Samuel W Terman, Colin Bruce Josephson, Parag Goyal, Arturo Gonzalez-Izquierdo, Jean Morrison, Spiros Denaxas, Samuel Wiebe
{"title":"Lamotrigine and Cardiac Arrhythmias: A Target Trial Approach.","authors":"Samuel W Terman, Colin Bruce Josephson, Parag Goyal, Arturo Gonzalez-Izquierdo, Jean Morrison, Spiros Denaxas, Samuel Wiebe","doi":"10.1212/WNL.0000000000213640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>While lamotrigine is an effective, well-tolerated antiseizure medication (ASM), a recent warning raised the possibility of ventricular arrhythmias. We compared arrhythmia incidence between patients newly treated for seizures with lamotrigine and those with levetiracetam (presumed cardiac-inert control).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included patients whose first ASM prescription fill was after the first seizure or epilepsy ICD code in the study period, with no ASM in the previous year. We conducted retrospective cohort studies to emulate a target trial using 2 datasets: (1) 2009-2018 Medicare claims (United States) and (2) Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a population-based cohort (United Kingdom). We examined cumulative incidence curves for ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (VT/VF) from Cox proportional hazard models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 40,554 patients (lamotrigine: 3,038; levetiracetam: 37,516) from Medicare and 13,098 (lamotrigine: 8,694; levetiracetam: 4,404) from CPRD. In Medicare, the median (interquartile range) age was 61 (44-74) years and 60% were female in the lamotrigine group vs 74 (65-82) years and 57% female in the levetiracetam group. In CPRD, the median (interquartile range) age was 34 (23-53) years and 63% were female in the lamotrigine group vs 48 (29-66) years and 50% female in the levetiracetam group. After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medication use, the hazard ratio for VT/VF comparing patients whose first ASM was lamotrigine vs levetiracetam was 0.73 (95% CI 0.50-1.08) for Medicare and 0.75 (95% CI 0.35-1.59) for CPRD, with a 2-year cumulative incidence of 1.7% (95% CI 1.0%-2.3%) vs 2.3% (95% CI 2.1%-2.4%) for Medicare and 0.2% (95% CI 0.1%-0.4%) vs 0.3% (95% CI 0.2%-0.6%) for CPRD. In both datasets, lamotrigine showed a slightly but nonsignificantly lower 2-year absolute difference in cumulative incidence of VT/VF compared with levetiracetam (Medicare: -0.6%, 95% CI -1.2% to 0.0%; CPRD: -0.1%, 95% CI -0.3% to 0.1%). Numerous sensitivity analyses modifying the outcome (atrial arrhythmias or any arrhythmias), censorship procedure (further censoring patients on discontinuing their initial ASM akin to a \"per-protocol\" analysis), or population (patients with existing cardiovascular diagnoses) found similar results.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>These data do not support concerns regarding lamotrigine increasing arrhythmias. Limitations include possible residual confounding and lack of generalizability to other populations.</p><p><strong>Classification of evidence: </strong>This study provides Class III evidence that lamotrigine compared with levetiracetam did not significantly increase the 2-year cumulative incidence of VT/VF in adult patients with epilepsy.</p>","PeriodicalId":19256,"journal":{"name":"Neurology","volume":"105 1","pages":"e213640"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000213640","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objectives: While lamotrigine is an effective, well-tolerated antiseizure medication (ASM), a recent warning raised the possibility of ventricular arrhythmias. We compared arrhythmia incidence between patients newly treated for seizures with lamotrigine and those with levetiracetam (presumed cardiac-inert control).
Methods: We included patients whose first ASM prescription fill was after the first seizure or epilepsy ICD code in the study period, with no ASM in the previous year. We conducted retrospective cohort studies to emulate a target trial using 2 datasets: (1) 2009-2018 Medicare claims (United States) and (2) Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a population-based cohort (United Kingdom). We examined cumulative incidence curves for ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (VT/VF) from Cox proportional hazard models.
Results: We included 40,554 patients (lamotrigine: 3,038; levetiracetam: 37,516) from Medicare and 13,098 (lamotrigine: 8,694; levetiracetam: 4,404) from CPRD. In Medicare, the median (interquartile range) age was 61 (44-74) years and 60% were female in the lamotrigine group vs 74 (65-82) years and 57% female in the levetiracetam group. In CPRD, the median (interquartile range) age was 34 (23-53) years and 63% were female in the lamotrigine group vs 48 (29-66) years and 50% female in the levetiracetam group. After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medication use, the hazard ratio for VT/VF comparing patients whose first ASM was lamotrigine vs levetiracetam was 0.73 (95% CI 0.50-1.08) for Medicare and 0.75 (95% CI 0.35-1.59) for CPRD, with a 2-year cumulative incidence of 1.7% (95% CI 1.0%-2.3%) vs 2.3% (95% CI 2.1%-2.4%) for Medicare and 0.2% (95% CI 0.1%-0.4%) vs 0.3% (95% CI 0.2%-0.6%) for CPRD. In both datasets, lamotrigine showed a slightly but nonsignificantly lower 2-year absolute difference in cumulative incidence of VT/VF compared with levetiracetam (Medicare: -0.6%, 95% CI -1.2% to 0.0%; CPRD: -0.1%, 95% CI -0.3% to 0.1%). Numerous sensitivity analyses modifying the outcome (atrial arrhythmias or any arrhythmias), censorship procedure (further censoring patients on discontinuing their initial ASM akin to a "per-protocol" analysis), or population (patients with existing cardiovascular diagnoses) found similar results.
Discussion: These data do not support concerns regarding lamotrigine increasing arrhythmias. Limitations include possible residual confounding and lack of generalizability to other populations.
Classification of evidence: This study provides Class III evidence that lamotrigine compared with levetiracetam did not significantly increase the 2-year cumulative incidence of VT/VF in adult patients with epilepsy.
背景和目的:虽然拉莫三嗪是一种有效且耐受性良好的抗癫痫药物(ASM),但最近的一项警告提高了室性心律失常的可能性。我们比较了新用拉莫三嗪治疗癫痫发作的患者和用左乙拉西坦(假定为心脏惰性控制)治疗癫痫发作的患者的心律失常发生率。方法:纳入在研究期间首次癫痫发作或癫痫ICD编码后首次使用ASM处方的患者,前一年无ASM。我们使用两个数据集进行了回顾性队列研究,以模拟目标试验:(1)2009-2018年医疗保险索赔(美国)和(2)临床实践研究数据链(CPRD),一个基于人群的队列(英国)。我们检查了Cox比例风险模型中室性心动过速或房颤(VT/VF)的累积发生率曲线。结果:我们纳入了40554例患者(拉莫三嗪:3038例;左乙拉西坦:37,516)和13,098(拉莫三嗪:8,694;左乙拉西坦:4404)。在Medicare中,年龄中位数(四分位数范围)为61(44-74)岁,拉莫三嗪组60%为女性,而左乙拉西坦组为74(65-82)岁,57%为女性。在CPRD中,拉莫三嗪组中位(四分位数范围)年龄为34(23-53)岁,63%为女性,而左乙拉西坦组中位年龄为48(29-66)岁,50%为女性。在调整了人口统计学、合共病和药物使用后,比较首次ASM为拉莫三嗪和左乙拉西坦的患者的VT/VF风险比,Medicare为0.73 (95% CI 0.50-1.08), CPRD为0.75 (95% CI 0.35-1.59), 2年累积发病率为1.7% (95% CI 1.0%-2.3%) vs . Medicare为2.3% (95% CI 2.1%-2.4%), CPRD为0.2% (95% CI 0.1%-0.4%) vs . 0.3% (95% CI 0.2%-0.6%)。在这两个数据集中,拉莫三嗪与左乙拉西坦相比,VT/VF累积发生率的2年绝对差异略有但不显著降低(Medicare: -0.6%, 95% CI -1.2%至0.0%;CPRD: -0.1%, 95% CI -0.3%至0.1%)。许多敏感性分析修改了结果(心房心律失常或任何心律失常),审查程序(进一步审查停止初始ASM的患者,类似于“每个方案”分析),或人群(已有心血管诊断的患者)发现了类似的结果。讨论:这些数据不支持拉莫三嗪增加心律失常的担忧。局限性包括可能存在残留混淆和缺乏对其他人群的通用性。证据分类:本研究提供的III类证据表明,与左乙拉西坦相比,拉莫三嗪并未显著增加成人癫痫患者2年的VT/VF累积发生率。
期刊介绍:
Neurology, the official journal of the American Academy of Neurology, aspires to be the premier peer-reviewed journal for clinical neurology research. Its mission is to publish exceptional peer-reviewed original research articles, editorials, and reviews to improve patient care, education, clinical research, and professionalism in neurology.
As the leading clinical neurology journal worldwide, Neurology targets physicians specializing in nervous system diseases and conditions. It aims to advance the field by presenting new basic and clinical research that influences neurological practice. The journal is a leading source of cutting-edge, peer-reviewed information for the neurology community worldwide. Editorial content includes Research, Clinical/Scientific Notes, Views, Historical Neurology, NeuroImages, Humanities, Letters, and position papers from the American Academy of Neurology. The online version is considered the definitive version, encompassing all available content.
Neurology is indexed in prestigious databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biological Abstracts®, PsycINFO®, Current Contents®, Web of Science®, CrossRef, and Google Scholar.