A real-world comparison among third-generation antiseizure medications: Results from the COMPARE study.

Objective: There are few comparative data on the third-generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). We aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE). Efficacy and tolerability were compared as secondary objectives.

Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study collected data from 22 Italian neurology/epilepsy centers. All adult PWE who started add-on treatment with one of the studied ASMs between January 2018 and October 2021 were included. Retention rate was established as effectiveness measure and described using Kaplan-Meier curves and the best fitting survival model. The responder status and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were used to evaluate efficacy and safety, respectively. The odds of AEs and drug efficacy were estimated by two multilevel logistic models.

Results: A total of 960 patients (52.92% females, median age = 43 years) met the inclusion criteria. They mainly suffered from structural epilepsy (52.29%) with monthly (46.2%) focal seizures (69.58%). Compared with LCM, all the studied ASMs had a higher dropout risk, statistically significant in the BRV levetiracetam (LEV)-naïve (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-3.29) and PER groups (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.06-2.55). Women were at higher risk of discontinuing ESL (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 1.71-16.61), as well as PER-treated patients with unknown epilepsy etiology versus those with structural etiology (HR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.05-2.88). BRV with prior LEV therapy showed lower odds of efficacy (odds ratio [OR] = .08, 95% CI = .01-.48) versus LCM, whereas a higher efficacy was observed in women treated with BRV and LEV-naïve (OR = 10.32, 95% CI = 1.55-68.78) versus men. PER (OR = 6.93, 95% CI = 3.32-14.44) and BRV in LEV-naïve patients (OR = 6.80, 95% CI = 2.64-17.52) had a higher chance of AEs than LCM.

Significance: Comparative evidence from real-world studies may help clinicians to tailor treatments according to patients' demographic and clinical characteristics.