Treatment for epilepsy in pregnancy: neurodevelopmental outcomes in the child

Pharmacological Management of the Genetic Generalised Epilepsies in Adolescents and Adults

Common genetic generalised epilepsy syndromes encountered by clinicians include childhood and juvenile absence epilepsies, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy and generalised tonic-clonic seizures on awakening. Treatment of these syndromes involves largely the use of broad-spectrum antiseizure drugs. Those effective for the generalised epilepsies include sodium valproate, phenobarbital, ethosuximide, clobazam, clonazepam, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, topiramate, zonisamide and, more recently, perampanel and brivaracetam. Results from the few rigorous studies comparing outcomes with drugs for genetic generalised epilepsies show valproate to be the most effective. The majority of patients with genetic generalised epilepsy syndromes will become seizure free on antiseizure monotherapy; those for whom control proves elusive may benefit from combination regimens. Early counselling regarding management may assist the patient to come to terms with their diagnosis and improve long-term outcomes. Treatment can be lifelong in some individuals, although others may remain seizure free without medication. Choice of antiseizure medication depends on the efficacy for specific seizure types, as well as tolerability. For patients prescribed comedication, drug interactions should be considered. In particular, for young women taking oral hormonal contraceptives, ≥ 200 mg/day of topiramate can decrease the circulating concentration of ethinylestradiol and ≥ 12 mg/day of perampanel can induce levonorgestrel metabolism. The use of valproate in women of childbearing potential is limited by associated teratogenic and neurodevelopmental effects in offspring. Given that valproate is often the antiseizure drug of choice for genetic generalised epilepsies, this creates a dilemma for patients and clinicians. Decision making can be aided by comprehensive assessment and discussion of treatment options. Psychiatric comorbidities are common in adolescents and adults with genetic generalised epilepsies. These worsen the prognosis, both in terms of seizure control and quality of life. Attendant lifestyle issues can impact significantly on the individual and society. Frontal lobe dysfunction, which can present in patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, can adversely affect the long-term outlook, regardless of the nature of seizure control. Ongoing management requires consideration of psychosocial and behavioural factors that can complicate diagnosis and treatment. An assured supportive attitude by the neurologist can be an important contributor to a positive outcome. The mechanisms underlying genetic generalised epilepsies, including genetic abnormalities, are unclear at present. As the pathophysiology is unravelled, this may lead to the development of novel therapies and improved outcomes for patients with these syndromes.

Prescription of Valproate-Containing Medicines in Women of Childbearing Potential who have Psychiatric Disorders: Is It Worth the Risk?

Valproate-containing medicines have long been used in psychiatric practice, principally in the treatment of acute manic episodes, as augmentation agents in the treatment of bipolar and unipolar depressive episodes, and in the prophylaxis of bipolar affective disorder. Many babies are still being born with the adverse consequences of valproate exposure in utero, which include congenital malformations, neurodevelopmental delay, and increased risks of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder. Previous measures designed to better inform women about the risks associated with valproate have not been sufficiently effective. This review highlights recent recommendations from influential regulatory and advisory bodies, summarises the relative efficacy and tolerability of valproate preparations in the psychiatric conditions for which they have often been prescribed, and offers practical guidance for the withdrawal and replacement of valproate-containing medicines in women with psychiatric disorders.

Maternal complications in pregnancy and childbirth for women with epilepsy: Time trends in a nationwide cohort

OBJECTIVE

Obstetric trends show changes in complication rates and maternal characteristics such as caesarean section, induced labour, and maternal age. To what degree such general time trends and changing patterns of antiepileptic drug use influence pregnancies of women with epilepsy (WWE) is unknown. Our aim was to describe changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric complications in WWE over time, and to assess changes in complication risks in WWE relative to women without epilepsy.

METHODS

This was a nationwide cohort study of all first births in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway, 1999-2016. We estimated maternal characteristics, complication rates, and risks for WWE compared to women without epilepsy. Main maternal outcome measures were hypertensive disorders, bleeding in pregnancy, induction of labour, caesarean section, postpartum hemorrhage, preterm birth, small for gestational age, and epidural analgesia. Time trends were analyzed by logistic regression and comparisons made with interaction analyses.

RESULTS

426 347 first births were analyzed, and 3077 (0.7%) women had epilepsy. In WWE there was an increase in proportions of induced labour (p<0.005) and use of epidural analgesia (p<0.005), and a reduction in mild preeclampsia (p = 0.006). However, the risk of these outcomes did not change over time. Only the risk of severe preeclampsia increased significantly over time relative to women without epilepsy (p = 0.006). In WWE, folic acid supplementation increased significantly over time (p<0.005), and there was a decrease in smoking during pregnancy (p<0.005), but these changes were less pronounced than for women without epilepsy (p<0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

During 1999-2016 there were important changes in maternal characteristics and complication rates among WWE. However, outcome risks for WWE relative to women without epilepsy did not change despite changes in antiepileptic drug use patterns. The relative risk of severe preeclampsia increased in women with epilepsy.

Valproate for acute mania

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a severe and common mental disorder where patients experience recurrent symptoms of elevated or irritable mood, depression, or a combination of both. Treatment is usually with psychiatric medication, including mood stabilisers, antidepressants and antipsychotics. Valproate is an effective maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder. However, evidence assessing the efficacy of valproate in the treatment of acute mania is less robust, especially when comparing it to some of the newer antipsychotic agents. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review (last published 2003) on the role of valproate in acute mania.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of valproate for acute manic episodes in bipolar disorder compared to placebo, alternative pharmacological treatments, or a combination pharmacological treatments, as measured by the treatment of symptoms on specific rating scales for individual episodes in paediatric, adolescent and adult populations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 28 September 2018. We had also conducted an earlier search of these databases in the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (all years to 6 June 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and clinicaltrials.gov in September 2018, to identify any additional unpublished or ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Single- and double-blind, randomised controlled trials comparing valproate with placebo, alternative antimanic treatments, or a combination of pharmacological treatments. We also considered studies where valproate was used as an adjunctive treatment in combination with another agent separately from studies where it was used in monotherapy. We included male and female patients of all ages and ethnicity with bipolar disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed data extraction and methodological quality assessment. For analysis, we used the odds ratio (OR) for binary efficacy outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuously distributed outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials (3252 participants) compared valproate with either placebo or alternative antimanic treatments to alleviate the symptoms of acute mania. For efficacy, our primary outcome was response rate. For tolerability, our primary outcome was the number of participants with any adverse effect. This meta-analysis included studies focusing on children, adolescents, as well as adults with a range of severity of manic symptoms. The majority of studies focused on adult men and women (aged 18 and above), were conducted in inpatient settings and completed in the US. Five studies in this review focused on children and adolescents (aged 18 and under) so that the review covers an age range from 3 - 82 years. Seven studies contained outpatient participants in some form. Nine studies included data that has been collected outside the US, namely Iran (4 studies), India (3 studies), China (1 study), or across several international countries (1 study).In adults, high-quality evidence found that valproate induces a slightly higher response compared to placebo (45% vs 29%, OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.20; 4 studies, 869 participants). Moderate-quality evidence found there was probably little or no difference in response rates between valproate and lithium (56% vs 62%, OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.35; 3 studies, 356 participants). In adults, low-quality evidence found there may be little or no difference in response rate between valproate and olanzapine (38% vs 44%, OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.25; 2 studies, 667 participants).In the children and adolescent population, the evidence regarding any difference in response rates between valproate and placebo was uncertain (23% vs 22%, OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.38; 1 study, 151 participants, very low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence found that the response rate of participants receiving valproate may be lower compared to risperidone (23% vs 66%, OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.29; 1 study, 197 participants). The evidence regarding any difference in response rates between valproate and lithium was uncertain (23% vs 34%, OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.07; 1 study, 197 participants, very low-quality evidence).In terms of tolerability in adults, moderate-quality evidence found that there are probably more participants receiving valproate who experienced any adverse events compared to placebo (83% vs 75%, OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.36; 3 studies, 745 participants). Low-quality evidence found there may be little or no difference in tolerability between valproate and lithium (78% vs 86%, OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.50; 2 studies, 164 participants). We did not obtain primary tolerability outcome data on the olanzapine comparison.Within the children and adolescent population, the evidence regarding any difference between valproate or placebo was uncertain (67% vs 60%, OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.71; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-quality evidence). We did not obtain primary tolerability outcome data on the lithium or risperidone comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that valproate is an efficacious treatment for acute mania in adults when compared to placebo. By contrast, there is no evidence of a difference in efficacy between valproate and placebo for children and adolescents. Valproate may be less efficacious than olanzapine in adults, and may also be inferior to risperidone as a monotherapy treatment for paediatric mania. Generally, there is uncertain evidence regarding whether valproate causes more or less side effects than the other main antimanic therapies. However, evidence suggests that valproate causes less weight gain and sedation than olanzapine.

Association Between Prenatal Valproate Exposure and Performance on Standardized Language and Mathematics Tests in School-aged Children

Importance

Valproate sodium is used for the treatment of epilepsy and other neuropsychiatric disorders in women of childbearing potential. However, there are concerns about impaired cognitive development in children who have been exposed to valproate during pregnancy.

Objective

To estimate the association between long-term school performance and prenatal exposure to valproate and a number of other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).

Design, Setting, and Participants

In a prospective, population-based cohort study conducted from August 1, 2015, to May 31, 2017, data used in the study were provided by Statistics Denmark on April 15, 2016. All children born alive in Denmark between 1997 and 2006 (n = 656 496) were identified. From this cohort, children who did not participate in the national tests, with presumed coding errors in gestational age and children missing information on their mother's educational level or household income were excluded (n = 177 469) leaving 479 027 children for the analyses. Children were identified and linked across national registers that had information on exposure, covariates, and outcome. The primary outcome was performance in national tests, an academic test taken by students in Danish primary and lower secondary state schools. We assessed performance in Danish and mathematics at different grades among valproate-exposed children and compared their performance with that of unexposed children and children exposed to another AED (lamotrigine). Test scores were standardized to z scores and adjusted for risk factors.

Main Outcome and Measures

Difference in standardized z scores in Danish and mathematics tests among valproate-exposed children compared with unexposed and lamotrigine-exposed children.

Results

Of the 656 496 children identified, 479 027 children who participated in the national tests were evaluated, including children exposed to the following AEDs in monotherapy: valproate, 253; phenobarbital, 86; oxcarbazepine, 236; lamotrigine, 396; clonazepam, 188; and carbamazepine, 294. The mean (SD) age of the 244 095 children completing the sixth-grade Danish test was 12.9 (0.39) years; 122 774 (50.3%; 95% CI, 50.1% to 50.5%) were boys and 121 321 (49.7%; 95% CI, 49.5% to 49.9%) were girls. Valproate-exposed children scored worse on the sixth-grade Danish tests (adjusted difference, -0.27 SD; 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.12) and sixth-grade mathematics tests (adjusted difference, -0.33 SD; (95% CI, -0.47 to -0.19) compared with unexposed children and children exposed to lamotrigine (adjusted difference, -0.33 SD; 95% CI, -0.60 to -0.06). Also, children exposed to clonazepam scored worse in the sixth-grade Danish tests (adjusted difference, -0.07 SD; 95% CI, -0.12 to -0.02). Carbamazepine, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, and oxcarbazepine were not linked to poor school performance compared with unexposed children.

Conclusions and Relevance

Maternal use of valproate was associated with a significant decrease in school performance in offspring compared with children unexposed to AEDs and children exposed to lamotrigine. Findings of this study further caution against the use of valproate among women of childbearing potential.

Inadequate Folic Acid Intake Among Women Taking Antiepileptic Drugs During Pregnancy in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Study

This study aimed to assess characteristics of pregnant women taking antiepileptic drugs with inadequate folic acid intake. This cross-sectional study examined pregnant women taking antiepileptic drugs who were registered in the Japanese Drug Information Institute in Pregnancy (JDIIP) database between October 2005 and December 2016. Participants were classified into two groups according to when they started folic acid supplementation (before pregnancy: 'adequate', after pregnancy or never: 'inadequate'). Logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with inadequate folic acid intake. Of 12,794 registrants, 468 pregnant women were taking antiepileptics during the first trimester. Of these, we analysed data from 456 women who had no missing data. As a result, inadequate folic acid intake was noted among 83.3% of them, suggesting that the current level of folic acid intake is insufficient overall. Younger age, smoking, alcohol drinking, multiparity, unplanned pregnancy, and being prescribed AEDs by paediatric or psychiatric departments were independent factors associated with inadequate folic acid intake. As planned pregnancy was the strongest factor, healthcare professionals should ensure that childbearing women taking antiepileptics are informed of the importance of planned pregnancy. In addition, healthcare professionals must gain a better understanding of folic acid intake, as the prevalence of adequate intake differed according to which departments prescribed antiepileptic drugs.

Use of Prescribed Psychotropics during Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Pregnancy, Neonatal, and Childhood Outcomes

This paper reviews the findings from preclinical animal and human clinical research investigating maternal/fetal, neonatal, and child neurodevelopmental outcomes following prenatal exposure to psychotropic drugs. Evidence for the risks associated with prenatal exposure was examined, including teratogenicity, neurodevelopmental effects, neonatal toxicity, and long-term neurobehavioral consequences (i.e., behavioral teratogenicity). We conducted a comprehensive review of the recent results and conclusions of original research and reviews, respectively, which have investigated the short- and long-term impact of drugs commonly prescribed to pregnant women for psychological disorders, including mood, anxiety, and sleep disorders. Because mental illness in the mother is not a benign event, and may itself pose significant risks to both mother and child, simply discontinuing or avoiding medication use during pregnancy may not be possible. Therefore, prenatal exposure to psychotropic drugs is a major public health concern. Decisions regarding drug choice, dose, and duration should be made carefully, by balancing severity, chronicity, and co-morbidity of the mental illness, disorder, or condition against the potential risk for adverse outcomes due to drug exposure. Globally, maternal mental health problems are considered as a major public health challenge, which requires a stronger focus on mental health services that will benefit both mother and child. More preclinical and clinical research is needed in order to make well-informed decisions, understanding the risks associated with the use of psychotropic medications during pregnancy.

Prenatal exposure to valproic acid is associated with altered neurocognitive function and neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus of male offspring rats

In pregnant women with epilepsy, it is imperative to balance the safety of the mother and the potential teratogenicity of anticonvulsants, which could cause impairments such as intellectual disability and cleft lip. In this study, we examined behavioral and hippocampal neurogenesis alterations in male offspring of rats exposed to valproic acid (VPA) during pregnancy. Pregnant Wistar rats received daily intraperitoneal injections of VPA (100 mg/kg/day or 200 mg/kg/day) from embryonic day 12.5 until birth. At postnatal day 29, animals received an injection of bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU). At postnatal day 30, animals underwent the open field (OF), elevated plus-maze, and Y-maze tests. After behavioral testing, animals were decapitated, and their brains were dissected for immunohistochemistry. Of the offspring of the VPA200 mothers, 66.6% showed a malformation. In the OF test, these animals showed locomotor hyperactivity. In the elevated plus-maze, offspring of VPA-treated mothers spent significantly more time in the open arms, irrespective of the treatment dose. The number of BrdU-positive cells in the dentate gyrus of the offspring of VPA-treated mothers increased significantly in a dose-dependent manner compared with the control. A significant positive correlation between spontaneous locomotor activity in the OF and BrdU-positive cell counts was observed across groups. In conclusion, VPA administration during pregnancy results in malformations and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder-like behavioral abnormalities in the offspring. An increase in cell proliferation in the hippocampus may underlie the behavioral changes observed. Repeated use of high doses of VPA during pregnancy may increase the risk of neurodevelopmental abnormalities dose dependently and should be carefully considered.

Valproate and female patients: Prescribing attitudes of Italian epileptologists

INTRODUCTION

After the European Medicines Agency (EMA) warning on the use of valproate (VPA) in female patients, we explored the antiepileptic drug (AED) prescribing attitudes of Italian epileptologists with regard to sex and VPA use in patients with epilepsy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A specifically designed 30-item questionnaire was distributed at the annual multicenter meeting of the Italian League Against Epilepsy (LICE), held in Rome on January 2018. One hundred and sixty-nine physicians answered the questionnaire.

RESULTS

In females, VPA was significantly less prescribed as first-choice AED in childhood absence epilepsy (22% females vs 64% males, p < 0.001), Dravet syndrome (54% vs 71%, p = 0.01), juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) (2% vs 74%, p < 0.001), and undetermined epilepsy (0% vs 32%, p < 0.001). Ninety-six percent of the respondents inform teenage girls of the detrimental effects of intrauterine exposure to VPA; 74% recommend contraceptive measures when prescribing VPA. All the respondents stated that they were aware of the recommendations on VPA in female patients, and 64% claimed to have had difficulties in implementing them.

CONCLUSIONS

The main challenges were represented by women with JME, who were seizure-free on VPA and failed to respond to levetiracetam and lamotrigine, and by little girls for whom VPA was considered the best choice. According to many Italian epileptologists, the decision to withdraw VPA should be shared with the patient.

Phenobarbitone versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and last updated in 2013. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, particularly in the developing world, phenytoin and phenobarbitone are commonly used antiepileptic drugs, primarily because they are inexpensive. The aim of this review is to summarise data from existing trials comparing phenytoin and phenobarbitone.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with phenobarbitone compared with phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 21 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either phenobarbitone or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission and time to 12-month remission. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

Individual participant data were obtained for five studies, which recruited a total of 635 participants, representing 80% of 798 individuals from all seven identified eligible trials. For remission outcomes, an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.61, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.87, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.66, moderate-certainty evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for phenytoin compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between phenytoin and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 624 participants: 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06, moderate-certainty evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.19, moderate-certainty evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.15, moderate-certainty evidence).For individuals with focal onset seizures (73% of individuals contributing to analysis), numerical results were similar and conclusions the same as for analyses of all individuals and for individuals with generalised onset seizures (27% of individuals contributing to analysis), results were imprecise and no clear differences between the drugs were observed.Several confounding factors, most notably the differences in design of the trials with respect to blinding, were likely to have impacted on the results of the primary outcome 'time to treatment failure', and in turn, the treatment failure rates may have impacted on the secondary efficacy outcomes of time to first seizure and time to 12-month and six-month remission.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence from this review suggests that phenytoin may be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate-certainty evidence from this review also indicates no differences between the drugs in terms of time to seizure recurrence and seizure remission.However, the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and methodological design differences that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Diagnosis and management of individuals with Fetal Valproate Spectrum Disorder; a consensus statement from the European Reference Network for Congenital Malformations and Intellectual Disability

BACKGROUND

A pattern of major and minor congenital anomalies, facial dysmorphic features, and neurodevelopmental difficulties, including cognitive and social impairments has been reported in some children exposed to sodium valproate (VPA) during pregnancy. Recognition of the increased risks of in utero exposure to VPA for congenital malformations, and for the neurodevelopmental effects in particular, has taken many years but these are now acknowledged following the publication of the outcomes of several prospective studies and registries. As with other teratogens, exposure to VPA can have variable effects, ranging from a characteristic pattern of major malformations and significant intellectual disability to the other end of the continuum, characterised by facial dysmorphism which is often difficult to discern and a more moderate effect on neurodevelopment and general health. It has become clear that some individuals with FVSD have complex needs requiring multidisciplinary care but information regarding management is currently lacking in the medical literature.

METHODS

An expert group was convened by ERN-ITHACA, the European Reference Network for Congenital Malformations and Intellectual Disability comprised of professionals involved in the care of individuals with FVSD and with patient representation. Review of published and unpublished literature concerning management of FVSD was undertaken and the level of evidence from these sources graded. Management recommendations were made based on strength of evidence and consensus expert opinion, in the setting of an expert consensus meeting. These were then refined using an iterative process and wider consultation.

RESULTS

Whilst there was strong evidence regarding the increase in risk for major congenital malformations and neurodevelopmental difficulties there was a lack of high level evidence in other areas and in particular in terms of optimal clinical management.. The expert consensus approach facilitated the formulation of management recommendations, based on literature evidence and best practice. The outcome of the review and group discussions leads us to propose the term Fetal Valproate Spectrum Disorder (FVSD) as we feel this better encompasses the broad range of effects seen following VPA exposure in utero.

CONCLUSION

The expert consensus approach can be used to define the best available clinical guidance for the diagnosis and management of rare disorders such as FVSD. FVSD can have medical, developmental and neuropsychological impacts with life-long consequences and affected individuals benefit from the input of a number of different health professionals.

Carbamazepine versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2017. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly-used broad spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for focal onset seizures in the USA and Europe. Phenytoin is no longer considered a first-line treatment, due to concerns over adverse events associated with its use, but the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these trials are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with carbamazepine compared with phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 13 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset (tonic-clonic) seizures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1102 eligible individuals, from four out of 11 trials (i.e. 54% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, a HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, a HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. Most participants included in analysis (78%) were classified as experiencing focal onset seizures at baseline and only 22% were classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures; the results of this review are therefore mainly applicable to individuals with focal onset seizures.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.26, moderate-certainty evidence); time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41, moderate-certainty evidence); both showing no clear difference between the drugs and time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.86, moderate-certainty evidence), showing that treatment failure due to adverse events may occur earlier on carbamazepine than phenytoin, but we cannot rule out a slight advantage to carbamazepine or no difference between the drugs.For our secondary outcomes (pooled HRs adjusted for seizure type), we did not find any clear differences between carbamazepine and phenytoin: time to first seizure post-randomisation (582 participants): 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.40, moderate-certainty evidence); time to 12-month remission (551 participants): 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26, moderate-certainty evidence); and time to six-month remission (551 participants): 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12, moderate-certainty evidence).For all outcomes, results for individuals with focal onset seizures were similar to overall results (moderate-certainty evidence), and results for the small subgroup of individuals with generalised onset seizures were imprecise, so we cannot rule out an advantage to either drug, or no difference between drugs (low-certainty evidence). There was also evidence that misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review, particularly for the outcome 'time to treatment failure'. Heterogeneity was present in analysis of 'time to first seizure' for individuals with generalised onset seizures, which could not be explained by subgroup analysis or sensitivity analyses.Limited information was available about adverse events in the trials and we could not compare the rates of adverse events between carbamazepine and phenytoin. Some adverse events reported on both drugs were abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, drowsiness, motor and cognitive disturbances, dysmorphic side effects (such as rash).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence provided by this systematic review does not show any differences between carbamazepine and phenytoin in terms of effectiveness (retention) or efficacy (seizure recurrence and seizure remission) for individuals with focal onset or generalised onset seizures.However, some of the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and inconsistencies, which may have had an impact on the results of this review. We therefore do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a person with newly-onset seizures. We did not find any evidence to support or refute current treatment policies. We implore that future trials be designed to the highest quality possible, with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Use and validity of child neurodevelopment outcome measures in studies on prenatal exposure to psychotropic and analgesic medications - A systematic review

In recent years there has been increased attention to child neurodevelopment in studies on medication safety in pregnancy. Neurodevelopment is a multifactorial outcome that can be assessed by various assessors, using different measures. This has given rise to a debate on the validity of various measures of neurodevelopment. The aim of this review was twofold. Firstly we aimed to give an overview of studies on child neurodevelopment after prenatal exposure to central nervous system acting medications using psychotropics and analgesics as examples, giving special focus on the use and validity of outcome measures. Secondly, we aimed to give guidance on how to conduct and interpret medication safety studies with neurodevelopment outcomes. We conducted a systematic review in the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from inception to April 2019, including controlled studies on prenatal exposure to psychotropics or analgesics and child neurodevelopment, measured with standardised psychometric instruments or by diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorder. The review management tool Covidence was used for data-extraction. Outcomes were grouped as motor skills, cognition, behaviour, emotionality, or "other". We identified 110 eligible papers (psychotropics, 82 papers, analgesics, 29 papers). A variety of neurodevelopmental outcome measures were used, including 27 different psychometric instruments administered by health care professionals, 15 different instruments completed by parents, and 13 different diagnostic categories. In 23 papers, no comments were made on the validity of the outcome measure. In conclusion, establishing neurodevelopmental safety includes assessing a wide variety of outcomes important for the child's daily functioning including motor skills, cognition, behaviour, and emotionality, with valid and reliable measures from infancy through to adolescence. Consensus is needed in the scientific community on how neurodevelopment should be assessed in medication safety in pregnancy studies. Review registration number: CRD42018086101 in the PROSPERO database.

Topiramate versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2016. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy, the majority of which may be able to achieve remission with a single antiepileptic drug (AED).The correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance and should be based on the highest-quality evidence available regarding the potential benefits and harms of various treatments for an individual.Topiramate and carbamazepine are commonly used AEDs. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of results of outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability, and may help inform a choice between the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with topiramate compared with carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (Ovid); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to 22 May 2018. We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monotherapy with either topiramate or carbamazepine in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 1151 of 1239 eligible individuals from two of three eligible studies (93% of the potential data). A small proportion of individuals recruited into these trials had 'unclassified seizures;' for analysis purposes, these individuals are grouped with those with generalised onset seizures. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine, and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for topiramate.The main overall results for the primary outcome, time to treatment failure, given as pooled HR adjusted for seizure type were: time to failure for any reason related to treatment 1.16 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.38); time to failure due to adverse events 1.02 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.27); and time to failure due to lack of efficacy 1.46 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.98). Overall results for secondary outcomes were time to first seizure 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.29); and time to six-month remission 0.88 (0.76 to 1.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs. A statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to 12-month remission: 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.99).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 81% of individuals included within the analysis experienced seizures of this type at baseline. For individuals with focal onset seizures, a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to failure for any reason related to treatment (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.46), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.02), and time to 12-month remission (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99). There was no statistically significant difference between topiramate and carbamazepine for 'time to first seizure' and 'time to six-month remission'.Evidence for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (9% of participants contributing to the analysis), and unclassified seizure types (10% of participants contributing to the analysis) was very limited; no statistically significant differences were found but CIs were wide; therefore we cannot exclude an advantage to either drug, or a difference between drugs.The most commonly reported adverse events with both drugs were drowsiness or fatigue, "pins and needles" (tingling sensation), headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and anxiety or depression. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.We judged the methodological quality of the included trials generally to be good; however, there was some evidence that the open-label design of the larger of the two trials may have influenced the treatment failure rate within the trial. Hence, we judged the certainty of the evidence for treatment failure to be moderate for individuals with focal onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the certainty of evidence from this review to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset or unclassified seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with focal onset seizures, there is moderate-certainty evidence that carbamazepine is less likely to be withdrawn and high-certainty evidence that 12-month remission will be achieved earlier than with topiramate. We did not find any differences between the drugs in terms of the other outcomes measured in the review and for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures or unclassified epilepsy; however, we encourage caution in the interpretation of results including small numbers of participants with these seizure types.Future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible and take into consideration masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Predicting seizures in pregnant women with epilepsy: Development and external validation of a prognostic model

BACKGROUND

Seizures are the main cause of maternal death in women with epilepsy, but there are no tools for predicting seizures in pregnancy. We set out to develop and validate a prognostic model, using information collected during the antenatal booking visit, to predict seizure risk at any time in pregnancy and until 6 weeks postpartum in women with epilepsy on antiepileptic drugs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used datasets of a prospective cohort study (EMPiRE) of 527 pregnant women with epilepsy on medication recruited from 50 hospitals in the UK (4 November 2011-17 August 2014). The model development cohort comprised 399 women whose antiepileptic drug doses were adjusted based on clinical features only; the validation cohort comprised 128 women whose drug dose adjustments were informed by serum drug levels. The outcome was epileptic (non-eclamptic) seizure captured using diary records. We fitted the model using LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression, and reported the performance using C-statistic (scale 0-1, values > 0.5 show discrimination) and calibration slope (scale 0-1, values near 1 show accuracy) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We determined the net benefit (a weighted sum of true positive and false positive classifications) of using the model, with various probability thresholds, to aid clinicians in making individualised decisions regarding, for example, referral to tertiary care, frequency and intensity of monitoring, and changes in antiepileptic medication. Seizures occurred in 183 women (46%, 183/399) in the model development cohort and in 57 women (45%, 57/128) in the validation cohort. The model included age at first seizure, baseline seizure classification, history of mental health disorder or learning difficulty, occurrence of tonic-clonic and non-tonic-clonic seizures in the 3 months before pregnancy, previous admission to hospital for seizures during pregnancy, and baseline dose of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. The C-statistic was 0.79 (95% CI 0.75, 0.84). On external validation, the model showed good performance (C-statistic 0.76, 95% CI 0.66, 0.85; calibration slope 0.93, 95% CI 0.44, 1.41) but with imprecise estimates. The EMPiRE model showed the highest net proportional benefit for predicted probability thresholds between 12% and 99%. Limitations of this study include the varied gestational ages of women at recruitment, retrospective patient recall of seizure history, potential variations in seizure classification, the small number of events in the validation cohort, and the clinical utility restricted to decision-making thresholds above 12%. The model findings may not be generalisable to low- and middle-income countries, or when information on all predictors is not available.

CONCLUSIONS

The EMPiRE model showed good performance in predicting the risk of seizures in pregnant women with epilepsy who are prescribed antiepileptic drugs. Integration of the tool within the antenatal booking visit, deployed as a simple nomogram, can help to optimise care in women with epilepsy.

Differences in treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy: A worldwide survey

Background

How to safely treat pregnant women with epilepsy is a question for which there are guidelines, but variations in practice exist.

Methods

To better characterize how clinicians address this difficult clinical question, we distributed an anonymous survey to neurology practitioners across subspecialties and different levels of training via the Neurology®: Clinical Practice website. The survey was conducted from May 31 to December 3, 2017. We received responses from 642 participants representing 81 countries. We performed both descriptive and inferential analyses. For the inferential analysis, a multiple logistic regression model was used to analyze the effect of provider characteristics on the constructed binary outcome variables of interest.

Results

The results of this survey demonstrate a wide range in the amount of folic acid recommended and the frequency of checking levels of anti-epileptic drugs. Choice of first-line agent varied by the economic development status of the respondent's country, suggesting that access to medications plays an important role in clinical decision making in many parts of the world.

Conclusion

This survey highlights several areas where further research would be helpful in guiding practice.

Treatment of Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy in Patients of Child-Bearing Potential

Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) is both a frequent and a very characteristic epileptic syndrome with female preponderance. Treatment of JME in women of childbearing potential must consider multiple factors such as desire for pregnancy, use of contraception, seizure control and previously used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Approximately 85% of cases are well controlled with valproate, which remains the reference AED in JME but is nowadays considered unsafe for the expecting mother and her fetus. The prescription of valproate is now severely restricted in women of childbearing potential but may still be considered, at the lowest possible dose and when pregnancies can be reliably planned, with temporary alternatives to valproate prescribed before fertilization. Alternatives have emerged, especially lamotrigine and levetiracetam, but also topiramate, zonisamide, and recently perampanel, but none of these AEDs can be considered fully safe in the context of pregnancy. In special settings, benzodiazepines and barbiturates may be useful. In some cases, combination therapy, especially lamotrigine and levetiracetam, may be useful or even required. However, lamotrigine may have the potential to aggravate JME, with promyoclonic effects. Carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and phenytoin must be avoided. Valproate, levetiracetam, zonisamide, topiramate if the daily dose is ≤ 200 mg and perampanel if the daily dose is ≤ 10 mg do not affect combined hormonal contraception. Lamotrigine ≥ 300 mg/day has been shown to decrease levonorgestrel levels by 20% but does not compromise combined hormonal contraception. Patients with JME taking oral contraceptive should be counselled on the fact that the estrogenic component can reduce concentrations of lamotrigine by over 50%, putting patients at risk of increased seizures. Pregnancy is a therapeutic challenge, and the risk/benefit ratio for the mother and fetus must be considered when choosing the appropriate drug. Lamotrigine (< 325 mg daily in the European Registry of Antiepileptic Drugs in Pregnancy) and levetiracetam seem to be comparatively safer in pregnancy than other AEDs, especially topiramate and valproate. Plasma concentration of lamotrigine and levetiracetam decreases significantly during pregnancy, and dosage adjustments may be necessary. With persisting generalized tonic-clonic seizures, the combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam offer the chance of seizure control and lesser risks of major congenital malformations. The risk of malformation increases when valproate or topiramate are included in the drug combination. In one study, the relative risk of autism and autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in children born to women with epilepsy (WWE) treated with valproate were, respectively, 5.2 for autism and 2.9 for ASD versus 2.12 for autism and 1.6 for ASD in WWE not treated with valproate. More studies are needed to assess the risk of autism with AEDs other than valproate. The current knowledge is that the risk appears to be double that in the general population. In patients with JME, valproate remains an essential and life-changing agent. The consequences of a lifetime of poorly controlled epilepsy need to be balanced against the teratogenic risks of valproate during limited times in a woman's life. The management of JME in WWE should include lifestyle interventions, with avoidance of sleep deprivation, and planned pregnancy.

Valproate MHRA Guidance: Limitations and Opportunities

Recent publication of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom has strengthened the regulatory measures for valproate medicines. It highlights the importance of making women of childbearing age with epilepsy aware of the teratogenic risks of valproate and encourages the withdrawal of it from those currently prescribed. While a significant directive, it raises concerns of not having considered the impact on special populations such as women with Intellectual Disability (ID). While it is important that women with ID are not excluded from such safety initiatives, due caution needs to be taken on a case by case basis preferably, to ensure their best interests are central to the decision making. Many women with moderate to profound ID cannot have informed consented sexual relationships not to mention cognitive incapability to make informed choices on medication suitability. These women are at potential risk of having their epilepsy control undermined due to the MHRA directives. Around 30% of people with moderate to profound ID have seizures of which 60% are considered treatment resistant. In this vulnerable population changes to medication without clear clinical and social insights could lead to increased harm levels. This paper enumerates the challenges of application of the new directive to these special populations and proposes a pathway based on individual cognitive ability to provide informed consent to facilitate the continuation or removal of valproate. It is important not to lose sight of individual circumstances and the importance of working collaboratively toward providing person center care.

Adverse drug reactions associated with six commonly used antiepileptic drugs in southern China from 2003 to 2015

BACKGROUND

This active, open observational study aimed to investigate adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with six commonly used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in southern Chinese outpatients with epilepsy from 2003 to 2015.

METHODS

The Wenzhou Epilepsy Follow-Up Registry Database (WEFURD) was established by a single epilepsy center in China in January 2003 to record AED efficacy and the associated ADRs by registered outpatients diagnosed with epilepsy. We reviewed the data of outpatients who had only taken one or more of six commonly used AEDs, namely, carbamazepine (CBZ), valproate (VPA), lamotrigine (LTG), oxcarbazepine (OXC), topiramate (TPM) and levetiracetam (LEV), and were registered in the WEFURD between 2003 and 2015. We evaluated the ADRs caused by the single or combined use of the above six specific AEDs based on the WHO-UMC scale. The data of the ADRs were categorized by age, sex, number of AEDs related to ADRs, medications, seriousness of ADRs, causality levels of the WHO-UMC scale and system organ class (SOC). The unit of analysis was one ADR.

RESULTS

A total of 3069 epilepsy outpatients (1807 outpatients with 5049 eligible ADRs and 1262 outpatients without ADRs) were included. The overall ADR rate was 58.88% (1807/3069). An average of 2.79 ADRs (5049/1807) occurred per patient with an ADR; 53.8% of the 5049 ADRs were recorded in females, and 50.4% were caused by monotherapy. Of the ADRs, 10.6% (537/5049) were severe adverse reactions (SARs), including 34 serious adverse effects (SAEs). The SAR rates caused by one, two and three or more AEDs were 9.9, 10.0 and 19.6%, respectively (p <  0.001). Eighteen SOC categories were identified, and the top three were psychiatric disorders (1633/5049, 32.3%), neurological disorders (1222/5049, 24.2%) and gastrointestinal disorders (564/5049, 11.2%). Of the 537 SARs, skin and appendage disorders accounted for 24.4% (131/537). Among the 34 SAEs, serious allergies, fetal malformations, renal calculus and pancreatitis accounted for the majority.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that clinicians should pay attention to psychiatric ADRs and be alert for SARs, especially when three or more AEDs are used together. Moreover, active surveillance might provide another method of pharmacovigilance in China.

Association of Prenatal Exposure to Valproate and Other Antiepileptic Drugs With Risk for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Offspring

IMPORTANCE

Valproate is an antiepileptic drug (AED) used in the treatment of epilepsy and many other neurological and psychiatric disorders. Its use in pregnancy is associated with increased risks of congenital malformations and adverse neurodevelopment in the offspring and may be associated with an increased risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether prenatal exposure to valproate and other AEDs is associated with an increased risk of ADHD in the offspring.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a population-based cohort study of all live-born singleton children in Denmark from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2011 (N = 913 302). Information on prenatal exposure to AEDs, including valproate, was obtained from the Danish National Prescription Registry and all children with ADHD were identified (children with diagnosed ADHD in the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register or children who redeemed a prescription for ADHD medication). The cohort was followed up from birth until the day of the ADHD diagnosis, death, emigration, or December 31, 2015, whichever came first. Data were analyzed in September 2018.

EXPOSURES

Maternal use of valproate and other AEDs in pregnancy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cox regression estimates of the hazard ratio of ADHD. Estimates were adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

The cohort included 913 302 children (mean age at end of study, 10.1 years; median age, 9.4 years; interquartile range, 7.2-12.8 years; 468 708 [51.3%] male). A total of 580 were identified as having been exposed to valproate during pregnancy; of them, 49 (8.4%) had ADHD. Among the 912 722 children who were unexposed to valproate, 29 396 (3.2%) had ADHD. Children with prenatal valproate exposure had a 48% increased risk of ADHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-2.00) compared with children with no valproate exposure. The absolute 15-year risk of ADHD was 4.6% (95% CI, 4.5%-4.6%) in children unexposed to valproate and 11.0% (95% CI, 8.2%-14.2%) in children who were exposed to valproate in pregnancy. No associations were found between other AEDs and ADHD.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Maternal use of valproate, but not other AEDs, during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of ADHD in the offspring. These findings have important implications for the counseling of women of childbearing potential using valproate.

In utero exposure to antiepileptic drugs is associated with learning disabilities among offspring

OBJECTIVES

In utero exposure to antiepileptic drugs has previously been associated with adverse outcome among offspring, but evidence on longer term milestone development remains limited. We investigated the association between in utero exposure to antiepileptic drugs and learning disabilities in the first year of compulsory education among offspring and assessed which antiepileptic drugs carried the highest risk.

METHODS

This population-based case-cohort study used Danish nationwide register data from 2005 to 2008. Cases were offspring exposed to antiepileptic drugs in utero, and controls were unexposed offspring of mothers previously redeeming antiepileptic drug prescriptions. Offspring were followed from birth until the first year of compulsory education from 2011 to 2015. Learning disabilities were defined as mental retardation, specific developmental disorders, autism spectrum disorders, emotional/behavioural disorders or having special educational needs. Logistic regression was used to compute ORs with 95% CIs adjusted for potential confounding.

RESULTS

Of 117 475 incident singleton births, 636 cases and 434 controls were included (median age: 6.1 years, males: 55.7%). Learning disabilities were identified among 7.1% cases compared with 3.7% for controls. During any trimester, the adjusted OR of the association between in utero exposure to antiepileptic drugs and learning disabilities was 2.20 (95% CI 1.16 to 4.17). Among cases not exposed to polytherapy (n=556), in utero exposure to lamotrigine compared with another antiepileptic drug was associated with the lowest adjusted risk (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.92), and valproate carried a higher risk (OR 4.67, 95% CI 1.73 to 12.59).

CONCLUSION

In utero exposure to antiepileptic drugs was significantly associated with learning disabilities among offspring. Lamotrigine should preferentially be considered over, for example, valproate if clinically feasible.

Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2016. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenobarbitone are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for focal onset seizures, and is used in the USA and Europe. Phenobarbitone is no longer considered a first-line treatment because of concerns over associated adverse events, particularly documented behavioural adverse events in children treated with the drug. However, phenobarbitone is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these trials are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 24 May 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or phenobarbitone in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials in this review and IPD were available for 836 individuals out of 1455 eligible individuals from six trials, 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 676 participants: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 619 participants: 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97, low-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 487 participants: 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78, moderate-quality evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 822 participants: 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38, moderate-quality evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 683 participants: 1.09, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40, low-quality evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 683 participants: 1.01, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).Results of these secondary outcomes suggest that there may be an association between treatment effect in terms of efficacy and seizure type; that is, that participants with focal onset seizures experience seizure recurrence later and hence remission of seizures earlier on phenobarbitone than carbamazepine, and vice versa for individuals with generalised seizures. It is likely that the analyses of these outcomes were confounded by several methodological issues and misclassification of seizure type, which could have introduced the heterogeneity and bias into the results of this review.Limited information was available regarding adverse events in the trials and we could not compare the rates of adverse events between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. Some adverse events reported on both drugs were abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, drowsiness, motor and cognitive disturbances, dysmorphic side effects (such as rash), and behavioural side effects in three paediatric trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence from this review suggests that carbamazepine is likely to be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate- to low-quality evidence from this review also suggests an association between treatment efficacy and seizure type in terms of seizure recurrence and seizure remission, with an advantage for phenobarbitone for focal onset seizures and an advantage for carbamazepine for generalised onset seizures.However, some of the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and inconsistencies that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Exposure to antiepileptic drugs in pregnancy: The need for a family factor framework

PURPOSE

Children exposed to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in utero are at risk for developmental problems. Maternal epilepsy, its impact on the family system, and other family factors may also contribute. We reviewed the possible associations between family factors and developmental outcome in children who had been exposed to AED during pregnancy.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review and searched MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO on the following terms: in utero exposure, pregnancy outcome, and AEDs. A family factor framework (the ABCX model) served as the basis to review distinct family factors in children who were exposed to AEDs in pregnancy.

RESULTS

Few studies have investigated these factors. Mothers with epilepsy have problems caring for themselves and for the child and experience more parenting stress. There is a paucity of studies of the possible impact of family factors on the neurocognitive and behavioral development of children of mothers with epilepsy.

DISCUSSION

Further work is required to ascertain which family factors are associated with child development in addition to the effects of AED exposure and their potential interaction. As epilepsy may have considerable impact on intrafamily factors and as children are especially vulnerable to such effects, study designs incorporating family factors should be encouraged.

Sodium valproate versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free, and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, sodium valproate and phenytoin are commonly used antiepileptic drugs for monotherapy treatment. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for focal onset seizures, and that sodium pvalproate is more effective for generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons. This is the latest updated version of the review first published in 2001, and updated in 2013 and 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of sodium valproate compared to phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP on 19 February 2018. We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monotherapy with either sodium valproate or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month, and 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials in this review and IPD were available for 669 individuals out of 1119 eligible individuals from five out of 11 trials, 60% of the potential data. Results apply to focal onset seizures (simple, complex and secondary generalised tonic-clonic seizures), and generalised tonic-clonic seizures, but not other generalised seizure types (absence or myoclonus seizure types). For remission outcomes, a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin, and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for sodium valproate.The main overall results were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.27; 5 studies; 528 participants; moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 0.77, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.37; 4 studies; 418 participants; moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR for all participants 1.16 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 5 studies; 451 participants; moderate-quality evidence). These results suggest that treatment failure for any reason related to treatment and treatment failure due to adverse events may occur earlier on phenytoin compared to sodium valproate, while treatment failure due to lack of efficacy may occur earlier on sodium valproate than phenytoin; however none of these results were statistically significant.Results for time to first seizure (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; 5 studies; 639 participants; low-quality evidence) suggest that first seizure recurrence may occur slightly earlier on sodium valproate compared to phenytoin. There were no clear differences between drugs in terms of time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28; 4 studies; 514 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; 5 studies; 639 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Limited information was available regarding adverse events in the trials and we could not make comparisons between the rates of adverse events on sodium valproate and phenytoin. Some adverse events reported with both drugs were drowsiness, rash, dizziness, nausea and gastrointestinal problems. Weight gain was also reported with sodium valproate and gingival hypertrophy/hyperplasia was reported on phenytoin.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however four out of the five trials providing IPD for analysis were of an open-label design, therefore all results were at risk of detection bias. There was also evidence that misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review, particularly for the outcome 'time to first seizure' and heterogeneity was present in analysis of treatment failure outcomes which could not be explained by subgroup analysis by epilepsy type or by sensitivity analysis for misclassification of seizure type. Therefore, for treatment failure outcomes we judged the quality of the evidence to be moderate to low, for 'time to first seizure' we judged the quality of the evidence to be low, and for remission outcomes we judged the quality of the evidence to be moderate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between valproate and phenytoin for any of the outcomes examined in this review. However detection bias, classification bias and heterogeneity may have impacted on the results of this review. We did not find any outright evidence to support or refute current treatment policies. We recommend that future trials be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 11, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free, and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are recommended as first-line treatments for new onset focal seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the first searches for this review in 1997. For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Clinical Trials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 26 February 2018, without language restrictions SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3787 eligible individuals from nine out of 14 trials: 68% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for carbamazepine; and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.82, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.55 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.66, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR for all participants: 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.41), moderate-quality evidence) showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine in terms of treatment failure for any reason related to treatment and treatment failure due to adverse events, but no different between drugs for treatment failure due to lack of efficacy.Time to first seizure (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 1.26, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41, high-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.97, high-quality evidence), showed a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (pooled HR for all participants 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07, high-quality evidence) or time to 24-month remission (HR for all participants 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25, high-quality evidence), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the treatment failure and withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment failure to be moderate for individuals with focal onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence indicates that treatment failure for any reason related to treatment or due to adverse events occurs significantly earlier on carbamazepine than lamotrigine, but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. The choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Learning the effects of psychotropic drugs during pregnancy using real-world safety data: a paradigm shift toward modern pharmacovigilance

The growing evidence on psychotropic drug safety in pregnancy has been possible thanks to the increasing availability of real-world data, i.e. data not collected in conventional randomised controlled trials. Use of these data is a key to establish psychotropic drug effects on foetal, child, and maternal health. Despite the inherent limitations and pitfalls of observational data, these can still be informative after a critical appraisal of the collective body of evidence has been done. By valuing real-world safety data, and making these a larger part of the regulatory decision-making process, we move toward a modern pregnancy pharmacovigilance. The recent uptake of real-world safety data by health authorities has set the basis for an important paradigm shift, which is integrating such data into drug labelling. The recent safety assessment of sodium valproate in pregnant and childbearing women is probably one of the first examples of modern pregnancy pharmacovigilance.

Hypertensive pregnancy complications in women with epilepsy and antiepileptic drugs: a population-based cohort study of first pregnancies in Norway

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the risk of hypertensive pregnancy complications in women with epilepsy, with and without antiepileptic drugs, and assess the risk associated with the four most common antiepileptic drugs.

DESIGN

A population-based cohort study using linked data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway and the Norwegian Prescription Database. Women with epilepsy with and without antiepileptic drugs were compared with women without epilepsy.

SETTING

Norway, 2004-2012.

PARTICIPANTS

All first pregnancies of women with epilepsy and women without epilepsy were included.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Main outcome measures were hypertensive pregnancy complications: a compound variable of any hypertensive disorder, gestational hypertension, mild pre-eclampsia, severe pre-eclampsia, early onset pre-eclampsia, eclampsia and HELLP syndrome (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelets).

RESULTS

In total, 1778 pregnancies in women with epilepsy and 221 662 in women without epilepsy were analysed. 682 of the women with epilepsy used antiepileptic drugs, the most common in monotherapy being: lamotrigine (n=280), carbamazepine (n=94), levetiracetam (n=71) and valproate (n=51). There was an increased risk of any hypertensive disorder in women with epilepsy (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.5) and in the subcategory using valproat (aOR 2.9, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.4). The most frequent hypertensive complication was mild pre-eclampsia and the risk was increased in women with epilepsy (aOR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8) and women with epilepsy with valproat (aOR 3.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 9.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with epilepsy have an increased risk of mild pre-eclampsia, but not for the severe types of hypertensive pregnancy complications. Lamotrigine and levetiracetam do not predispose for mild pre-eclampsia, whereas valproate was associated with an increased risk of mild pre-eclampsia.

Short- and long-term complications of in utero exposure to lamotrigine

AIMS

The present study evaluates the effect of antenatal lamotrigine exposure, on short- and long-term paediatric outcome.

METHODS

The study included the children of 83 epileptic women treated with lamotrigine during pregnancy, at a tertiary medical centre between 2004-2014. All newborns were monitored for vital signs, congenital malformations and Finnegan score. In addition, the parents completed a questionnaire regarding their child's development and health up to the age of 12 years.

RESULTS

No major malformations were found in the newborns. None of the newborns had significant withdrawal symptoms by Finnegan score. The children were followed-up to the age of 12 years (56.6% were 6-12 years at the time of evaluation). There were no significant findings in the incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our experience, lamotrigine is generally safe for pregnancy use, associated with minimal short-term complications with no long-term effects on the outcome.

Contacting of authors by systematic reviewers: protocol for a cross-sectional study and a survey

BACKGROUND

Synthesizing outcomes of underreported primary studies can pose a serious threat to the validity of outcomes and conclusions of systematic reviews. To address this problem, the Cochrane Collaboration recommends reviewers to contact authors of eligible primary studies to obtain additional information on poorly reported items. In this protocol, we present a cross-sectional study and a survey to assess (1) how reviewers of new Cochrane intervention reviews report on procedures and outcomes of contacting of authors of primary studies to obtain additional data, (2) how authors reply, and (3) the consequences of these additional data on the outcomes and quality scores in the review. All research questions and methods were pilot tested on 2 months of Cochrane reviews and were subsequently fine-tuned.

METHODS FOR THE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Eligibility criteria are (1) all new (not-updates) Cochrane intervention reviews published in 2016, (2) reviews that included one or more primary studies, and (3) eligible interventions refer to contacting of authors of the eligible primary studies included in the review to obtain additional research data (e.g., information on unreported or missing data, individual patient data, research methods, and bias issues). Searching for eligible reviews and data extraction will be conducted by two authors independently. The cross-sectional study will primarily focus on how contacting of authors is conducted and reported, how contacted authors reply, and how reviewers report on obtained additional data and their consequences for the review.

METHODS FOR THE SURVEY

The same eligible reviews for the cross-sectional study will also be eligible for the survey. Surveys will be sent to the contact addresses of these reviews according to a pre-defined protocol. We will use Google Forms as our survey platform. Surveyees are asked to answer eight questions. The survey will primarily focus on the consequences of contacting authors of eligible primary studies for the risk of bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation scores and the primary and secondary outcomes of the review.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study could help improve methods of contacting authors and reporting of these procedures and their outcomes. Patients, clinicians, researchers, guideline developers, research sponsors, and the general public will all be beneficiaries.

Association of Antidepressant Medication Use During Pregnancy With Intellectual Disability in Offspring

IMPORTANCE

Maternal antidepressant medication use during pregnancy has previously been associated with adverse outcomes in offspring, but to our knowledge, the association with intellectual disability (ID) has not been investigated.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association of maternal antidepressant medication use during pregnancy with ID in offspring and investigate the importance of parental mental illness for such an association.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A population-based cohort study of 179 007 children born from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007, with complete parental information from national registers who were followed up from birth throughout 2014.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

We estimated relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs of ID in children exposed during pregnancy to any antidepressant medication or specifically to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, all other non-SSRI antidepressants, or other nonantidepressant psychotropic medications. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders. In addition to full population analyses, we used a subsample to compare mothers who used antidepressants during pregnancy with mothers who had at least one diagnosis of depression or anxiety before childbirth but did not use antidepressants during pregnancy.

RESULTS

Of the 179 007 children included in the study (mean [SD] age at end of follow-up, 7.9 [0.6] years; 92 133 [51.5%] male and 86 874 [48.5%] female), ID was diagnosed in 37 children (0.9%) exposed to antidepressants and in 819 children (0.5%) unexposed to antidepressants. With adjustment for potential confounders, the RR of ID after antidepressant exposure was estimated at 1.33 (95% CI, 0.90-1.98) in the full population sample and 1.64 (95% CI, 0.95-2.83) in the subsample of women with depression. Results from analyses of SSRI antidepressants, non-SSRI antidepressants, and nonantidepressant psychotropic medications and analyses in the clinically relevant subsample did not deviate from the full-sample results.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The unadjusted RR of ID was increased in offspring born to mothers treated with antidepressants during pregnancy. After adjustment for confounding factors, however, the current study did not find evidence of an association between ID and maternal antidepressant medication use during pregnancy. Instead, the association may be attributable to a mechanism integral to other factors, such as parental age and mother's psychiatric disorder.

Valproic Acid in Women and Girls of Childbearing Age

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this paper is to evaluate recent literature on valproic acid (VPA) in women and girls of childbearing age and to emphasize new findings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research confirms VPAs teratogenicity and risk of hormone disruption. VPA exposure in utero increases the risk for a variety of major congenital malformations (MCMs), reduced IQ and behavioral problems. In girls and women, VPA increases the risk of hormone abnormalities, obesity, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Despite guidelines recommending caution, VPA use continues to be prescribed to reproductive-aged women and girls. Despite significant and well-documented risk, adherence to guidelines in VPA use in reproductive-aged girls and women remains low.

Comparative safety of antiepileptic drugs for neurological development in children exposed during pregnancy and breast feeding: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Compare the safety of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on neurodevelopment of infants/children exposed in utero or during breast feeding.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA). MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until 27 April 2017. Screening, data abstraction and quality appraisal were completed in duplicate by independent reviewers.

PARTICIPANTS

29 cohort studies including 5100 infants/children.

INTERVENTIONS

Monotherapy and polytherapy AEDs including first-generation (carbamazepine, clobazam, clonazepam, ethosuximide, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, valproate) and newer-generation (gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, vigabatrin) AEDs. Epileptic women who did not receive AEDs during pregnancy or breast feeding served as the control group.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Cognitive developmental delay and autism/dyspraxia were primary outcomes. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, language delay, neonatal seizures, psychomotor developmental delay and social impairment were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The NMA on cognitive developmental delay (11 cohort studies, 933 children, 18 treatments) suggested that among all AEDs only valproate was statistically significantly associated with more children experiencing cognitive developmental delay compared with control (OR=7.40, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3.00 to 18.46). The NMA on autism (5 cohort studies, 2551 children, 12 treatments) suggested that oxcarbazepine (OR 13.51, CrI 1.28 to 221.40), valproate (OR 17.29, 95% CrI 2.40 to 217.60), lamotrigine (OR 8.88, CrI 1.28 to 112.00) and lamotrigine+valproate (OR 132.70, CrI 7.41 to 3851.00) were associated with significantly greater odds of developing autism compared with control. The NMA on psychomotor developmental delay (11 cohort studies, 1145 children, 18 treatments) found that valproate (OR 4.16, CrI 2.04 to 8.75) and carbamazepine+phenobarbital+valproate (OR 19.12, CrI 1.49 to 337.50) were associated with significantly greater odds of psychomotor delay compared with control.

CONCLUSIONS

Valproate alone or combined with another AED is associated with the greatest odds of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes compared with control. Oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine were associated with increased occurrence of autism. Counselling is advised for women considering pregnancy to tailor the safest regimen.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO database (CRD42014008925).

British Association for Psychopharmacology consensus guidance on the use of psychotropic medication preconception, in pregnancy and postpartum 2017

Decisions about the use of psychotropic medication in pregnancy are an ongoing challenge for clinicians and women with mental health problems, owing to the uncertainties around risks of the illness itself to mother and fetus/infant, effectiveness of medications in pregnancy and risks to the fetus/infant from in utero exposure or via breast milk. These consensus guidelines aim to provide pragmatic advice regarding these issues. They are divided into sections on risks of untreated illness in pregnancy; general principles of using drugs in the perinatal period; benefits and harms associated with individual drugs; and recommendations for the management of specific disorders.

Women with epilepsy: clinically relevant issues

Women with epilepsy (WWE) face specific challenges throughout their lifespan due to the effects of seizures and antiepileptic drugs on hormonal function, potentially affecting both sexual and reproductive health. This review article addresses the most common issues of practical relevance to clinicians treating WWE: epidemiology and clinical presentations (including catamenial epilepsy), contraception, reproductive and sexual dysfunction, pregnancy, lactation, menopause-related issues (including bone health), and mental health aspects. Awareness of these gender-specific issues and implementation/adaptation of effective interventions for WWE results in significantly improved health-related quality of life in this patient population.

Prenatal exposure to antiepileptic drugs and use of primary healthcare during childhood: a population-based cohort study in Denmark

OBJECTIVE

Prenatal exposure to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) has been associated with adverse outcomes in the offspring such as congenital malformations and neuropsychiatric disorders. The objective of this study was to investigate whether prenatal exposure to AEDs is also associated with more frequent use of primary healthcare during childhood.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING

Nationwide national registers in Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS

All live-born singletons in Denmark during 1997-2012 identified in the Danish National Patient Register and followed until 31 December 2013 (n=963 010). Information on prenatal exposure to AEDs for maternal indication of epilepsy and other neurological conditions was obtained from the Danish Register of Medicinal Product Statistics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the number and type of contacts with the general practitioner (GP), excluding routine well-child visits and vaccinations. The secondary outcome measure was specific services provided at the GP contact. The association between prenatal exposure to AEDs and contacts with the GP was estimated by using negative binomial regression adjusting for sex and date of birth of the child, maternal age, cohabitation status, income, education, substance abuse, depression, severe psychiatric disorders and use of antipsychotics, antidepressants and insulin.

RESULTS

Children exposed prenatally to AEDs (n=4478) had 3% (95% CI 0 to 5%) more GP contacts during the study period than unexposed children. This was primarily accounted for by the number of phone contacts. Within each year of follow-up, exposed children tended to have more contacts than unexposed children, but the differences were small. We found no difference between exposed and unexposed children with regard to specific services provided at the GP contact. For the individual AEDs, we found that exposure to valproate or oxcarbazepine was associated with more GP contacts.

CONCLUSIONS

We found only minor differences between prenatally AED-exposed and unexposed children in the number of GP contacts.

Risks and benefits of psychotropic medication in pregnancy: cohort studies based on UK electronic primary care health records

BACKGROUND

Although many women treated with psychotropic medication become pregnant, no psychotropic medication has been licensed for use in pregnancy. This leaves women and their health-care professionals in a treatment dilemma, as they need to balance the health of the woman with that of the unborn child. The aim of this project was to investigate the risks and benefits of psychotropic medication in women treated for psychosis who become pregnant.

OBJECTIVE(S)

(1) To provide a descriptive account of psychotropic medication prescribed before pregnancy, during pregnancy and up to 15 months after delivery in UK primary care from 1995 to 2012; (2) to identify risk factors predictive of discontinuation and restarting of lithium (multiple manufacturers), anticonvulsant mood stabilisers and antipsychotic medication; (3) to examine the extent to which pregnancy is a determinant for discontinuation of psychotropic medication; (4) to examine prevalence of records suggestive of adverse mental health, deterioration or relapse 18 months before and during pregnancy, and up to 15 months after delivery; and (5) to estimate absolute and relative risks of adverse maternal and child outcomes of psychotropic treatment in pregnancy.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort studies.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Women treated for psychosis who became pregnant, and their children.

INTERVENTIONS

Treatment with antipsychotics, lithium or anticonvulsant mood stabilisers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Discontinuation and restarting of treatment; worsening of mental health; acute pre-eclampsia/gestational hypertension; gestational diabetes; caesarean section; perinatal death; major congenital malformations; poor birth outcome (low birthweight, preterm birth, small for gestational age, low Apgar score); transient poor birth outcomes (tremor, agitation, breathing and muscle tone problems); and neurodevelopmental and behavioural disorders.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical Practice Research Datalink database and The Health Improvement Network primary care database.

RESULTS

Prescribing of psychotropic medication was relatively constant before pregnancy, decreased sharply in early pregnancy and peaked after delivery. Antipsychotic and anticonvulsant treatment increased over the study period. The recording of markers of worsening mental health peaked after delivery. Pregnancy was a strong determinant for discontinuation of psychotropic medication. However, between 40% and 76% of women who discontinued psychotropic medication before or in early pregnancy restarted treatment by 15 months after delivery. The risk of major congenital malformations, and neurodevelopmental and behavioural outcomes in valproate (multiple manufacturers) users was twice that in users of other anticonvulsants. The risks of adverse maternal and child outcomes in women who continued antipsychotic use in pregnancy were not greater than in those who discontinued treatment before pregnancy.

LIMITATIONS

A few women would have received parts of their care outside primary care, which may not be captured in this analysis. Likewise, the analyses were based on prescribing data, which may differ from usage.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychotropic medication is prescribed before, during and after pregnancy. Many women discontinue treatment before or during early pregnancy and then restart again in late pregnancy or after delivery. Our results support previous associations between valproate and adverse child outcomes but we found no evidence of such an association for antipsychotics.

FUTURE WORK

Future research should focus on (1) curtailing the use of sodium valproate; (2) estimating the benefits of psychotropic drug use in pregnancy; and (3) investigating the risks associated with lifestyle choices that are more prevalent among women using psychotropic drugs.

FUNDING DETAILS

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Topiramate versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy, the majority of which may be able to achieve remission with a single antiepileptic drug (AED).The correct choice of first-line antiepileptic therapy for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AED for an individual is based on the highest-quality evidence available regarding the potential benefits and harms of various treatments. It is also important to compare the efficacy and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types.Topiramate and carbamazepine are commonly used AEDs. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of results of outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability, and may help inform a choice between the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topiramate monotherapy versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy in people with partial-onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (14 April 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (14 April 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 14 April 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial-onset seizures or generalised-onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types with a comparison of monotherapy with either topiramate or carbamazepine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to first seizure post randomisation', 'time to 6-month remission, 'time to 12-month remission' and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and used the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HRs and 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 1151 of 1239 eligible individuals from two of three eligible studies (93% of the potential data). A small proportion of individuals recruited into these trials had 'unclassified seizures;' for analysis purposes, these individuals are grouped with those with generalised onset seizures. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for topiramate.The main overall results, given as pooled HR adjusted for seizure type (95% CI) were: for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.16 (0.98 to 1.38); time to first seizure 1.11 (0.96 to 1.29); and time to 6-month remission 0.88 (0.76 to 1.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs. A statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to 12-month remission: 0.84 (0.71 to 1.00).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial-onset seizures; 85% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. For individuals with partial-onset seizures, a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.45) and time to 12-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00). No statistically significant differences were apparent between the drugs for other outcomes and for the limited number of individuals with generalised-onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types or unclassified seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events with both drugs were drowsiness or fatigue, 'pins and needles' (tingling sensation), headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and anxiety or depression The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.We judged the methodological quality of the included trials generally to be good; however, there was some evidence that the open-label design of the larger of the two trials may have influenced the withdrawal rate from the trial. Hence, we judged the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment withdrawal to be moderate for individuals with partial-onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised-onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the evidence from this review to be high for individuals with partial-onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised-onset or unclassified seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with partial-onset seizures, there is evidence that carbamazepine is less likely to be withdrawn and that 12-month remission will be achieved earlier than with topiramate. No differences were found between the drugs in terms of the outcomes measured in the review for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other seizure types or unclassified epilepsy; however, we encourage caution in the interpretation of these results due to the small numbers of participants with these seizure types.We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible and take into consideration masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line antiepileptic therapy for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments. It is also important that the effectiveness and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types are compared to one another.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are first-line recommended treatments for new onset partial seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to withdrawal, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

The first searches for this review were run in 1997. For the most recent update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (17 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 17 October 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 17 October 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3394 eligible individuals from nine out of 13 trials: 78% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were: time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), time to first seizure (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.37) and time to six-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94), showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine for withdrawal but a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07) or time to 24-month remission (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so the evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment withdrawal to be moderate for individuals with partial onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with partial onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lamotrigine was significantly less likely to be withdrawn than carbamazepine but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. A choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Monotherapy treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy: congenital malformation outcomes in the child

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that certain antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are teratogenic and are associated with an increased risk of congenital malformation. The majority of women with epilepsy continue taking AEDs throughout pregnancy; therefore it is important that comprehensive information on the potential risks associated with AED treatment is available.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prenatal exposure to AEDs on the prevalence of congenital malformations in the child.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (September 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE (via Ovid) (1946 to September 2015), EMBASE (1974 to September 2015), Pharmline (1978 to September 2015), Reprotox (1983 to September 2015) and conference abstracts (2010-2015) without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective cohort controlled studies, cohort studies set within pregnancy registries and randomised controlled trials. Participants were women with epilepsy taking AEDs; the two control groups were women without epilepsy and women with epilepsy who were not taking AEDs during pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently selected studies for inclusion. Five authors completed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome was the presence of a major congenital malformation. Secondary outcomes included specific types of major congenital malformations. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we reviewed included studies narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 studies, with 31 contributing to meta-analysis. Study quality varied, and given the observational design, all were at high risk of certain biases. However, biases were balanced across the AEDs investigated and we believe that the results are not explained by these biases.Children exposed to carbamazepine (CBZ) were at a higher risk of malformation than children born to women without epilepsy (N = 1367 vs 2146, risk ratio (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.36) and women with untreated epilepsy (N = 3058 vs 1287, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.19). Children exposed to phenobarbital (PB) were at a higher risk of malformation than children born to women without epilepsy (N = 345 vs 1591, RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.57 to 5.13). Children exposed to phenytoin (PHT) were at an increased risk of malformation compared with children born to women without epilepsy (N = 477 vs 987, RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.03) and to women with untreated epilepsy (N = 640 vs 1256, RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.08). Children exposed to topiramate (TPM) were at an increased risk of malformation compared with children born to women without epilepsy (N = 359 vs 442, RR 3.69, 95% CI 1.36 to 10.07). The children exposed to valproate (VPA) were at a higher risk of malformation compared with children born to women without epilepsy (N = 467 vs 1936, RR 5.69, 95% CI 3.33 to 9.73) and to women with untreated epilepsy (N = 1923 vs 1259, RR 3.13, 95% CI 2.16 to 4.54). There was no increased risk for major malformation for lamotrigine (LTG). Gabapentin (GBP), levetiracetam (LEV), oxcarbazepine (OXC), primidone (PRM) or zonisamide (ZNS) were not associated with an increased risk, however, there were substantially fewer data for these medications.For AED comparisons, children exposed to VPA had the greatest risk of malformation (10.93%, 95% CI 8.91 to 13.13). Children exposed to VPA were at an increased risk of malformation compared with children exposed to CBZ (N = 2529 vs 4549, RR 2.44, 95% CI 2.00 to 2.94), GBP (N = 1814 vs 190, RR 6.21, 95% CI 1.91 to 20.23), LEV (N = 1814 vs 817, RR 5.82, 95% CI 3.13 to 10.81), LTG (N = 2021 vs 4164, RR 3.56, 95% CI 2.77 to 4.58), TPM (N = 1814 vs 473, RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.40 to 3.95), OXC (N = 676 vs 238, RR 3.71, 95% CI 1.65 to 8.33), PB (N = 1137 vs 626, RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.29, PHT (N = 2319 vs 1137, RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.71) or ZNS (N = 323 vs 90, RR 17.13, 95% CI 1.06 to 277.48). Children exposed to CBZ were at a higher risk of malformation than those exposed to LEV (N = 3051 vs 817, RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.29) and children exposed to LTG (N = 3385 vs 4164, RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.76). Children exposed to PB were at a higher risk of malformation compared with children exposed to GBP (N = 204 vs 159, RR 8.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 50.00), LEV (N = 204 vs 513, RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.00) or LTG (N = 282 vs 1959, RR 3.13, 95% CI 1.64 to 5.88). Children exposed to PHT had a higher risk of malformation than children exposed to LTG (N = 624 vs 4082, RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.94) or to LEV (N = 566 vs 817, RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.85); however, the comparison to LEV was not significant in the random-effects model. Children exposed to TPM were at a higher risk of malformation than children exposed to LEV (N = 473 vs 817, RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.85) or LTG (N = 473 vs 3975, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.94). There were no other significant differences, or comparisons were limited to a single study.We found significantly higher rates of specific malformations associating PB exposure with cardiac malformations and VPA exposure with neural tube, cardiac, oro-facial/craniofacial, and skeletal and limb malformations in comparison to other AEDs. Dose of exposure mediated the risk of malformation following VPA exposure; a potential dose-response association for the other AEDs remained less clear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Exposure in the womb to certain AEDs carried an increased risk of malformation in the foetus and may be associated with specific patterns of malformation. Based on current evidence, LEV and LTG exposure carried the lowest risk of overall malformation; however, data pertaining to specific malformations are lacking. Physicians should discuss both the risks and treatment efficacy with the patient prior to commencing treatment.

Evidence for spared attention to faces in 7-month-old infants after prenatal exposure to antiepileptic drugs

INTRODUCTION

Prenatal antiepileptic drug (AED) exposure is associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment and autism spectrum disorders detected mainly at the age of two to six years. We examined whether the developmental aberrations associated with prenatal AED exposure could be detected already in infancy and whether effects on visual attention can be observed at this early age.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We compared a prospective cohort of infants with in utero exposure to AED (n=56) with infants without drug exposures (n=62). The assessments performed at the age of seven months included standardized neurodevelopmental scores (Griffiths Mental Developmental Scale and Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination) as well as a novel eye-tracking-based test for visual attention and orienting to faces. Background information included prospective collection of AED exposure data, pregnancy outcome, neuropsychological evaluation of the mothers, and information on maternal epilepsy type.

RESULTS

Carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and valproate, but not lamotrigine or levetiracetam, were associated with impaired early language abilities at the age of seven months. The general speed of visuospatial orienting or attentional bias for faces measured by eye-tracker-based tests did not differ between AED-exposed and control infants.

DISCUSSION

Our findings support the idea that prenatal AED exposure may impair verbal abilities, and this effect may be detected already in infancy. In contrast, the early development of attention to faces was spared after in utero AED exposure.

[Affective disorders during pregnancy : Therapy with antidepressants and mood stabilizers]

BACKGROUND

It is not rare that the first manifestation or relapse of an affective disorder occurs during pregnancy. Should a pharmacological treatment be indicated, the selection of a suitable substance should be made on a basis which is as safe as possible. Even when treating women of childbearing age it should be assured that the psychotropic drug selected is safe to use during pregnancy as a high percentage of pregnancies are unplanned.

OBJECTIVE

When assessing the risks and benefits of psychopharmacotherapy in women who are or wish to get pregnant, not only the exposure of the child to potentially teratogenic drug effects but also potential complications during or after pregnancy and long-term neuropsychological issues need to be addressed.

METHODS

This article provides an overview of the currently available literature on the use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy.

RESULTS

A growing body of increasingly reliable data for many antidepressants and mood stabilizers are available, which allow a good prediction of their suitability for use during pregnancy and lactation.

CONCLUSION

When treating affective disorders during pregnancy an individual assessment of the benefits and risks for mother and child is required. The benefit of an appropriate treatment for the mother by including medication which may be potentially harmful to the child versus the risk of an insufficient treatment for the mother by excluding medication which may be potentially harmful to both the mother and the child need to be weighed up. When a suitable psychopharmacotherapy during pregnancy has been selected, the risk for mother and child can be minimized by incorporation of therapeutic drug monitoring.

Withdrawal syndrome and hypomagnesaemia and in a newborn exposed to valproic acid and carbamazepine during pregnancy

The usage of drugs during pregnancy affect the fetus and the newborn. In this report, we present findings from a newborn baby, whose mother was epileptic, and was under the treatment of valproic acid and carbamazepine during pregnancy. We have found symptoms of withdrawal syndrome, hyponatremia and feeding problem, which was most probably related to exposure to the mentioned drugs. We have also diagnosed hypomagnesaemia and atrial septal defect 4 milimeters in diameter. There are already many reports about the side effects of valproic acid and carbamazepine usage during pregnancy. To the best of our knowledge, hypomagnesaemia has not yet been reported as a side effect. We think that hypomagnesaemia is also related to the usage of antiepileptics.