Lamotrigine add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

Lamotrigine add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review last updated in 2020. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder, affecting 0.5% to 1% of the population. In nearly 30% of cases, epilepsy is resistant to currently available drugs. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Lamotrigine is a second-generation antiseizure medication. When used as an add-on (in combination with other antiseizure medications), lamotrigine can reduce seizures, but with some adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of add-on lamotrigine, compared with add-on placebo or no add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 3 October 2022 with no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated add-on lamotrigine versus add-on placebo or no add-on treatment in people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We used data from the first period of eligible cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. Our primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Our secondary outcomes were treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, cognitive effects, and quality of life. Primary analyses were by intention-to-treat. We performed sensitivity best- and worse-case analyses to account for missing outcome data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cls) for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no new studies for this update, so the results and conclusions of the review are unchanged. We included five parallel-group studies in adults or children, eight cross-over studies in adults or children, and one parallel study with a responder-enriched design in infants. In total, these 14 studies enroled 1806 eligible participants (38 infants, 199 children, 1569 adults). Baseline phases ranged from four to 12 weeks and treatment phases ranged from eight to 36 weeks. We rated 11 studies (1243 participants) at low overall risk of bias and three (697 participants) at unclear overall risk of bias due to lack of information on study design. Four studies (563 participants) reported effective blinding. Lamotrigine compared with placebo probably increases the likelihood of achieving 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.23; 12 trials, 1322 participants (adults and children); moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in risk of treatment withdrawal for any reason among people treated with lamotrigine versus people treated with placebo (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 14 trials; 1806 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Lamotrigine compared with placebo is probably associated with a greater risk of ataxia (RR 3.34, 99% Cl 2.01 to 5.55; 12 trials; 1525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), dizziness (RR 1.76, 99% Cl 1.28 to 2.43; 13 trials; 1768 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), nausea (RR 1.81, 99% CI 1.22 to 2.68; 12 studies, 1486 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and diplopia (RR 3.79, 99% Cl 2.15 to 6.68; 3 trials, 944 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of fatigue between lamotrigine and placebo (RR 0.82, 99% CI 0.55 to 1.22; 12 studies, 1552 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lamotrigine as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal seizures is probably effective for reducing seizure frequency. Certain adverse effects (ataxia, dizziness, diplopia, and nausea) are probably more likely to occur with lamotrigine compared with placebo. There is probably little or no difference in the number of people who withdraw from treatment with lamotrigine versus placebo. The trials were of relatively short duration and provided no long-term evidence. In addition, some trials had few participants. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of lamotrigine and to compare lamotrigine with other add-on drugs.

Assessment of clinically actionable pharmacogenetic markers to stratify anti-seizure medications

Epilepsy treatment is challenging due to heterogeneous syndromes, different seizure types and higher inter-individual variability. Identification of genetic variants predicting drug efficacy, tolerability and risk of adverse-effects for anti-seizure medications (ASMs) is essential. Here, we assessed the clinical actionability of known genetic variants, based on their functional and clinical significance and estimated their diagnostic predictability. We performed a systematic PubMed search to identify articles with pharmacogenomic (PGx) information for forty known ASMs. Functional annotation of the identified genetic variants was performed using different in silico tools, and their clinical significance was assessed using the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) guidelines for variant pathogenicity, level of evidence (LOE) from PharmGKB and the United States-Food and drug administration (US- FDA) drug labelling with PGx information. Diagnostic predictability of the replicated genetic variants was evaluated by calculating their accuracy. A total of 270 articles were retrieved with PGx evidence associated with 19 ASMs including 178 variants across 93 genes, classifying 26 genetic variants as benign/ likely benign, fourteen as drug response markers and three as risk factors for drug response. Only seventeen of these were replicated, with accuracy (up to 95%) in predicting PGx outcomes specific to six ASMs. Eight out of seventeen variants have FDA-approved PGx drug labelling for clinical implementation. Therefore, the remaining nine variants promise for potential clinical actionability and can be improvised with additional experimental evidence for clinical utility.

Psychobehavioural and Cognitive Adverse Events of Anti-Seizure Medications for the Treatment of Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathies

The developmental and epileptic encephalopathies encompass a group of rare syndromes characterised by severe drug-resistant epilepsy with onset in childhood and significant neurodevelopmental comorbidities. The latter include intellectual disability, developmental delay, behavioural problems including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder, psychiatric problems including anxiety and depression, speech impairment and sleep problems. Classical examples of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies include Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and tuberous sclerosis complex. The mainstay of treatment is with multiple anti-seizure medications (ASMs); however, the ASMs themselves can be associated with psychobehavioural adverse events, and effects (negative or positive) on cognition and sleep. We have performed a targeted literature review of ASMs commonly used in the treatment of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies to discuss the latest evidence on their effects on behaviour, mood, cognition, sedation and sleep. The ASMs include valproate (VPA), clobazam, topiramate (TPM), cannabidiol (CBD), fenfluramine (FFA), levetiracetam (LEV), brivaracetam (BRV), zonisamide (ZNS), perampanel (PER), ethosuximide, stiripentol, lamotrigine (LTG), rufinamide, vigabatrin, lacosamide (LCM) and everolimus. Bromide, felbamate and other sodium channel ASMs are discussed briefly. Overall, the current evidence suggest that LEV, PER and to a lesser extent BRV are associated with psychobehavioural adverse events including aggressiveness and irritability; TPM and to a lesser extent ZNS are associated with language impairment and cognitive dulling/memory problems. Patients with a history of behavioural and psychiatric comorbidities may be more at risk of developing psychobehavioural adverse events. Topiramate and ZNS may be associated with negative effects in some aspects of cognition; CBD, FFA, LEV, BRV and LTG may have some positive effects, while the remaining ASMs do not appear to have a detrimental effect. All the ASMs are associated with sedation to a certain extent, which is pronounced during uptitration. Cannabidiol, PER and pregabalin may be associated with improvements in sleep, LTG is associated with insomnia, while VPA, TPM, LEV, ZNS and LCM do not appear to have detrimental effects. There was variability in the extent of evidence for each ASM: for many first-generation and some second-generation ASMs, there is scant documented evidence; however, their extensive use suggests favourable tolerability and safety (e.g. VPA); second-generation and some third-generation ASMs tend to have the most robust evidence documented over several years of use (TPM, LEV, PER, ZNS, BRV), while evidence is still being generated for newer ASMs such as CBD and FFA. Finally, we discuss how a variety of factors can affect mood, behaviour and cognition, and untangling the associations between the effects of the underlying syndrome and those of the ASMs can be challenging. In particular, there is enormous heterogeneity in cognitive, behavioural and developmental impairments that is complex and can change naturally over time; there is a lack of standardised instruments for evaluating these outcomes in developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, with a reliance on subjective evaluations by proxy (caregivers); and treatment regimes are complex involving multiple ASMs as well as other drugs.

Patient characteristics and antiseizure medication pathways in newly diagnosed epilepsy: Feasibility and pilot results using the common data model in a single-center electronic medical record database

INTRODUCTION

Efforts to characterize variability in epilepsy treatment pathways are limited by the large number of possible antiseizure medication (ASM) regimens and sequences, heterogeneity of patients, and challenges of measuring confounding variables and outcomes across institutions. The Observational Health Data Science and Informatics (OHDSI) collaborative is an international data network representing over 1 billion patient records using common data standards. However, few studies have applied OHDSI's Common Data Model (CDM) to the population with epilepsy and none have validated relevant concepts. The goals of this study were to demonstrate the feasibility of characterizing adult patients with epilepsy and ASM treatment pathways using the CDM in an electronic health record (EHR)-derived database.

METHODS

We validated a phenotype algorithm for epilepsy in adults using the CDM in an EHR-derived database (2001-2020) against source records and a prospectively maintained database of patients with confirmed epilepsy. We obtained the frequency of all antecedent conditions and procedures for patients meeting the epilepsy phenotype criteria and characterized ASM exposure sequences over time and by age and sex.

RESULTS

The phenotype algorithm identified epilepsy with 73.0-85.0% positive predictive value and 86.3% sensitivity. Many patients had neurologic conditions and diagnoses antecedent to meeting epilepsy criteria. Levetiracetam incrementally replaced phenytoin as the most common first-line agent, but significant heterogeneity remained, particularly in second-line and subsequent agents. Drug sequences included up to 8 unique ingredients and a total of 1,235 unique pathways were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the availability of additional ASMs in the last 2 decades and accumulated guidelines and evidence, ASM use varies significantly in practice, particularly for second-line and subsequent agents. Multi-center OHDSI studies have the potential to better characterize the full extent of variability and support observational comparative effectiveness research, but additional work is needed to validate covariates and outcomes.

Drugs for patients with epilepsy and excessive daytime sleepiness

Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and attentional deficits are often observed in people with epilepsy. They may be the consequence of seizures and subclinical discharges as well as of comorbid conditions as obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (OSAS), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or other less frequent disorders. Excessive daytime sleepiness may also be caused or worsened by antiseizure medications (ASMs). Several meta-analyses suggested that lamotrigine, lacosamide, and perhaps eslicarbazepine are less sedative than other traditional and new ASMs and, in patients prone to somnolence, might be preferred over ASMs with more sedative properties. In patients with severe EDS and/or ADHD, advantages and risks of a treatment with a psychostimulant need to be considered. Methylphenidate, modafinil, armodafinil, pitolisant, and solriamfetol are authorized for use in ADHD and EDS in patients with narcolepsy and some of them also in OSAS. These agents are off-label for the treatment of EDS associated with epilepsy. They do not have proconvulsant effects, although there are several possible risks for patients with epilepsy. The risks of cardiovascular events and psychiatric symptoms should be carefully evaluated as such disorders can coexist with epilepsy and be triggered by these agents. Finally, combination of psychostimulants with ASMs may be associated with several pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions.

The effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatment in glioma patients: lamotrigine versus lacosamide

Purpose

Optimal treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important part of care for brain tumor patients with epileptic seizures. Lamotrigine and lacosamide are both examples of frequently used non-enzyme inducing AEDs with limited to no drug-drug interactions, reducing the risk of unfavorable side effects. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of lamotrigine versus lacosamide.

Methods

In this multicenter study we retrospectively analyzed data of patients with diffuse grade 2–4 glioma with epileptic seizures. All patients received either lamotrigine or lacosamide during the course of their disease after treatment failure of first-line monotherapy with levetiracetam or valproic acid. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from initiation of lamotrigine or lacosamide, with death as competing event, for which a competing risk model was used. Secondary outcomes were uncontrolled seizures after AED initiation and level of toxicity.

Results

We included a total of 139 patients of whom 61 (44%) used lamotrigine and 78 (56%) used lacosamide. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason between lamotrigine and lacosamide: 38% (95%CI 26–51%) versus 30% (95%CI 20–41%), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for treatment failure of lacosamide compared to lamotrigine was 0.84 (95%CI 0.46–1.56). The cumulative incidences of treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (18% versus 11%) and due to adverse events (17% versus 19%) did not differ significantly between lamotrigine and lacosamide.

Conclusion

Lamotrigine and lacosamide show similar effectiveness in diffuse glioma patients with epilepsy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11060-021-03800-z.

Preliminary analysis of the effect of vagus nerve stimulation in the treatment of children with intractable epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Implant vagus nerve stimulation is an adjunctive treatment for intractable epilepsy when patients are not suitable for resective surgery.

AIM

To identify the safety and efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation in children with intractable epilepsy and analyze the effects on different epilepsy syndromes.

METHODS

Eligible children with intractable epilepsy were admitted to the study. We collected data from preoperative assessments as the baseline. During the follow-up time, we recorded the process of seizures (frequency, duration, and seizure type), the changes of drugs or parameters, the complications, etc. The mean reduction rate of seizures, response rate, and McHugh scale were chosen as the outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 213 patients were implanted with Tsinghua Pins vagus nerve stimulators, and the average age was 6.6 years. In the follow-up time of postoperative 3 mo, 6 mo, 12 mo, 18 mo, and 24 mo, the average reduction rate was 30.2%, 49.5%, 56.3%, 59.4%, and 63.2%, while the response rate was 21.8%, 62.5%, 57.1%, 69.2%, and 70.7%. In addition, implanted vagus nerve stimulation had different effects on epilepsy syndromes. The reduction rate of West syndrome increased from 36.4% (postoperative 6 m) to 74.3% (postoperative 24 m). The reduction rate of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome improved from 25.4% to 73.1% in 24 mo. The chi-square test of the five efficacy grades showed P < 0.05. The comparison between the 3-mo follow-up and the 6-mo follow-up showed P < 0.05, and the comparison between the 6-mo follow-up and the 24-mo follow-up showed P > 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Vagus nerve stimulation is safe and effective in children with intractable epilepsy, and the seizure reduction occurred in a time-dependent manner. Moreover, patients with West syndrome may get the most benefits.