4.6 Review

Anti-epileptogenic Clinical Trial Designs in Epilepsy: Issues and Options

Journal

NEUROTHERAPEUTICS
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 401-411

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13311-013-0252-z

Keywords

Anti-epileptogenic drugs; Disease-reversal; Disease-modification; Antiepileptogenic drug trial design; Disease-modifying drug trial design; Disease-reversing drug trial design; Feasibility of trial design; Human biomarkers; Novel epilepsy trial design; Epilepsy

Funding

  1. NIH from the National Center for the Advancement of Translational Science (NCATS), American Epilepsy Society, and faces [UL1 TR000038]
  2. Epilepsy Study Consortium
  3. Eisai Medical Research
  4. GlaxoSmithKline
  5. Impax
  6. Johnson Johnson
  7. Mapp Pharmaceuticals
  8. Novartis
  9. Lundbeck
  10. Pfizer
  11. Sepracor
  12. Sunovion
  13. SK Life Science
  14. Supernus Pharmaceuticals
  15. UCB Inc/Schwarz Pharma
  16. Upsher Smith
  17. Vertex

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although trials with anti-seizure drugs have not shown anti-epileptogenic or disease-modifying activity in humans, new compounds are on the horizon that may require novel trial designs. We briefly discuss the unique challenges and the available options to identify innovative clinical trial designs that differentiate novel anti-epileptogenic and disease-modifying compounds, preferably early in phase II, from current anti-seizure drugs. The most important challenges of clinical testing of agents for epilepsy prevention include having sufficient preclinical evidence for a suitable agent to proceed with a human trial of an anti-epileptogenic drug, and to demonstrate the feasibility of doing such a trial. Major challenges in trial design to assess agents for disease modification include the choice of suitable study parameters, the identification of a high-risk study population, the type of control, the time and duration of treatment, and a feasible follow-up period.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available