1972: 87.Google Scholar
- Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Note for guidance on clinical investigation of medicinal products in the treatment of epileptic disorders. (CPMP/EWP/566/98 rev 1). London: CPMP, 16 November 2000.Google Scholar
- Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Guidance on clinical investigation of medicinal products in the treatment of epileptic disorders. (CPMP/EWP/566/98 rev 2). London: Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, 22 July 2010.Google Scholar
- Drug Amendments Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-781, 21 USC 355).Google Scholar
- Hauptmann A. Luminal bei Epilepsie. Münch med Wochenschr 1912; 59: 1907–1909.Google Scholar
- Hauptmann A. Erfahrungen aus der Behandlung der Epilepsie mit Luminal. Münch med Wochenschr 1919; 46: 1319–1321.Google Scholar
- Himwich HE. Report of committee on research 111: anticonvulsant and convulsant agents. Epilepsia (3rd series) 1952; 1: 145–152.Google Scholar
- Merritt HH, Putnam TJ. Sodium diphenyl hydantoinate in the treatment of convulsive disorders. J Am Med Soc 1938; 111: 1068–1073.Google Scholar