Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

Critical flicker fusion in patients with epilepsy under antiseizure medication

OBJECTIVE

Critical flicker frequency (CFF) and flicker frequency (FF) are used as indicators for the neurotoxic adverse events of drugs in pharmacology. In this pilot study, we investigated whether patients with epilepsy (PWE) treated with various antiseizure medications (ASM) had significantly different CFFs compared with healthy controls. In addition, we investigated the appropriateness of CFF as an objective measurement tool in PWE who reported adverse events according to the adverse event profile (AEP).

METHODS

Patients receiving regular antiseizure treatment at our center, along with healthy controls, were included in this study. Clinical neurotoxic symptoms, AEP scores, and serum ASM levels were assessed in the PWE group. We used a CFF device that produced a red-black, green-black, blue-black, or white-black flicker. CFF and FF were compared between PWE and healthy controls. In PWE, the correlation of alterations in CFF and FF with AEP results and through ASM serum concentrations was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 33 PWE and 20 healthy controls participated in the study. Except for two light modalities, CFF and FF were significantly reduced in PWE compared with controls. CFF and FF did not differ significantly between PWE with AEP scores >44 points and those with lower scores. CFF and FF levels did not correlate with changes in AEP scores, serum concentrations, or doses.

SIGNIFICANCE

CFF and FF distinguished PWE with ASM from healthy controls. No clinically relevant differentiation was detected in the heterogenous PWE group. To investigate whether CFF and FF may serve as subtle indicators of neurotoxicity or specific modes of action, additional studies are needed in more homogenous PWE groups.

Is phenytoin a safe agent for staple line recovery after gastric sleeve surgery in rats?

BACKGROUND

The most challenging and mortal complication of gastric sleeve surgery (SG) is staple line leakage. Although many agents have been used for increasing tissue healing on the stapler line, there is still no consensus on its effectiveness and efficacy. The aim of study is to determine the effect of phenytoin on the healing process of gastric sleeve surgery in rats.

METHODS

On the 10th post-operative day, the effects of phenytoin on bursting pressure in the stapler line were evaluated along-side pathohistological examinations. To investigate the molecular impact of phenytoin on the expression of TGF-β, VEGF, FGF2, and p53 genes, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction was utilized. In addition, gene expressions at the protein level were deter-mined by immunohistochemical analysis.

RESULTS

No signs of intra-abdominal leakage were observed in the resected samples. A statistically essential extend in stable line bursting pressure measure was observed between the control group and the group treated with phenytoin application. Pathohisto-logical results indicate that the mean score of collagens of the study group (3.2±0.42) was significantly higher than the control group (2.3±0.48) (P=0.003). In addition, the mean epithelization score of the study group (3.4±0.52) was significantly higher than the control group (2.1±0.57) (P=0.001). mRNA of TGFβ, FGF2, VEGF, and p53 genes drastically increased phenytoin treated group. High FGF2 protein expression levels were determined from phenytoin use compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION

Molecular studies suggest that phenytoin may increase the healing process of Gastric sleeve following SG in rats and may become a new agent for the prevention of human gastric leaks.

Integrating real-world data in cost-effectiveness analysis of universal HLA-B*15:02 screening in Malaysia

AIMS

Despite the availability of newer antiseizure medications, carbamazepine (CBZ) remains the gold standard. However, patients of Asian ancestry are susceptible to CBZ-related severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Universal HLA-B*15:02 screening is a promising intervention to address this. With the increasing recognition of integrating real-world evidence in economic evaluations, the cost-effectiveness of universal HLA-B*15:02 screening was assessed using available real-world data in Malaysia.

METHODS

A hybrid model of a decision tree and Markov model was developed to evaluate 3 strategies for treating newly diagnosed epilepsy among adults: (i) CBZ initiation without HLA-B*15:02 screening (current practice); (ii) universal HLA-B*15:02 screening prior to CBZ initiation; and (iii) alternative prescribing without HLA-B*15:02 screening. The model was populated with real-world inputs derived from the Malaysian population. From a societal perspective, base-case analysis and sensitivity analyses estimated the costs and outcomes over a lifetime. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

In the base-cases analysis, universal HLA-B*15:02 screening yielded the lowest total costs and the highest total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Compared with current practice, universal screening was less costly by USD100 and more effective by QALYs increase of 0.1306, while alternative prescribing resulted in 0.1383 QALYs loss at additional costs of USD332. The highest seizure remission rate (56%) was estimated for universal HLA-B*15:02 screening vs. current practice (54%) and alternative prescribing (48%).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that universal HLA-B*15:02 screening is a cost-effective intervention in Malaysia. With the demonstrated value of real-world evidence in economic evaluations, more relevant standardization efforts should be emphasized to better inform decision-making.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel in patients with seizures in real-world clinical practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically review the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used as add-on treatment or monotherapy in patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older in routine clinical practice.

Methods: Electronic and clinical trials databases were searched for observational studies of PER published up to 1 March 2022. The outcomes of interest were responder rates, adverse effects (AEs), and withdrawal rates. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the potential factors that might affect the efficacy and safety of PER usage.

Results: A total of 56 studies, which included 10,688 patients, were enrolled. The results showed that after 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment, the pooled 50% responder rates in patients with epilepsy were 50.0% (95% CI: 0.41–0.60), 44.0% (95% CI: 0.38–0.50), and 39.0% (95% CI: 0.31–0.48), respectively, and the pooled seizure-free rates were 24.0% (95% CI: 0.17–0.32), 21.0% (95% CI: 0.17–0.25), and 20.0% (95% CI: 0.16–0.24), respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that the efficacy of PER could be affected by the way in which PER is administrated. Patients in the groups where PER was used as the first add-on, primary monotherapy, or combined with non–enzyme-inducing AEDs (non-EIAEDs) displayed a high 50% responder rate and seizure-free rate when compared with those in the late add-on, conversion therapy, or combined with the EIAEDs groups, respectively. Furthermore, the incidences of AEs at 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment were 46% (95% CI: 0.38–0.55), 52.0% (95% CI: 0.43–0.60), and 46.0% (95% CI: 0.40–0.52), respectively. The withdrawal rates due to AEs were 8.0% (95% CI: 0.06–0.11), 16.0% (95% CI: 0.13–0.20), and 16% (95% CI: 0.11–0.21) at 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed a higher withdrawal rate in the rapid (30%, 95% CI: 0.22–0.38) than in the slow (12%, 95% CI: 0.06–0.18) titration group.

Conclusion: Altogether, PER was effective and could be fairly tolerated in both short-term and long-term usage in patients with epilepsy in routine clinical practice. Furthermore, PER appeared to be more effective when PER was used as the first add-on, monotherapy, or concomitant with non-EIAEDs.

Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022384532.

Biological Roles of Fibroblasts in Periodontal Diseases

Periodontal diseases include periodontitis and gingival overgrowth. Periodontitis is a bacterial infectious disease, and its pathological cascade is regulated by many inflammatory cytokines secreted by immune or tissue cells, such as interleukin-6. In contrast, gingival overgrowth develops as a side effect of specific drugs, such as immunosuppressants, anticonvulsants, and calcium channel blockers. Human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) are the most abundant cells in gingival connective tissue, and human periodontal ligament fibroblasts (HPLFs) are located between the teeth and alveolar bone. HGFs and HPLFs are both crucial for the remodeling and homeostasis of periodontal tissue, and their roles in the pathogenesis of periodontal diseases have been examined for 25 years. Various responses by HGFs or HPLFs contribute to the progression of periodontal diseases. This review summarizes the biological effects of HGFs and HPLFs on the pathogenesis of periodontal diseases.

Vestibular function in children with generalized epilepsy and treated with valproate

BACKGROUND

Studies that evaluated vestibular function with epilepsy are fewer than auditory studies. We assessed vestibular function in children with epilepsy in inter-ictal period.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 35 children with generalized epilepsy (boys=15; girls=20; mean age=11.20±1.21yrs; epilepsy duration=3.54±1.80yrs) and treated with valproate (VPA) and 24 healthy children as controls (mean age=12.42±2.80yrs). Vestibular evaluation was conducted using videonystagmography (VNG) and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMPs).

RESULTS

Dizziness was the vestibular symptom in 22.86% of cases. Vestibular dysfunctions (VDs) were found in 65.71%. Manifestations of peripheral VD (65.71%) included unilateral caloric weakness and reduced cVEMPs amplitudes. Manifestations of central VD (28.57%) included oculomotor abnormalities, positional nystagmus with normal calorics, and prolonged cVEMPs latencies. Significant correlations were found between VDs and duration of epilepsy and its treatment [r=-0.368, P=0.01] and VPA dose [r=-0.286, P=0.02] and level [r=-0.355, P=0.01]. Logistic regression analysis showed that duration of epilepsy and its treatment [OR=3.55 (95% CI=2.54-6.50), P=0.001] were independently associated with VDs.

CONCLUSIONS

VDs are common in children with epilepsy. Dizziness was a common symptom. Bilateral peripheral VD was more common than central VD, suggesting an adverse effect of VPA. However, epilepsy cannot be excluded as a cause of central VD.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, eventrate, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children 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) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: eventrate 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and eventrate was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or eventrate in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), eventrate 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, eventrate, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug eventrate, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and eventrate would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.

Design and evaluation of pharmacological properties of a new 1,3,4-thiadiazolylamide derivative of 2-propylpentanoic acid

Introduction: The use of the pharmacophoric approach is a promising direction for modifying the chemical structure of 2-propylpentanoic (valproic) acid in order to obtain new drugs.

Materials and methods: In the experiments on mice, acute toxicity, neurotoxicity, antiepileptic activity and analgesic effect of N-(5-ethyl-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-2-propylpentanamide (valprazolamide) were evaluated. LD50 was determined by probit analysis. Neurotoxicity was determined in a rotarod test and a bar test in mice. The effects of valprazolamide on the exploratory behavior of mice in open field test and in a light/dark transition test were evaluated. Its antiepileptic activity was tested in mice against seizures induced by maximal electroshock, pentylenetetrazole (scPTZ); isoniazid, thiosemicarbazide, pilocarpine, and camphor. The analgesic effect was studied in a hot plate test.

Results and discussion: N-(5-ethyl-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-2-propylpentanamide was obtained by introducing pharmacophores into the structure of 2-propylpentanoic acid: a substituted amide group and an electron-donor domain of 1,3,4-thiadiazole. The LD50 value for intraperitoneal administration of a new 2-propylpentanoic acid: derivative to mice was 924.8 mg/kg, and the TD50 value in the rotarod test and the bar test were 456.7 mg/kg and 546.7 mg/kg, respectively. The suppression of orienting responses in the animals was noted when it was administered in neurotoxic doses. Valprazolamide showed the most antiepileptic activity on models of MES, scPTZ and isoniazid antagonism tests. The ED50 values were 138.4 mg/kg, 74.5 mg/kg, and 126.8 mg/kg, respectively. The therapeutic indices for these models of epilepsy were 6.7; 12.4; 7.3, and protective index – 3.3; 6.1 and 3.6, respectively. In the hot plate test, valprazolamide increased the latency period before a defensive response to a thermal stimulus (ED50 165 mg/kg).

Conclusion: N-(5-ethyl-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-2-propylpentanamide is a new 1,3,4-thiadiazolylamide derivative of 2-propylpentanoic acid with antiepileptic and analgesic activities, which belongs to the group of low-toxic agents.

Graphic abstract

N-(5-ethyl-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-2-propylpentanamide (3D)

LD50=924.8 mg/kg (mice, intraperitoneally)

TD50=456.7 mg/kg (rotarod, mice, intraperitoneally)

ED50=138.4 mg/kg (MES, mice, intraperitoneally)

ED50=74.5 mg/kg (scPTZ, mice, intraperitoneally)

Antiseizure medication adherence trajectories in Medicare beneficiaries with newly treated epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to characterize trajectories of antiseizure medication (ASM) adherence in adults with newly treated epilepsy and to determine predictors of trajectories.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using Medicare. We included beneficiaries with newly treated epilepsy (one or more ASM and none in the preceding 2 years, plus International Classification of Diseases codes) in 2010-2013. We calculated the proportion of days covered (proportion of total days with any ASM pill supply) for 8 quarters or until death. Group-based trajectory models characterized and determined predictors of trajectories.

RESULTS

We included 24 923 beneficiaries. Models identified four groups: early adherent (60%), early nonadherent (18%), late adherent (11%), and late nonadherent (11%). Numerous predictors were associated with being in the early nonadherent versus early adherent group: non-White race (e.g., Black, odds ratio [OR] = 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-1.8), region (e.g., South vs. Northeast: OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1-1.4), and once daily initial medication (OR = 1.1, 95% CI = 1.0-1.3). Predictors associated with decreased odds of being in the early nonadherent group included older age (OR = .9 per decade, 95% CI = .9-.9), female sex (OR = .9, 95% CI = .8-1.0), full Medicaid eligibility (OR = .6, 95% CI = .4-.8), neurologist visit (OR = .6, 95% CI = .6-.7), and initial older generation ASM (OR = .6, 95% CI = .6-.7).

SIGNIFICANCE

We identified four ASM adherence trajectories in individuals with newly treated epilepsy. Whereas risk factors for early nonadherence such as race or geographic region are nonmodifiable, our work highlighted a modifiable risk factor for early nonadherence: lacking a neurologist. These data may guide future interventions aimed at improving ASM adherence, in terms of both timing and target populations.

Treating Status Epilepticus: Phenytoin Versus Levetiracetam

For decades, phenytoin has been the drug of choice for the treatment of epilepsy but also the second-line treatment for status epilepticus (SE). However, newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have emerged as safer alternatives for the suppression of seizures. Consequently, phenytoin has recently fallen under scrutiny in the research world, prompting many studies to compare its efficacy to these other drugs, most notably levetiracetam. Levetiracetam is a second-generation AED, which is gaining wide clinical use as the second-line agent in treating SE patients. This review focuses on several clinical studies that have directly compared the effectiveness of phenytoin and levetiracetam in suppressing SE seizure activity. Additionally, this review highlights several advantages of using levetiracetam over phenytoin in this clinical context.

Practical Considerations and Challenges When Conducting an Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-Analysis

This chapter provides a broad overview of the use of individual participant (sometimes referred to as patient) data (IPD ) within meta-analyses, the associated advantages of using IPD in meta-analysis compared to aggregate data, and when IPD should be used in meta-analysis.This chapter also outlines the steps of conducting an IPD meta-analysis, with practical guidance relating to requesting and obtaining IPD for meta-analysis. Challenges that can be associated with conducting an IPD meta-analysis are also discussed, including consideration of availability bias, when a subset of the relevant IPD is not available for meta-analysis.

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.

Anti-seizure Medication Prescription in Adult Outpatients With Epilepsy in China, 2013-2018

This study aimed to assess the national trends in anti-seizure medication (ASM) prescription in Chinese adult outpatients with epilepsy over a 6-year period from 2013 to 2018. Prescriptions for adult outpatients with epilepsy from hospitals in six major cities were extracted from the database of the Hospital Prescription Analysis Cooperative Project. Trends in the annual prescriptions and expenditure of ASM were analyzed. Prescription patterns (monotherapy or combination therapy) were also assessed. A total of 225,767 prescriptions from 60 hospitals were eligible and extracted for analysis. The number of ASM prescriptions increased from 28,360 in 2013 to 44,110 in 2018, and the corresponding cost increased from 9,452,990 Chinese Yuan (CNY) in 2013 to 14,627,865 CNY in 2018. The share of newer ASM use increased continuously, accounting for 56.75% of prescriptions and 85.03% of expenditure in 2018. The most frequently prescribed ASMs were sodium valproate and levetiracetam. The proportion of sodium valproate use decreased, while the proportion of levetiracetam use increased dramatically in terms of both ASM prescriptions and expenditure. Monotherapy was more frequent than combination therapy. The three most common combination therapies were sodium valproate/lamotrigine, levetiracetam/oxcarbazepine, and sodium valproate/levetiracetam. In summary, ASM use increased rapidly in terms of the number of ASM prescriptions and cost during the 6-year period, which raises concern regarding the rational use and pharma-economic profiles of ASMs. In place of valproate, levetiracetam became the most frequently used ASM. The development of ASM prescription is in line with therapy guidelines and reflects the current state of research in China.

Treatment Outcome of Epileptic Patients Receiving Antiepileptic Drugs in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The prevalence and incidence rate of epilepsy were found to be higher in low- and middle-income countries. Uncontrolled epilepsy has a high risk of disability, stigma, discrimination, human rights violations, and premature death. The available studies of controlled seizure in Ethiopia have showed inconsistent results which calls for systematic review and meta-analysis. Therefore, this review intended to show the pooled prevalence of controlled seizure among people with epilepsy receiving antiepileptic drugs at outpatient department.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Science Direct, PsycINFO, Hinnarri databases, and Google Scholar for grey literatures. Data were extracted with structured format prepared using Microsoft Excel and exported to Stata/MP 16.0 software for analyses. The I² test was used to check the heterogeneity between primary studies with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

A total of 23 primary studies were included in the review showing the pooled prevalence of controlled seizure to be 46% (95% CI: 35, 56). A subgroup analysis of the primary studies showed a considerable variation in magnitude of seizure freedom by study regions, age groups, and seizure-free period. The highest prevalence was found in Addis Ababa 52% (95% CI: 29, 75), pediatric patients 77% (95% CI: 71, 83), and a seizure-free period of less than six months 58% (95% CI: 32, 83). On the other hand, the lowest prevalence of controlled seizure was found in Tigray 27% (95% CI: 11, 65), adult patients 43% (95% CI: 32, 54), and a seizure-free period of six or more 41% (95% CI: 32, 51). Higher frequency of seizure before treatment (2.23, 95% CI: 1.15, 3.31) and medication nonadherence (2.7, 95% CI: 1.25, 4.15) had statistically significant association with uncontrolled seizure.

Conclusion

In this review, the prevalence of controlled seizure was found to be low. This warrants that clinicians should give more focus to epileptic patients regarding monitoring and evaluation of treatment outcome of epilepsy and factors that affect seizure control in routine clinical services. The use of standardized definition of controlled seizure, designing strategies to identify pharmacoresistant epilepsy and its treatment, and increasing medication adherence are recommended in Ethiopia. The review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO registration number CRD42021215302.

A new rapid titration protocol for lamotrigine that reduces the risk of skin rash

Objective

Lamotrigine is one of the most widely used antiepileptic drugs, but it has a critical issue of a skin rash if the starting dose is too high or the escalation rate is too rapid. We investigated the efficacy and safety of a novel and rapid titration protocol for lamotrigine that takes only 11 days to reach a daily dose of 200 mg.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 33 adult patients (age 18‐85) who were diagnosed with epilepsy and started lamotrigine administration for the first time at a single tertiary hospital. Our new protocol starts with a subthreshold dose of the drug and then administers a stepwise‐incremental dose until reaching the full therapeutic dose within 11 days.

Results

Of 29 patients analyzed, only two (6.9%) experienced idiosyncratic skin rash before the first follow‐up visit at 2 weeks (±3 days). In addition, a therapeutic concentration was reached in more than 75% of studied patients after 2 weeks of lamotrigine administration.

Significance

These findings demonstrate the value of the novel tolerance induction protocol for lamotrigine, which could widen the available application of lamotrigine in various situations. However, this study is a preliminary study limited by a small number of patients and its nonrandomized and open‐label design, so the current protocol needs more rigorous clinical evaluations before the application to the real clinical setting.

Immediate antiepileptic drug treatment, versus placebo, deferred, or no treatment for first unprovoked seizure

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane review previously published in 2016. There is considerable disagreement about the risk of recurrence following a first unprovoked epileptic seizure. A decision about whether to start antiepileptic drug treatment following a first seizure should be informed by information on the size of any reduction in risk of future seizures, the impact on long-term seizure remission, and the risk of adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To review the probability of seizure recurrence, seizure remission, mortality, and adverse effects of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment given immediately after the first seizure compared to controls (placebo, deferred treatment, or no treatment) in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to May 24, 2019) on 28 May 2019. There were no language restrictions. The Cochrane Register of Studies includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that could be blinded or unblinded. People of any age with a first unprovoked seizure of any type. Included studies compared participants receiving immediate antiepileptic treatment versus those receiving deferred treatment, those assigned to placebo, and those untreated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion in the review and extracted data. The certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was classified in four categories according to the GRADE approach. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Time-to-event outcomes were expressed as Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% CI. Only one trial used a double-blind design, and the two largest studies were unblinded. Most of the recurrences were generalised tonic-clonic seizures, a major type of seizures that is easily recognised, which should reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias.

MAIN RESULTS

After exclusion of irrelevant papers, six studies (eleven reports) were selected for inclusion. Individual participant data were available from the two largest studies for meta-analysis. Selection bias and attrition bias could not be excluded within the four smaller studies, but the two largest studies reported attrition rates and adequate methods of randomisation and allocation concealment. Only one small trial used a double-blind design and the other trials were unblinded; however, most of the recurrences were generalised tonic-clonic seizures, a type of seizure that is easily recognisable. Compared to controls, participants randomised to immediate treatment had a lower probability of relapse at one year (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.58; 6 studies, 1634 participants; high-certainty evidence), at five years (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89; 2 studies, 1212 participants; high-certainty evidence) and a higher probability of an immediate five-year remission (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.54; 2 studies, 1212 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, there was no difference between immediate treatment and control in terms of five-year remission at any time (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.21; 2 studies, 1212 participants; high-certainty evidence). Antiepileptic drugs did not affect overall mortality after a first seizure (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.95; 2 studies, 1212 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to deferred treatment, treatment of the first seizure was associated with a significantly higher risk of adverse events (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.79; 2 studies, 1212 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate to low for the association of higher risk of adverse events when treatment of the first seizure was compared to no treatment or placebo, (RR 14.50, 95% CI 1.93 to 108.76; 1 study; 118 participants) and (RR 4.91, 95% CI 1.10 to 21.93; 1 study, 228 participants) respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of the first unprovoked seizure reduces the risk of a subsequent seizure but does not affect the proportion of patients in remission in the long term. Antiepileptic drugs are associated with adverse events, and there is no evidence that they reduce mortality. In light of this review, the decision to start antiepileptic drug treatment following a first unprovoked seizure should be individualised and based on patient preference, clinical, legal, and sociocultural factors.

Autophagy-enhancing drugs limit mucosal HIV-1 acquisition and suppress viral replication ex vivo

Current direct-acting antiviral therapies are highly effective in suppressing HIV-1 replication. However, mucosal inflammation undermines prophylactic treatment efficacy, and HIV-1 persists in long-lived tissue-derived dendritic cells (DCs) and CD4+ T cells of treated patients. Host-directed strategies are an emerging therapeutic approach to improve therapy outcomes in infectious diseases. Autophagy functions as an innate antiviral mechanism by degrading viruses in specialized vesicles. Here, we investigated the impact of pharmaceutically enhancing autophagy on HIV-1 acquisition and viral replication. To this end, we developed a human tissue infection model permitting concurrent analysis of HIV-1 cellular targets ex vivo. Prophylactic treatment with autophagy-enhancing drugs carbamazepine and everolimus promoted HIV-1 restriction in skin-derived CD11c+ DCs and CD4+ T cells. Everolimus also decreased HIV-1 susceptibility to lab-adapted and transmitted/founder HIV-1 strains, and in vaginal Langerhans cells. Notably, we observed cell-specific effects of therapeutic treatment. Therapeutic rapamycin treatment suppressed HIV-1 replication in tissue-derived CD11c+ DCs, while all selected drugs limited viral replication in CD4+ T cells. Strikingly, both prophylactic and therapeutic treatment with everolimus or rapamycin reduced intestinal HIV-1 productive infection. Our findings highlight host autophagy pathways as an emerging target for HIV-1 therapies, and underscore the relevancy of repurposing clinically-approved autophagy drugs to suppress mucosal HIV-1 replication.

Recommendations for the treatment of epilepsy in adult and pediatric patients in Belgium: 2020 update

To guide health care professionals in Belgium in selecting the appropriate antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for their epilepsy patients, a group of Belgian epilepsy experts developed recommendations for AED treatment in adults and children (initial recommendations in 2008, updated in 2012). As new drugs have become available, others have been withdrawn, new indications have been approved and recommendations for pregnant women have changed, a new update was pertinent. A group of Belgian epilepsy experts (partly overlapping with the group in charge of the 2008/2012 recommendations) evaluated the most recent international guidelines and relevant literature for their applicability to the Belgian situation (registration status, reimbursement, clinical practice) and updated the recommendations for initial monotherapy in adults and children and add-on treatment in adults. Recommendations for add-on treatment in children were also included (not covered in the 2008/2012 publications). Like the 2008/2012 publications, the current update also covers other important aspects related to the management of epilepsy, including the importance of early referral in drug-resistant epilepsy, pharmacokinetic properties and tolerability of AEDs, comorbidities, specific considerations in elderly and pregnant patients, generic substitution and the rapidly evolving field of precision medicine.

Response to levetiracetam or lamotrigine in subjects with Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy previously treated with valproic acid: A single center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Valproic acid (VPA) is the most effective medication in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) but, due to its teratogenic potential, levetiracetam (LEV) and lamotrigine (LTG) are preferred in women of childbearing age. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of LEV and LTG monotherapy in patients with a previous good seizure control in VPA monotherapy, in which VPA was withdrawn because of teratogenic potential or adverse drug effects.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 65 patients with JME which had been followedup at the Epilepsy Center of Pisa University Hospital, identifying 28 subjects who had been successfully treated with VPA monotherapy and who were shifted to another monotherapy. The second monotherapy was LEV for 14 subjects and LTG for the remaining 14 ones. Drug efficacy was measured in terms of seizure freedom for more than twelve months after reaching the minimum effective or the highest tolerated dose.

RESULTS

In terms of seizure control, our analysis showed a significantly better outcome for LEV compared to LTG (14.3% and 71.4% of seizure relapse, respectively, p = 0.006) monotherapy. Such a higher efficacy was confirmed in those subjects with seizure relapse on LTG, who achieved good seizure control after switching to LEV monotherapy (89% of cases). Concerning tolerability, none of the patients reported severe side effects.

CONCLUSION

Although obtained in a small case series, our analysis showed a significant better efficacy of LEV compared to LTG in monotherapy, in patients with JME with a good response to VPA, concerning both myoclonic and generalized tonic-clonic seizures.

Combined bezafibrate, medroxyprogesterone acetate and valproic acid treatment inhibits osteosarcoma cell growth without adversely affecting normal mesenchymal stem cells

Drug repurposing is a cost-effective means of targeting new therapies for cancer. We have examined the effects of the repurposed drugs, bezafibrate, medroxyprogesterone acetate and valproic acid on human osteosarcoma cells, i.e., SAOS2 and MG63 compared with their normal cell counterparts, i.e. mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs). Cell growth, viability and migration were measured by biochemical assay and live cell imaging, whilst levels of lipid-synthesising enzymes were measured by immunoblotting cell extracts. These drug treatments inhibited the growth and survival of SAOS2 and MG63 cells most effectively when used in combination (termed V-BAP). In contrast, V-BAP treated MSCs remained viable with only moderately reduced cell proliferation. V-BAP treatment also inhibited migratory cell phenotypes. MG63 and SAOS2 cells expressed much greater levels of fatty acid synthase and stearoyl CoA desaturase 1 than MSCs, but these elevated enzyme levels significantly decreased in the V-BAP treated osteosarcoma cells prior to cell death. Hence, we have identified a repurposed drug combination that selectively inhibits the growth and survival of human osteosarcoma cells in association with altered lipid metabolism without adversely affecting their non-transformed cell counterparts.

New nanocarried phenobarbital formulation: Maintains better control of pentylenetetrazole-Induced seizures

•

For the first time, phenobarbital was intercalated in the layered double hydroxide.

•

This study evaluated the slow release efficacy of intercalated phenobarbital.

•

The time of the anticonvulsant effect was verified by electroencephalographic records.

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of slow release phenobarbital in the control of convulsions triggered by pentylenetetrazole (PTZ), verifying the time of permanence in the anticonvulsant effect through behavior and electroencephalographic records. A total of 162 male Wistar rats weighing between 100 and 120 g were divided into two groups, one for behavior analysis (n = 90) and biochemistry, and another for the acquisition of electrocorticographic record (n = 72). Hepatic enzymes were measured by obtaining a blood sample from the animals studied by means of a biochemical analysis. The procedures for electrode implant and electrocorticographic recordings were performed. The intercalation of phenobarbital in layered double hydroxide (LDH) nanocarrier allowed us to evaluate a new slow release pharmaceutical formulation based on methodologies that have proven longer residence time and lower side effects. This study demonstrates that phenobarbital can be a new perspective pharmaceutical formulation.

Utility of oxcarbazepine in the treatment of childhood and adolescent psychiatric symptoms

The primary aims of this study were to determine if oxcarbazepine is a safely tolerated option for treatment of psychiatric symptoms in children and whether its use facilitates dose modification of other psychotropic medications. A retrospective chart review was completed using data extracted from the electronic medical record of a large outpatient child psychiatry clinic. A total of 507 of 740 children prescribed oxcarbazepine for psychiatric indications for 3 months or more had adequate data to assess clinical responses and medication outcomes. Most patients prescribed oxcarbazepine experienced clinically significant control of irritability/anger, mood stabilization, aggressive outbursts, impulsivity, or anxiety, with over 80% achieving at least maintenance symptom control. In all, 51% and 25% fully discontinued second- or third-generation antipsychotic or antidepressant medication, respectively, after starting oxcarbazepine; 8% discontinued oxcarbazepine for nonresponse, while 9% stopped oxcarbazepine because of emergent side effects. In patients fully discontinuing or reducing the second- or third-generation antipsychotic dose by 50% or more, improvements in body mass index were observed. Oxcarbazepine may prove to be an appropriate alternative to antipsychotic and antidepressant medications for treating psychiatric symptoms in children and adolescents. In particular, it may be a more metabolically neutral psychotropic medication.

Valproate Use Is Associated With Posterior Cortical Thinning and Ventricular Enlargement in Epilepsy Patients

Valproate is a drug widely used to treat epilepsy, bipolar disorder, and occasionally to prevent migraine headache. Despite its clinical efficacy, prenatal exposure to valproate is associated with neurodevelopmental impairments and its use in children and adults was associated with rare cases of reversible brain atrophy and ventricular enlargement. To determine whether valproate use is related with structural brain changes we examined through a cross-sectional study cortical and subcortical structures in a group of 152 people with epilepsy and a normal clinical brain MRI. Patients were grouped into those currently using valproate (n = 54), those taking drugs other than valproate (n = 47), and drug-naïve patients (n = 51) at the time of MRI, irrespectively of their epilepsy syndrome. Cortical thickness and subcortical volumes were analyzed using Freesurfer, version 5.0. Subjects exposed to valproate (either in mono- or polytherapy) showed reduced cortical thickness in the occipital lobe, more precisely in the cuneus bilaterally, in the left lingual gyrus, and in left and right pericalcarine gyri when compared to patients who used other antiepileptic drugs, to drug-naïve epilepsy patients, and to healthy controls. Considering the subgroup of patients using valproate monotherapy (n = 25), both comparisons with healthy controls and drug-naïve groups confirmed occipital lobe cortical thickness reduction. Moreover, patients using valproate showed increased left and right lateral ventricle volume compared to all other groups. Notably, subjects who were non-valproate users at the time of MRI, but who had valproate exposure in the past (n = 27) did not show these cortical or subcortical brain changes. Cortical changes in the posterior cortex, particularly in the visual cortex, and ventricular enlargement, are present in people with epilepsy using valproate, independently from clinical and demographical variables. These findings are relevant both for the efficacy and adverse events profile of valproate use in people with epilepsy.

Lamotrigine, quetiapine and aripiprazole-induced neuroleptic malignant syndrome in a patient with renal failure caused by lithium: a case report

BACKGROUND

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) may be induced by atypical antipsychotic drugs (AAPDs) such as aripiprazole, olanzapine, risperidone and quetiapine, either as a single treatment or in combination with other drugs. A case of NMS following the administration of lamotrigine, aripiprazole and quetiapine in a patient with bipolar disorder, and with renal failure caused by toxic lithium levels has not been reported.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 51-year-old female patient with a 27-year history of bipolar disorder, being treated with lithium, fluoxetine, olanzapine, gabapentine, perazine and biperiden, was admitted to the hospital due to depressed mood and delusions. A urinary tract infection was diagnosed and antibiotic therapy was initiated. After 5 days of treatment her physical state deteriorated and she developed a fever of 38.4 °C. Her laboratory results revealed a toxic level of lithium (2.34 mmol/l). Acute renal failure was diagnosed and the lithium was withdrawn. After stabilization of her condition, and despite her antipsychotic treatment, further intensification of delusions and depressed mood were observed. All drugs being taken by the patient were withdrawn and lamotrigine and aripiprazole were initiated. Due to the insufficient effectiveness of aripiprazole treatment and because of problems with sleep, quetiapine was added, however further treatment with this drug combination and an increase of quetiapine to 400 mg/d eventually caused NMS. Amantadine, lorazepam and bromocriptine were therefore initiated and the patient's condition improved.

CONCLUSION

This case report indicates that concurrent use of multiple antipsychotic drugs in combination with mood stabilizers in patients with organic disorders confers an increased risk of NMS development.

Gabapentin Reduces Blood Pressure and Heart Rate through the Nucleus Tractus Solitarii

Background

Oral and intravenous gabapentin can markedly attenuate blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive rats. The nucleus tractus solitarii (NTS) is the primary integrative center for cardiovascular control and other autonomic functions in the central nervous system. However, the signaling mechanisms involved in gabapentin-mediated cardiovascular effects in the NTS remain unclear. We investigated whether the nitric oxide synthase (NOS) signaling pathway was involved in gabapentin-mediated BP regulation in the NTS of spontaneously hypertensive (SHR) rats.

Methods

SHR rats were anesthetized with urethane at age 10-12 weeks. Arterial pressure and heart rate (HR) were monitored through a femoral artery catheter. For stereotaxic intra-NTS microinjection, the dorsal surface of the medulla was exposed by limited craniotomy. We observed that unilateral microinjection of gabapentin into the NTS whether to change dose-related BP and HR. Then, unilateral microinjection of gabapentin into the NTS before and after N(ω)-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME) treatment whether to change blood pressure and heart rate.

Results

Unilateral microinjection of gabapentin into the NTS produced prominent dose-related depressor and bradycardic effects in SHR rats. The cardiovascular effects of gabapentin were attenuated by the prior administration of the NOS inhibitor, L-NAME.

Conclusions

Gabapentin modulated central BP and HR control in the NTS of SHR rats in this study through NOS signaling.

Comparative effectiveness of antiepileptic drugs in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) commonly used in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME).

METHODS

People with JME were identified from a large database of individuals with epilepsy, which includes detailed retrospective information on AED use. We assessed secular changes in AED use and calculated rates of response (12-month seizure freedom) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for the five most common AEDs. Retention was modeled with a Cox proportional hazards model. We compared valproate use between males and females.

RESULTS

We included 305 people with 688 AED trials of valproate, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, carbamazepine, and topiramate. Valproate and carbamazepine were most often prescribed as the first AED. The response rate to valproate was highest among the five AEDs (42.7%), and significantly higher than response rates for lamotrigine, carbamazepine, and topiramate; the difference to the response rate to levetiracetam (37.1%) was not significant. The rates of ADRs were highest for topiramate (45.5%) and valproate (37.5%). Commonest ADRs included weight change, lethargy, and tremor. In the Cox proportional hazards model, later start year (1.10 [1.08-1.13], P < 0.001) and female sex (1.41 [1.07-1.85], P = 0.02) were associated with shorter trial duration. Valproate was associated with the longest treatment duration; trials with carbamazepine and topiramate were significantly shorter (HR [CI]: 3.29 [2.15-5.02], P < 0.001 and 1.93 [1.31-2.86], P < 0.001). The relative frequency of valproate trials shows a decreasing trend since 2003 while there is an increasing trend for levetiracetam. Fewer females than males received valproate (76.2% vs 92.6%, P = 0.001).

SIGNIFICANCE

In people with JME, valproate is an effective AED; levetiracetam emerged as an alternative. Valproate is now contraindicated in women of childbearing potential without special precautions. With appropriate selection and safeguards in place, valproate should remain available as a therapy, including as an alternative for women of childbearing potential whose seizures are resistant to other treatments.

Seizures and movement disorders: phenomenology, diagnostic challenges and therapeutic approaches

Seizures and movement disorders (MDs) are distinct neurological conditions presenting with abnormal movements. Despite sharing an overlap in phenomenology, these movements have different origins. In order to explore the overlaps and the narrow boundaries between these two conditions, we performed a review of the literature to explore the risk of seizures in MDs. We discussed the mimics and chameleons including MDs that look like seizure (eg, paroxysmal dyskinesia, status dystonicus) and seizures that look like MDs (eg, epilepsia partialis continua, nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy). Additionally, we examined the therapeutic challenges as well as the anatomical and chemical pathways relevant in the interplay between epilepsy and MDs. Finally, we proposed an algorithm to guide clinicians towards the final diagnosis of conditions characterised by the co-occurrence of MDs and seizures.

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.

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.

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.

Carnosic Acid Pretreatment Attenuates Mitochondrial Dysfunction in SH-SY5Y Cells in an Experimental Model of Glutamate-Induced Excitotoxicity

Mitochondria are the major site of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production in mammalian cells. Moreover, mitochondria produce most of the reactive oxygen species (ROS) in nucleated cells. Redox and bioenergetic abnormalities have been seen in mitochondria during the onset and progression of neurodegenerative diseases. In that context, excitotoxicity induced by glutamate (GLU) plays an important role in mediating neurotoxicity. Several drugs have been used in the treatment of diseases involving excitotoxicity. Nonetheless, some patients (20-30%) present drug resistance. Thus, it is necessary to find chemicals able to attenuate mitochondrial dysfunction in the case of excitotoxicity. In this work, we treated the human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cell line with the diterpene carnosic acid (CA) at 1 μM for 12 h prior to the exposure to GLU for further 24 h. We found that CA prevented the GLU-induced mitochondrion-related redox impairment and bioenergetic decline in SH-SY5Y cells. CA also downregulated the pro-apoptotic stimulus elicited by GLU in this experimental model. CA exerted mitochondrial protection by a mechanism associated with the transcription factor nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2), since silencing of this protein with small interfering RNA (siRNA) suppressed the CA-induced protective effects. Future directions include investigating whether CA would be able to modulate mitochondrial function and/or dynamics in in vivo experimental models of excitotoxicity.

Influence of salbutamol on the anticonvulsant potency of the antiepileptic drugs in the maximal electroshock-induced seizures in mice

BACKGROUND

β₂-Adrenergic receptor agonists are widely used agents in the treatment of asthma or preterm labor. Since prevalence of asthma was shown to be higher in patients with epilepsy and modulation of noradrenergic system activity may modify epilepsy course, the aim of the present study was to examine the effect of salbutamol (SALB), one of the most commonly used β₂-adrenergic receptor agonist on the anticonvulsant potency of four classical antiepileptic drugs (AEDs): valproate (VPA), carbamazepine (CBZ), phenytoin (DPH) and phenobarbital (PB) in mice subjected to the maximal electroshock (MES)-induced seizures.

METHODS

Seizures were caused by a current delivered through ear-clip electrodes. The influence of AEDs and SALB on animals' motor coordination and memory processes was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Single SALB injection did not change, whereas 7 days SALB administration decreased seizure threshold in the MES-induced seizures in mice. Moreover, SALB injected ip for 1 day and for 7 days lowered the antiepileptic activity of PB in the MES-induced seizures in mice, but did not change the effect of other analyzed AEDs: VPA, CBZ or DPH. Butoxamine, a selective β₂-adrenergic receptor antagonist, reversed SALB influence on the activity of PB. SALB given alone or in combination with the tested AEDs did not affect animals' motor performance and memory after both single and 7 days administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Presented results show that SALB may decrease the antiepileptic efficacy of PB. A special caution is advised to patients with epilepsy receiving β₂-adrenergic receptors agonists in the pharmacotherapy of pulmonary and obstetrical disorders.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published 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, phenytoin is a commonly used antiepileptic drug. It is important to know how newer drugs, such as oxcarbazepine, compare with commonly used standard treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with oxcarbazepine 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 following databases on 20 August 2018: 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, 1946 to 20 August 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either oxcarbazepine 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

Individual participant data were available for 480 out of a total of 517 participants (93%), from two out of three included trials. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for oxcarbazepine.The results for time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment showed a potential advantage of oxcarbazepine over phenytoin, but this was not statistically significant (pooled HR adjusted for epilepsy type: 0.78 95% CI 0.53 to 1.14, 476 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence). Our analysis showed that treatment failure due to adverse events occurred later on with oxcarbazepine than phenytoin (pooled HR for all participants: 0.22 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.51, 480 participants, two trials, high-quality evidence). Our analysis of time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy showed no clear difference between the drugs (pooled HR for all participants: 1.17 (95% CI 0.31 to 4.35), 480 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence).We found no clear or statistically significant differences between drugs for any of the secondary outcomes of the review: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for epilepsy type: 0.97 95% CI 0.75 to 1.26, 468 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence); time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for epilepsy type 1.04 95% CI 0.77 to 1.41, 468 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for epilepsy type: 1.06 95% CI 0.82 to 1.36, 468 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence).The most common adverse events reported in more than 10% of participants on either drug were somnolence (28% of total participants, with similar rates for both drugs), headache (15% of total participants, with similar rates for both drugs), dizziness (14.5% of total participants, reported by slightly more participants on phenytoin (18%) than oxcarbazepine (11%)) and gum hyperplasia (reported by substantially more participants on phenytoin (18%) than oxcarbazepine (2%)).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 70% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. The two studies included in IPD meta-analysis were generally of good methodological quality but the design of the studies may have biased the results for the secondary outcomes (time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month and 12-month remission) as seizure recurrence data were not collected following treatment failure or withdrawal from the study. In addition, misclassification of epilepsy type may have impacted on results, particularly for individuals with generalised onset seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence provided by this review indicates that treatment failure due to adverse events occurs significantly later with oxcarbazepine than phenytoin. For individuals with focal onset seizures, moderate-quality evidence suggests that oxcarbazepine may be superior to phenytoin in terms of treatment failure for any reason, seizure recurrence and seizure remission. Therefore, oxcarbazepine may be a preferable alternative treatment than phenytoin, particularly for individuals with focal onset seizures. The evidence in this review which relates to individuals with generalised onset seizures is of low quality and does not inform current treatment policy.We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with regards to choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up (including continued follow-up after failure or withdrawal of randomised treatment), choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Cognitive-Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy, Drug, or Their Combination for Persistent Depressive Disorder: Personalizing the Treatment Choice Using Individual Participant Data Network Metaregression

BACKGROUND

Persistent depressive disorder is prevalent, disabling, and often difficult to treat. The cognitive-behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (CBASP) is the only psychotherapy specifically developed for its treatment. However, we do not know which of CBASP, antidepressant pharmacotherapy, or their combination is the most efficacious and for which types of patients. This study aims to present personalized prediction models to facilitate shared decision-making in treatment choices to match patients' characteristics and preferences based on individual participant data network metaregression.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials comparing any two of CBASP, pharmacotherapy, or their combination and sought individual participant data from identified trials. The primary outcomes were reduction in depressive symptom severity for efficacy and dropouts due to any reason for treatment acceptability.

RESULTS

All 3 identified studies (1,036 participants) were included in the present analyses. On average, the combination therapy showed significant superiority over both monotherapies in terms of efficacy and acceptability, while the latter 2 treatments showed essentially similar results. Baseline depression, anxiety, prior pharmacotherapy, age, and depression subtypes moderated their relative efficacy, which indicated that for certain subgroups of patients either drug therapy or CBASP alone was a recommendable treatment option that is less costly, may have fewer adverse effects and match an individual patient's preferences. An interactive web app (https://kokoro.med.kyoto-u.ac.jp/CBASP/prediction/) shows the predicted disease course for all possible combinations of patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual participant data network metaregression enables treatment recommendations based on individual patient characteristics.

Hemodiafiltration Treatment for Severe Valproic Acid Intoxication: Case Report and Updated Systematic Literature Review

Background: Valproic acid (VPA) has been approved for the treatment of seizure disorders. It is also commonly used in psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia spectrum disorders. With increasing administration, reports of intoxications are more frequently reported. The most common findings of VPA intoxication are central nervous system depression, respiratory depression, hypotension, metabolic acidosis, and elevated lactate, among others. Methods: We describe a case report of VPA intoxication with hemodiafiltration (HDF) as extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) for removal of VPA. This treatment modality has only rarely been reported in the current literature. In addition, we performed an updated systematic literature review (SLR) of additional cases on the topic ranging from December 1st, 2014 to April 20th, 2018. We searched MEDLINE and Web of Science for relevant references. Results: In the presented case, VPA intoxication occurred in a 46-year-old female patient after oral ingestion of 56 g of VPA. In addition to vasopressors and endotracheal intubation, we administered L-Carnitine (L-Car) and performed hemodiafiltration treatment. After intravenous therapy with L-Car and simultaneous HDF sessions, we observed full recovery without neurological sequelae. The SLR identified 8 additional articles reporting favorable outcomes with extracorporeal treatments in most cases. Conclusion: HDF and other extracorporeal procedures are safe and effective therapeutic options in patients with VPA intoxication. The choice of ECTR modality mainly depends on local experience and the setting. In the present case, ingestion of 56 g was successfully treated with HDF. These findings are in line with several other case reports describing positive outcomes. Extracorporeal treatment, including HDF, should be considered early in the management of VPA intoxication. Supporting evidence is emerging, but it is of limited quality.

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.

Clinical Use and Monitoring of Antiepileptic Drugs

Background

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been used for the treatment of epilepsy and other neurological disorders since the late 19th century. There are currently several classes of AEDs available for epilepsy management, many of which are also used to treat migraines, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, and neuropathic pain. Because of their molecular and mechanistic diversity, as well as the potential for drug–drug interactions, AEDs are prescribed and monitored in a highly personalized manner.

Content

This review provides a general overview of the use of AEDs with a focus on the role of therapeutic drug monitoring. Discussed topics include mechanisms of action, guidelines on the clinical applications of AEDs, clinical tests available for AED monitoring, and genetic factors known to affect AED efficacy.

Summary

Implementation of AED therapies is highly individualized, with many patient-specific factors considered for drug and dosage selection. Both therapeutic efficacy and target blood concentrations must be established for each patient to achieve seizure mitigation or cessation. The use of an AED with any additional drug, including other AEDs, requires an evaluation of potential drug–drug interactions. Furthermore, AEDs are commonly used for nonepilepsy indications, often in off-label administration to treat neurological or psychiatric disorders.

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.

Exploring changes over time and characteristics associated with data retrieval across individual participant data meta-analyses: systematic review

Objective To investigate whether the success rate of retrieving individual participant data (IPD) for use in IPD meta-analyses has increased over time, and to explore the characteristics associated with IPD retrieval.Design Systematic review of published IPD meta-analyses, supplemented by a reflection of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's 20 years' experience of requesting IPD.Data sources Medline, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO.Eligibility criteria for study selection IPD meta-analyses of studies of all designs and all clinical areas published in English.Results 760 IPD meta-analyses which identified studies by systematic methods that had been published between 1987 and 2015 were included. Only 188 (25%) of these IPD meta-analyses retrieved 100% of the eligible IPD for analysis, with 324 (43%) of these IPD meta-analyses retrieving 80% or more of relevant IPD. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that IPD retrieval rates have improved over time. IPD meta-analyses that included only randomised trials, had an authorship policy, included fewer eligible participants, and were conducted outside of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were associated with a high or complete IPD retrieval rate. There was no association between the source of funding of the IPD meta-analyses and IPD retrieval rate. The IPD retrieval rate of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group has declined from 83% (up to 2005) to 65% (between 2012 and 2015) and the reported reasons for lack of data availability have changed in recent years.Conclusions IPD meta-analyses are considered to be the "gold standard" for the synthesis of data from clinical research studies; however, only 25% of published IPD meta-analyses have had access to all IPD.