[Visual field defects due to antiepileptic drugs]

Antiepileptic drug therapy in the elderly: a clinical pharmacological review

Seizure disorder is the third most common neurological disorder in the elderly after stroke and dementia. With the increasing geriatric population, the situation of clinicians seeing more and more elderly epilepsy patients is very likely. Not only is the diagnosis of epilepsy tedious in the elderly, its management raises many challenging issues for the treating physicians. Altered physiology, age-related decline in organ function, and plasma protein binding and altered pharmacodynamics make the elderly patients with seizure disorder a difficult group to treat. This is further complicated by the presence of comorbidities and polypharmacy which increase the chances of drug interactions. The adverse effects that might be tolerated well in younger populations may be disastrous for the aged. Although the newer antiepileptic drugs are found to have a favorable safety profile, there is relative scarcity of randomized-controlled trials involving older and newer antiepileptics in the geriatric population. This review tries to compile the available literature on management of epilepsy in the elderly population including evidence of safety and efficacy of newer and older antiepileptics with special reference to the 'geriatric giants'. It also deals with the interactions between antiepileptic medications and other commonly prescribed drugs in the elderly such as anti-hypertensives and antiischemic agents. The recommended guidelines of various international bodies are also analyzed from the perspective of elderly with seizure disorder.

Evaluation of Ocular Side Effects in the Patients on Topiramate Therapy for Control of Migrainous Headache

INTRODUCTION

Topiramate, a sulfa-derivative monosaccharide, is an antiepileptic drug which is administered in the control of migraine. It is reported to cause various ocular side effects such as visual field defect and myopic shift. To investigate the alterations in refractive error, properties of the cornea and changes in the anterior chamber in patients that receive Topiramate for migraine control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a hospital-based, non-interventional, observational study that is conducted at Imam Hossein Hospital, affiliated to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Department of Neurology, in collaboration with the department of Ophthalmology. Thirty three consecutive patients with the diagnosis of migraine that were candidate for Topiramate therapy were recruited. Patients with history of ocular trauma or surgery, keratoconus, glaucoma, congenital ocular malformations and any history of unexplained visual loss were excluded. After thorough ophthalmic examination, all the patients underwent central corneal thickness (CCT) measurement, and Pentacam imaging (Scheimpflug camera) at the baseline. Various parameters were extracted and used for analysis. Anterior chamber volume (ACV), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and anterior chamber angle (ACA) measurement was performed. These measurements were repeated on day 30(th) and 90(th) after the initiation of Topiramate therapy. According to the normality tests, parameters with normal distribution were analysed using the repeated measures test and the remaining parameters (with non-normal distribution) were analysed using the non-parametric k-sample test. A p-value< 0.05 was considered statistically significant, according to Bonferroni post hoc correction.

RESULTS

There were 66 eyes of 33 patients under the diagnosis of migrainous headache, that Topiramate was initiated for headache control, included in the study. The mean value of refractive error had a statistically significant myopic change, from -0.23 diopters (D) at the baseline to -0.61 D at the 90(th) day of follow-up period (p-value < 0.001). Mean CCT was 531.43 μm at the baseline and increased to 534.72 μm at the 30(th) day, and 537.51 μm at the 90(th) day after the administration of Topiramate (p-value=0.001). Mean value of other parameters, ACV, ACD, and ACA, did not reveal statistically significant change.

CONCLUSION

Myopic shift and gradually increasing CCT in the patients after Topiramate administration should be considered before any refractive surgery. We found no gradual change in the anterior chamber and angle parameters in our patients in the 90 days of follow up. More studies with a longer duration of follow-up are needed to elucidate dose-dependent ocular manifestations.

Visual field loss in patients with refractory partial epilepsy treated with vigabatrin: final results from an open-label, observational, multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Use of the antiepileptic drug vigabatrin is associated with an elevated risk of visual field loss.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of, and risk factors for, vigabatrin-attributed visual field loss (VAVFL) in the setting of a large-scale, multinational, prospective, observational study.

STUDY DESIGN

A comparative, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre study.

SETTING

Hospital outpatient clinics at 46 centres in five countries.

PATIENTS

734 patients with refractory partial epilepsy, divided into three groups and stratified by age (8-12 years; >12 years) and exposure to vigabatrin. Group I comprised patients treated with vigabatrin for > or =6 months. Group II comprised patients previously treated with vigabatrin for > or =6 months who had withdrawn from the drug for > or =6 months. Group III comprised patients never treated with vigabatrin. Patients underwent perimetry at either 4- or 6-month intervals, for up to 36 months. Visual field outcome was evaluated masked to drug exposure.

INTERVENTION

Perimetry.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The visual field outcome at each of four analysis points: (i) at enrolment (i.e. baseline, all patients); (ii) for patients exhibiting a conclusive outcome at the initial visual field examination; (iii) for patients exhibiting at least one conclusive outcome to the visual field examinations; and (iv) at the last conclusive outcome to the visual field examinations.

RESULTS

Of the 734 patients, 524 yielded one or more conclusive visual field examinations. For Group I, the frequency of VAVFL at the last conclusive examination was 10/38 (26.3%) for those aged 8-12 years and 65/150 (43.3%) for those aged >12 years. For Group II, the respective frequencies were 7/47 (14.9%) and 37/151 (24.5%). One case resembling VAVFL was present amongst the 186 patients in Group III at the last conclusive examination. The frequency of VAVFL in Groups I and II combined was 20.0% for those aged 8-12 years and 33.9% for those aged >12 years. VAVFL was associated with duration of vigabatrin therapy (odds ratio [OR] up to 15.2; 95% CI 4.4, 51.7), mean daily dose of vigabatrin (OR up to 26.4; 95% CI 2.4, 291.7) and male gender (OR 2.51; 95% CI 1.5, 4.1). VAVFL was more frequently detected with static than with kinetic perimetry (OR up to 0.43; 95% CI 0.24, 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Since the probability of VAVFL is positively associated with treatment duration, careful assessment of the risk-benefit ratio of continuing treatment with vigabatrin is recommended in patients currently receiving this drug. All patients continuing to receive vigabatrin should undergo visual field examination at least every 6 months for the duration of treatment. We recommend two-level (three-zone), gradient-adapted, suprathreshold static perimetry of the peripheral field together with threshold perimetry of the central field out to 30 degrees from fixation. The frequency of ophthalmological and perimetric examinations should be increased in the presence of VAVFL.

Information about ADRs explored by pharmacovigilance approaches: a qualitative review of studies on antibiotics, SSRIs and NSAIDs

Background

Despite surveillance efforts, unexpected and serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) repeatedly occur after marketing. The aim of this article is to analyse ADRs reported by available ADR signal detection approaches and to explore which information about new and unexpected ADRs these approaches have detected.

Methods

We selected three therapeutic cases for the review: antibiotics for systemic use, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicines (NSAID) and selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRI). These groups are widely used and represent different therapeutic classes of medicines. The ADR studies were identified through literature search in Medline and Embase. The search was conducted in July 2007. For each therapeutic case, we analysed the time of publication, the strengths of the evidence of safety in the different approaches, reported ADRs and whether the studies have produced new information about ADRs compared to the information available at the time of marketing.

Results

79 studies were eligible for inclusion in the analysis: 23 antibiotics studies, 35 NSAID studies, 20 SSRI studies. Studies were mainly published from the end of the 1990s and onwards. Although the drugs were launched in different decades, both analytical and observational approaches to ADR studies were similar for all three therapeutic cases: antibiotics, NSAIDs and SSRIs. The studies primarily dealt with analyses of ADRs of the type A and B and to a lesser extent C and D, cf. Rawlins' classification system. The therapeutic cases provided similar results with regard to detecting information about new ADRs despite different time periods and organs attacked. Approaches ranging higher in the evidence hierarchy provided information about risks of already known or expected ADRs, while information about new and previously unknown ADRs was only detected by case reports, the lowest ranking approach in the evidence hierarchy.

Conclusion

Although the medicines were launched in different decades, approaches to the ADR studies were similar for all three therapeutic cases: antibiotics, NSAIDs and SSRIs. Both descriptive and analytical designs were applied. Despite the fact that analytical studies rank higher in the evidence hierarchy, only the lower ranking descriptive case reports/spontaneous reports provided information about new and previously undetected ADRs. This review underscores the importance of systems for spontaneous reporting of ADRs. Therefore, spontaneous reporting should be encouraged further and the information in ADR databases should continuously be subjected to systematic analysis.

Ocular adverse effects of Topiramate: Two case reports

Topiramate, an antiepileptic drug is reported to cause various ocular adverse effects like acute onset myopia, glaucoma. Visual field defect is an uncommon, serious treatment emergent adverse effect. We are reporting two cases of suspected topiramate induced visual field defects.Both the cases were on topiramate for more than 6 months as add-on therapy at daily doses ranging from 100-150mg. The presenting complaints were insidious onset visual disturbances. Diagnosis was based of temporal association with drug intake, clinical examination and investigations. Automated perimetry revealed bilateral superior quadrantic and arcuate field defects in the two cases respectively. Marked improvement with drug dechallenge was noted which was also corroborated by perimetry. Using Naranjo's ADR Probability Scale, both cases revealed a "probable" association with topiramate. This report intends to improve awareness amongst clinicians to facilitate early diagnosis and intervention.

Ocular complications of neurological therapy

Treatments used for several neurological conditions may adversely affect the eye. Vigabatrin-related retinal toxicity leads to a visual field defect. Optic neuropathy may result from ethambutol and isoniazid, and from radiation therapy. Posterior subcapsular cataract is associated with systemic corticosteroids. Transient refractive error changes may follow treatment with acetazolamide or topiramate, and corneal deposits and keratitis with amandatine. Intraocular pressure can be elevated in susceptible individuals by anticholinergic drugs, including oxybutynin, tolterodine, benzhexol, propantheline, atropine and amitriptyline, and also by systemic corticosteroids and by topiramate. Nystagmus, diplopia and extraocular muscle palsies can occur with antiepileptic drugs, particularly phenytoin and carbamazepine. Ocular neuromyotonia can follow parasellar radiation. Congenital ocular malformations can result from in utero exposure to maternally prescribed sodium valproate, phenytoin and carbamazepine. Neurologists must be aware of potential ocular toxicity of these drugs, and appropriately monitor for potential adverse events.

Anti-babesial and anti-plasmodial compounds from Phyllanthus niruri

Bioassay-guided fractionation of boiled aqueous extracts from the whole plant of Phyllanthus niruri led to the isolation of 1-O-galloyl-6-O-luteoyl-alpha-d-glucose (1), with IC(50) values of 4.7 microg/mL against Babesia gibsoni and 1.4 microg/mL against Plasmodium falciparum in vitro. The known compounds beta-glucogallin (2), quercetin 3-O-beta-d-glucopyranosyl-(2-->1)-O-beta-d-xylopyranoside (3), beta-sitosterol, and gallic acid were also isolated. Structures of these compounds were elucidated on the basis of their chemical and spectroscopic data.

Side Effects of Antiepileptics- A Review

Older generation antiepileptic drugs like Phenobarbital (Luminal), carbamazepine (Tegretol), phenytoin (Dilantin), and valproic acid (Depakote) have several shortcomings such as suboptimal response rates, significant adverse effects, several drug interactions, and a narrow therapeutic index. New antiepileptic drugs have been developed in the last decade to overcome some of these problems. These newer generation antiepileptics like felbamate (Felbatol), gabapentin (Neurontin), lamotrigine (Lamictal), levetiracetam (Keppra), oxcarbazepine (Trileptal), tiagabine (Gabitril), topiramate (Topamax), and zonisamide (Zonegran) have better tolerability profiles, low interaction potential, and significantly less enzyme inducing or inhibiting properties. As the use of antiepileptic drugs has expanded to include treatment of neuropathic pain, newer side effects have been reported. In addition to the common side effects of antiepileptic drugs, like dizziness, drowsiness, and mental slowing; other side effects like weight gain, metabolic acidosis, nephrolithiasis, angle closure glaucoma, skin rash, hepatotoxicity, colitis, and movement and behavioral disorders, to name a few, have been brought to our attention. This review is an attempt to highlight the features and incidences of some of these side effects.

A controlled study comparing visual function in patients treated with vigabatrin and tiagabine

OBJECTIVE

Vigabatrin treatment is frequently associated with irreversible retinal injury and produces retinal electrophysiological changes in nearly all patients. Concern has been raised that tiagabine and other antiepilepsy drugs (AEDs) that increase brain gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) might produce similar electrophysiological and clinical changes in visual function. The study compared visual function between groups of patients with epilepsy treated long term with tiagabine, vigabatrin, and patients treated with other AEDs.

METHODS

A cross sectional study comparing visual acuity, colour vision, static and kinetic perimetry, and electroretinograms between groups of patients treated with tiagabine, vigabatrin, and other AEDs (control patients). Patients were adults receiving stable AED treatment for >6 months.

RESULTS

Vigabatrin treated patients had marked visual field constrictions in kinetic perimetry (mean radius 39.6 degrees OD, 40.5 degrees OS), while tiagabine patients had normal findings (mean 61 degrees OD, 62 degrees OS) (differences OD and OS, p=0.001), which were similar to epilepsy control patients (mean 60 degrees OD, 61 degrees OS). Vigabatrin patients had abnormal electroretinographic photopic B wave, oscillatory, and flicker responses, which correlated with visual field constrictions. These electroretinographic responses were normal for tiagabine patients and control patients. Patients were treated with vigabatrin for a median of 46 months compared with 29 months for tiagabine. Patients taking other AEDs that may change brain GABA had normal visual function.

CONCLUSION

Unlike vigabatrin, tiagabine treatment is associated with normal electroretinography and visual fields and ophthalmological function similar to epilepsy control patients. Differences between vigabatrin and other GABA modulating AEDs in retinal drug concentrations and other effects might explain why tiagabine increases in GABA reuptake do not cause retinal injury.

Visual field defects with vigabatrin: epidemiology and therapeutic implications

Vigabatrin is an antiepileptic drug (AED) that acts as a selective irreversible inhibitor of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transaminase. In 1997, 3 cases of severe symptomatic and persistent visual field constriction associated with vigabatrin treatment were described. During 1997 to 1998, similar concentric visual field constrictions were described in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who were receiving vigabatrin concurrently with other AEDs. However, a study of patients treated with vigabatrin monotherapy alone showed that there was a causal relationship between vigabatrin treatment and the specific bilateral concentric visual field constriction. The Marketing Authorisation Holders survey (involving 335 vigabatrin recipients aged >14 years) indicated that 31% of patients [95% confidence interval (CI) 26 to 36%] had a visual field defect attributable to vigabatrin, compared with a 0% incidence of visual field defects (upper 95% CI 3%) in an unexposed control group. Other studies in adults have given similar overall prevalences, with a total of 169 of 528 patients diagnosed with vigabatrin-associated field defects (32%, 95% CI 28 to 36%). Male gender seems to be associated with an increase in the relative risk of visual field loss of approximately 2-fold. The pattern of defect is typically a bilateral, absolute concentric constriction of the visual field, the severity of which varies from mild to severe. Data gathered so far suggest that the cumulative incidence increases rapidly during the first 2 years of treatment and within the first 2 kg of vigabatrin intake, stabilising at 3 years and after a total vigabatrin dose of 3 kg. The prevalence of vigabatrin-associated field defects seems to be lower in children, but there are also methodological problems and greater variability in the assessment of visual fields in children. There is particular concern that the increased risk of the visual field defects will outweigh the benefit of the drug in patients who could be controlled with other AEDs. Vigabatrin should currently be used only in combination with other AEDs for patients with resistant partial epilepsy when all other appropriate drug combinations have proved inadequate or have not been tolerated. Regular visual field testing should be performed before the start of treatment and at regular intervals during treatment. Patients with pre-existent visual field defects due to other causes should not be treated with vigabatrin. Currently, the benefits of treating infantile spasms with vigabatrin monotherapy seem to outweigh the risks, but further prospective studies and follow-up of children receiving treatment are needed to evaluate the place of vigabatrin in this indication.