Should substitution monotherapy or combination therapy be used after failure of the first antiseizure medication? Observations from a 30‐year cohort study

To assess the temporal trends in the use of second antiseizure (ASM) regimens and compare the efficacy of substitution monotherapy and combination therapy after failure of initial monotherapy in people with epilepsy.This was a longitudinal observational cohort study conducted at the Epilepsy Unit of the Western Infirmary in Glasgow, Scotland. We included patients who were newly treated for epilepsy with ASMs between July 1982, and October 2012. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Seizure freedom was defined as no seizure for at least 1 year on unchanged medication at the last follow up.During the study period, 498 patients were treated with a second ASM regimen after failure of the initial ASM monotherapy, of whom 346 (69%) were prescribed combination therapy and 152 (31%) were given substitution monotherapy. The proportion of patients receiving second regimen as combination therapy increased during the study period from 46% in first epoch (1985-1994) to 78% in the last (2005-2015) (RR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.17-2.36, corrected-p = .010). Overall, 21% (104/498) of the patients achieved seizure freedom on the second ASM regimen, which was less than half of the seizure-free rate on the initial ASM monotherapy (45%, p < .001). Patients who received substitution monotherapy had similar seizure-free rate compared with those who received combination therapy (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.81-1.69, p = .41). Individual ASMs used, either alone or in combination, had similar efficacy. However, the subgroup analysis was limited by small sample sizes.The choice of second regimen used based on clinical judgment was not associated with treatment outcome in patients whose initial monotherapy failed due to poor seizure control. Alternative approaches such as machine learning should be explored to aid individualized selection of the second ASM regimen.