Randomised comparative monotherapy trial of phenobarbitone, phenytoin, carbamazepine, or sodium valproate for newly diagnosed childhood epilepsy

Comprehensive Analysis of Metabolic Changes in Male Mice Exposed to Sodium Valproate Based on GC-MS Analysis

Purpose

Sodium valproate (VPA) is the most widely used broad-spectrum antiepileptic first-line drug in clinical practice and is effective against various types of epilepsy. However, VPA can induce severe cardiotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, and neurotoxicity, which limits its use. Metabolomic studies of VPA-induced toxicity have focused primarily on changes in serum and urine metabolites but have not evaluated changes in major organs or tissues.

Methods

Central target tissues (intestine, lung, liver, hippocampus, cerebral cortex, inner ear, spleen, kidney, heart, and serum) were analyzed using gas chromatography mass spectrometry to comprehensively evaluate VPA toxicity in mouse models.

Results

Multivariate analyses, including orthogonal projections of the latent structure and Student’s t test, indicated that depending on the matrix used in the study (the intestine, lung, liver, hippocampus, cerebral cortex, inner ear, spleen, kidney, heart or serum) the number of metabolites differed, the lung being the poorest and the kidney the richest in number.

Conclusion

These metabolites were closely related and were found to participate in 12 key pathways related to amino acid, fatty acid, and energy metabolism, revealing that the toxic mechanism of VPA may involve oxidative stress, inflammation, amino acid metabolism, lipid metabolism, and energy disorder.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of antiseizure drugs

Drug-resistant epilepsy occurs in 25-30% of patients. Furthermore, treatment with a first-generation antiseizure drug (ASD) fails in 30-40% of individuals because of their intolerable adverse effects. Over the past three decades, 20 newer- (second- and third-)generation ASDs with unique mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetic profiles have been introduced into clinical practice. This advent has expanded the therapeutic armamentarium of epilepsy and broadens the choices of ASDs to match the individual patient's characteristics. In recent years, research has been focused on defining the ASD of choice for different seizure types. In 2017, the International League Against Epilepsy published a new classification for seizure types and epilepsy syndrome. This classification has been of paramount importance to accurately classify the patient's seizure type(s) and prescribe the ASD that is appropriate. A year later, the American Academy of Neurology published a new guideline for ASD selection in adult and pediatric patients with new-onset and treatment-resistant epilepsy. The guideline primarily relied on studies that compare the first-generation and second-generation ASDs, with limited data for the efficacy of third-generation drugs. While researchers have been called for investigating those drugs in future research, epilepsy specialists may wish to share their personal experiences to support the treatment guidelines. Given the rapid advances in the development of ASDs in recent years and the continuous updates in definitions, classifications, and treatment guidelines for seizure types and epilepsy syndromes, this review aims to present a complete overview of the current state of the literature about the efficacy and tolerability of ASDs and provide guidance to clinicians about selecting appropriate ASDs for initial treatment of epilepsy according to different seizure types and epilepsy syndromes based on the current literature and recent US and UK practical guidelines.

Long-term response and response patterns to antiepileptic drugs in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the long-term response and response patterns to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

METHODS

Patients who had been newly diagnosed with epilepsy and had at least 3-year follow-up records were enrolled. Their long-term response and response patterns to AEDs were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups, a controlled group and an uncontrolled group, according to whether 3-year seizure freedom (3YSF) was achieved. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors associated with a poor drug response.

RESULTS

Of the 472 patients with epilepsy, 180 achieved immediate seizure control, 36 achieved early seizure control, 118 achieved late seizure control, and 138 did not achieve 3YSF. Patients who achieved 3YSF (334/472, 70.8%) were categorized into the controlled group. Among them, 53.9% (180/334) achieved 3YSF immediately, 10.8% (36/334) achieved 3YSF within 6 months, and 35.3% (118/334) achieved 3YSF after 6 months. Also in this group, 228 (228/472, 48.3%), 84 (84/472, 17.8%), 15 (15/472, 3.2%), and 7 (7/472, 1.5%) patients achieved 3YSF on the first, second, third, and fourth regimen, respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that multiple seizure types (odds ratio [OR] = 3.903, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.098-7.264; P < 0.001] and polytherapy (OR = 5.093, 95% CI: 3.183-8.149; P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for a poor drug response.

CONCLUSION

The 3YSF rate in this cohort was 70.8%. More than half of the patients achieved long-term remission immediately after treatment. The probability of attaining 3YSF decreased with the increase in number of drug regimens, especially in patients who experienced failure of two treatment regimens.

Cosmetic adverse effects of antiseizure medications; A systematic review

BACKGROUND

We systematically reviewed the existing literature on the cosmetic adverse effects of antiseizure medications (ASMs) in order to depict a clear picture of these unwanted side effects of ASMs with a particular attention to hair loss, hirsutism, acne, and gingival hyperplasia.

METHODS

This systematic review was prepared according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Scopus, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar from the inception to 25 March, 2021 were systematically searched. These key words (title/abstract) were used: "hair loss" OR "hirsutism" OR "acne" OR "gingival hyperplasia" AND "seizure" OR "epilepsy" OR "anriseizure" OR "antiepileptic". The exclusion criteria included: non-original studies, articles not in English, and animal studies.

RESULTS

The primary search yielded 3938 studies; 127 studies were related to the topic and were included in the current systematic review. The most robust evidence on cosmetic adverse effects of ASMs were related to phenytoin (causing gingival hyperplasia, hirsutism, and acne) and valproate (causing hair loss and hirsutism); however, many other ASMs were also implicated in causing these cosmetic adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Antiseizure medications may be associated with various cosmetic adverse effects. Phenytoin and valproate are the most notorious ASMs in this regard; but, other ASMs have also been implicated in causing hair loss, hirsutism, acne, and gingival hyperplasia. Physicians should pay more attention to these significant adverse effects that may affect a patient's facial attractiveness, quality of life, and emotional state.

Limited care offered to people with epilepsy in Mwanza, Tanzania: need for intervention

Introduction

epilepsy is a very common neurological disorder which is associated with high socioeconomic burden. While up to 90% of people with epilepsy (PWE) in developing countries do not get appropriate treatment, there is limited information about care offered to PWE in Tanzania. This study aimed to describe available care offered to PWE in Mwanza.

Methods

a cross-sectional study involving health care workers (HCWs) and PWE attending five selected hospitals outpatient clinics of Mwanza region was done. HCWs completed self-administered questionnaires while PWE or caretakers were interviewed using structured questionnaires. Coded data were analyzed using SPSS.

Results

a total of 18 HCWs and 218 PWE (or their care takers) participated in this study. Health care workers rarely used investigations to confirm epilepsy diagnosis or explore its causes. 10/18 (55.6%) of HCWs reported that counseling was given to patients but counseling information was largely inadequate regarding the use of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs). The AEDs prescriptions were dictated by drug availability and affordability to patients. Among 197 PWE, whose AEDs doses were revealed, 136 (69.0%) were under-medicated. No follow-up investigation was done to all PWE who were interviewed. There was discrepancy between hospitals and practitioners regarding withdrawal of AEDs.

Conclusion

people with epilepsy in Mwanza received limited care. Patients were not thoroughly investigated, counseled and followed-up, and had limited choice and accessibility to AEDs. Some patients particularly in district hospitals were under-medicated despite of seizure recurrence. We recommend short-course training about epilepsy management to the HCWs who diagnose and treat PWE regularly.

Epilepsy in Nicolaides-Baraitser Syndrome: Review of Literature and Report of 25 Patients Focusing on Treatment Aspects

Nicolaides-Baraitser syndrome (NCBRS), caused by a mutation in the SMARCA2 gene, which goes along with intellectual disability, congenital malformations, especially of face and limbs, and often difficult-to-treat epilepsy, is surveyed focusing on epilepsy and its treatment. Patients were recruited via "Network Therapy of Rare Epilepsies (NETRE)" and an international NCBRS parent support group. Inclusion criterion is NCBRS-defining SMARCA2 mutation. Clinical findings including epilepsy classification, anticonvulsive treatment, electroencephalogram (EEG) findings, and neurodevelopmental outcome were collected with an electronic questionnaire. Inclusion of 25 NCBRS patients with epilepsy in 23 of 25. Overall, 85% of the participants (17/20) reported generalized seizures, the semiology varied widely. EEG showed generalized epileptogenic abnormalities in 53% (9/17), cranial magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) was mainly inconspicuous. The five most frequently used anticonvulsive drugs were valproic acid (VPA [12/20]), levetiracetam (LEV [12/20]), phenobarbital (PB [8/20]), topiramate (TPM [5/20]), and carbamazepine (CBZ [5/20]). LEV (9/12), PB (6/8), TPM (4/5), and VPA (9/12) reduced the seizures' frequency in more than 50%. Temporary freedom of seizures (>6 months) was reached with LEV (4/12), PB (3/8), TPM (1/5, only combined with PB and nitrazepam [NZP]), and VPA (4/12). Seizures aggravation was observed under lamotrigine (LTG [2/4]), LEV (1/12), PB (1/8), and VPA (1/12). Ketogenic diet (KD) and vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) reduced seizures' frequency in one of two each. This first worldwide retrospective analysis of anticonvulsive therapy in NCBRS helps to treat epilepsy in NCBRS that mostly shows only initial response to anticonvulsive therapy, especially with LEV and VPA, but very rarely shows complete freedom of seizures in this, rather genetic than structural epilepsy.

A Case Series of Patients With Central Hypothyroidism From Oxcarbazepine Therapy

Many medications can impact thyroid function. Antiseizure medications have been shown to disrupt thyroid function in adults, but information is limited about how antiseizure medications may affect thyroid function in children. Oxcarbazepine is an analog of carbamazepine designed to minimize effects from the hepatic P450 metabolic enzymes. We have found that in the pediatric population, serum free thyroxine is reduced and thyroid-stimulating hormone concentrations are unchanged in patients taking oxcarbazepine with the mechanism thus being central hypothyroidism.

Drosophila para bss Flies as a Screening Model for Traditional Medicine: Anticonvulsant Effects of Annona senegalensis

Epilepsy is among the most common serious neurological disorders and affects around 50 million people worldwide, 80% of which live in developing countries. Despite the introduction of several new Anti-Epileptic Drugs (AEDs) in the last two decades, one third of treated patients have seizures refractory to pharmacotherapy. This highlights the need to develop new treatments with drugs targeting alternative seizure-induction mechanisms. Traditional medicine (TM) is used for the treatment of epilepsy in many developing countries and could constitute an affordable and accessible alternative to AEDs, but a lack of pre-clinical and clinical testing has so far prevented its wider acceptance worldwide. In this study we used Drosophila melanogaster paralytic^{bangsensitive}(para^bss) mutants as a model for epileptic seizure screening and tested, for the first time, the anti-seizure effect of a non-commercial AED. We evaluated the effect of the African custard-apple, Annona senegalensis, which is commonly used as a TM for the treatment of epilepsy in rural Africa, and compared it with the classical AED phenytoin. Our results showed that a stem bark extract from A. senegalensis was significantly more effective than a leaf extract and similar to phenytoin in the prevention and control of seizure-like behavior. These results support that Drosophila constitutes a robust animal model for the screening of TM with potential value for the treatment of intractable epilepsy.

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.

Clinical opinion: Earlier employment of polytherapy in sequential pharmacotherapy of epilepsy

Modern pharmacotherapy for epilepsy consists of orderly, sequential drug trials, in which antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are chosen under the concept of individual patient-oriented (or - tailored) pharmacotherapy. Although monotherapy has been established as the preferred mode of AEDs therapy in both newly diagnosed and drug resistant epilepsies, there are still lack of evidence to favor either monotherapy or polytherapy in epilepsy, which has generated continuing controversies on the preferred mode of pharmacotherapy. However, each mode of pharmacotherapy may have both advantages and disadvantages, which are different and variable related to individual case scenario. We conducted a brief comparative overview between monotherapy and polytherapy to provide clues for earlier employment of polytherapy in each steps of sequential drug trials. Previous claims about the advantages of monotherapy over polytherapy are not supported but gradually losing its ground by the introduction of a large number of drugs carrying pharmacological advantages for combination therapy. Current evidence stresses the importance of combining drugs having synergistic interactions for better outcome of polytherapy, which has not been considered in previous clinical investigations comparing monotherapy and polytherapy. It is likely that a significant improvement in the outcome of current AEDs therapy is feasible by earlier employment of polytherapy as well as identification of combination drug regimens carrying synergistic interactions. At present, lamotrigine(LTG) and valproate(VPA) combination regimen is the only well documented synergistic regimen, but there are a long-list of candidate regimens requiring future trials in appropriate designs.

Pharmacotherapy for Focal Seizures in Children and Adolescents

Focal-onset seizures are among the most common forms of seizures in children and adolescents and can be caused by a wide diversity of acquired or genetic etiologies. Despite the increasing array of antiseizure drugs available, treatment of focal-onset seizures in this population remains problematic, with as many as one-third of children having seizures refractory to medications. This review discusses contemporary concepts in focal seizure classification and pathophysiology and describes the antiseizure medications most commonly chosen for this age group. As antiseizure drug efficacy is comparable in children and adults, here we focus on pharmacokinetic aspects, drug-drug interactions, and side effect profiles. Finally, we provide some suggestions for choosing the optimal medication for the appropriate patient.

Clinically Approved Drugs against CNS Diseases as Potential Therapeutic Agents To Target Brain-Eating Amoebae

Central nervous system (CNS) infections caused by free-living amoebae such as Acanthamoeba species and Naegleria fowleri are rare but fatal. A major challenge in the treatment against the infections caused by these amoebae is the discovery of novel compounds that can effectively cross the blood-brain barrier to penetrate the CNS. It is logical to test clinically approved drugs against CNS diseases for their potential antiamoebic effects since they are known for effective blood-brain barrier penetration and affect eukaryotic cell targets. The antiamoebic effects of clinically available drugs for seizures targeting gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA) receptor and ion channels were tested against Acanthamoeba castellanii belonging to the T4 genotype and N. fowleri. Three such drugs, namely, diazepam (Valium), phenobarbitone (Luminal), phenytoin (Dilantin), and their silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) were evaluated against both trophozoites and cysts stage. Drugs alone and drug conjugated silver nanoparticles were tested for amoebicidal, cysticidal, and host-cell cytotoxicity assays. Nanoparticles were synthesized by sodium borohydride reduction of silver nitrate with drugs as capping agents. Drug conjugated nanoconjugates were characterized by ultraviolet-visible (UV-vis) and Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopies and atomic force microscopy (AFM). In vitro moebicidal assay showed potent amoebicidal effects for diazepam, phenobarbitone, and phenytoin-conjugated AgNPs as compared to drugs alone against A. castellanii and N. fowleri. Furthermore, both drugs and drug conjugated AgNPs showed compelling cysticidal effects. Drugs conjugations with silver nanoparticles enhanced their antiacanthamoebic activity. Interestingly, amoeba-mediated host-cell cytotoxicity was also significantly reduced by drugs alone as well as their nanoconjugates. Since, these drugs are being used to target CNS diseases, their evaluation against brain-eating amoebae seems feasible due to advantages such as permeability of the blood-brain barrier, established pharmacokinetics and dynamics, and United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Given the limited availability of effective drugs against brain-eating amoebae, the clinically available drugs tested here present potential for further in vivo studies.

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.

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.

Prevalence and patterns of anti-epileptic medication prescribing in the treatment of epilepsy in older adults with intellectual disabilities

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of epilepsy is higher in people with intellectual disability (ID) and increases with the degree of ID. Although life expectancy for people with ID is increasing, people with ID coexisting with epilepsy have a higher mortality rate, particularly those who had recent seizures. There have been few observational studies of the prevalence and patterns of anti-epileptic prescribing among older people with ID and epilepsy. The aim of this study was to investigate prevalence and patterns of anti-epileptic prescribing in the treatment of epilepsy in a representative population of older people with ID and epilepsy.

METHODS

This was an observational cross-sectional study from wave 1 (2009/2010) of Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Aging, a nationally representative sample of 753 persons with ID aged between 41 and 90 years. Participants and/or proxies recorded medicines used on a regular basis and reported doctor's diagnosis of epilepsy; medication data were available for 736 (98%). Prescribing of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) for epilepsy in those with a doctor's diagnosis of epilepsy (N = 205) was the primary exposure of interest for this study. Participant exposure to these AEDs was then categorised into AED monotherapy and polytherapy. Participants/carers reported seizure frequency, when epilepsy was last reviewed and which practitioner reviewed epilepsy. In addition, medications that may lower the seizure threshold that were listed in the Maudsley prescribing guidelines in psychiatry were examined.

RESULTS

Of the 736 participants with reported medicines use, 38.9% (n = 287) were exposed to AEDs, and 30.6% (225) had a doctor's diagnosis of epilepsy. Of those with epilepsy (n = 225), 90.9% (n = 205) reported concurrent use of AEDs and epilepsy. Of these 205 participants, 50.3% (n = 103) were exposed to AED polytherapy, and 63 different polytherapy regimes were reported. The most frequently reported AEDs were valproic acid (n = 100, 48.7%), carbamazepine (n = 89, 46.3%) and lamotrigine (n = 57, 27.8%). In total, 13.7% had a concurrent psychotropic, which should be avoided in epilepsy, and 32.6% had a psychotropic where caution is required. Antipsychotics with potential epileptogenic potential accounted for 80% of these medications. Of those with AED polytherapy (n = 103), 29.5% (28) reported being seizure free for the previous 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of epilepsy was high among older people with ID, and half were exposed to two or more AEDs. Despite the use of AED therapy, over half had seizures in the previous 2 years. As the primary goals of optimal AED treatment are to achieve seizure freedom without unacceptable adverse effects, this was not achievable for many older patients with ID and epilepsy. Our findings indicated that people with ID and epilepsy were often exposed to psychotropic medications that may lower the seizure threshold. Regular review of epilepsy and medicines (including medicines that may interact with AEDs or lower the seizure threshold) by multidisciplinary teams working to agreed standards may improve quality of prescribing. Improved exchange of information and coordination of care between specialists and primary care practitioners in line with expert consensus recommendations could bring substantial benefit.

Longitudinal Change in Thyroid Hormone Levels in Children with Epilepsy on a Ketogenic Diet: Prevalence and Risk Factors

Background and Purpose

The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of hypothyroidism and the change of thyroid hormone level in the children with epilepsy on a ketogenic diet (KD).

Methods

The levels of serum free thyroxine (fT4) and thyroid-stimulation hormone (TSH) were measured at the start of the KD and at 6- to 12-month intervals in children with intractable epilepsy. Hypothyroidism was defined as fT4 level < 0.8 ng/dL and TSH level > 6.0 μIU/mL.

Results

A total of 28 children (17 boys and 11 girls) were enrolled in the study. The mean age of onset of seizure was 1.4 ± 1.6 years, the mean age of the start of the KD was 3.2 ± 2.4 years, and the mean duration of KD was 1.9 ± 1.5 years. Overall, there was no significant longitudinal change in the mean fT4 (0.99 ± 0.25 vs. 0.94 ± 0.71 ng/dL, p = 0.28) and TSH (2.94 ± 1.32 vs. 3.18 ± 1.21 μIU/mL, p = 0.44) levels from the start of the KD to last follow-up. The patients with a younger age of seizure onset, earlier initiation of KD, and higher serum levels of cholesterol and triglyceride had a significant decrease in fT4 levels and increase in TSH levels during the KD. Sex, duration of the seizure or KD therapy, seizure types, seizure frequency, seizure outcomes, brain lesion, ratio of KD, and being overweight did not affect the longitudinal change of fT4 and TSH levels during KD.

Conclusion

Thyroid function had no significant longitudinal decrease in pediatric epilepsy during KD therapy. However, careful monitoring of the serum levels of fT4/TSH should be recommended in children on KDs, especially in those with earlier seizure onset, earlier start of KD, and higher levels of lipid profiles.

Comparative efficacy of antiepileptic drugs in children and adolescents: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the comparative efficacy among antiepileptic drugs in the pediatric population (0-18 years).

METHODS

Using the Embase and MEDLINE databases, we updated to February 2017 the search strategy of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for epilepsy. We only included randomized clinical trials conducted in children and mixed-age populations. According to the PRISMA network meta-analysis guideline, the study-level quality assessment was made with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Three investigators independently selected articles. The efficacy outcome was considered to be seizure freedom or ≥50% seizure reduction.

RESULTS

We selected 46 randomized clinical trials. A total of 5652 individuals were randomized to 22 antiepileptic drugs and placebo. The point estimates of carbamazepine and lamotrigine efficacy showed their superiority with respect to all comparator antiepileptic drugs for the treatment of newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. In refractory focal epilepsy, levetiracetam (odds ratio [OR] = 3.3, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 1.3-7.6) and perampanel (OR = 2.5, 95% CrI = 1.1-5.8) were more effective compared to placebo. Ethosuximide and valproic acid were both superior to lamotrigine against absence seizures. The OR point estimate showed the superiority of adrenocorticotropic hormone over all comparators in infantile spasms. A wide heterogeneity in the length of follow-up was observed among the studies.

SIGNIFICANCE

This network meta-analysis suggests that the quality of studies should be improved through the use of comparative designs, relevant outcomes, appropriate follow-up length, and more reliable inclusion criteria.

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

BACKGROUND

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 partial 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 withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial 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 and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 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.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than current first-line treatment carbamazepine and other current first-line treatment lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam); carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Antiepileptic Drugs in Patients with Focal Epilepsy: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analyses

Several newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been introduced into clinical practice, offering choices for individualizing the treatment of epilepsy since AEDs have different efficacy and tolerability profiles. In particular, questions exist regarding which AEDs are the best options for the monotherapy of focal epilepsy. Is carbamazepine (CBZ), which is considered the standard treatment for focal epilepsy, still the best option for monotherapy of focal epilepsy, despite the emergence of new AEDs? In this systematic review, we compared the relative tolerability of all available AEDs for monotherapy of all types of epilepsy as well as their efficacy in the monotherapy of focal epilepsy. In addition, we compared CBZ with other AEDs for the monotherapy of focal epilepsy. We performed a search of the MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases for randomized controlled clinical trials. To compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of the AEDs, we performed network meta-analyses using a Bayesian random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the robustness of the results. A total of 65 studies were included in this review, composing 16,025 patients. Clobazam, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, sulthiame, topiramate, and valproate had the best efficacy profiles and demonstrated no evidence of superiority or inferiority compared with CBZ. However, CBZ showed the greatest risk of patient discontinuation due to intolerable adverse reactions, whereas lamotrigine had the best safety profile and an 81% probability of being the best for the tolerability outcome of patient withdrawals from the study due to intolerable adverse reactions, followed by sulthiame (60%) and clobazam (51%). The newer AEDs-levetiracetam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, sulthiame, and topiramate-should be considered for monotherapy of focal epilepsy because they were demonstrated to be as effective as the older ones (CBZ, clobazam, and valproate) for the treatment of focal epilepsy and were more tolerable. Lamotrigine was the AED with the best tolerability profile, suggesting that it may be the best option for the treatment of focal epilepsy in children and adults.

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

BACKGROUND

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 partial 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 withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial 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 and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 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.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam), and carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.

Epilepsy, Antiepileptic Drugs, and Aggression: An Evidence-Based Review

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have many benefits but also many side effects, including aggression, agitation, and irritability, in some patients with epilepsy. This article offers a comprehensive summary of current understanding of aggressive behaviors in patients with epilepsy, including an evidence-based review of aggression during AED treatment. Aggression is seen in a minority of people with epilepsy. It is rarely seizure related but is interictal, sometimes occurring as part of complex psychiatric and behavioral comorbidities, and it is sometimes associated with AED treatment. We review the common neurotransmitter systems and brain regions implicated in both epilepsy and aggression, including the GABA, glutamate, serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline systems and the hippocampus, amygdala, prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and temporal lobes. Few controlled clinical studies have used behavioral measures to specifically examine aggression with AEDs, and most evidence comes from adverse event reporting from clinical and observational studies. A systematic approach was used to identify relevant publications, and we present a comprehensive, evidence-based summary of available data surrounding aggression-related behaviors with each of the currently available AEDs in both adults and in children/adolescents with epilepsy. A psychiatric history and history of a propensity toward aggression/anger should routinely be sought from patients, family members, and carers; its presence does not preclude the use of any specific AEDs, but those most likely to be implicated in these behaviors should be used with caution in such cases.

New developments in the management of partial-onset epilepsy: role of brivaracetam

Currently, a number of novel anticonvulsant drugs, the so-called third generation, are in various stages of development. Several of them are already available or in ongoing clinical trials. These new compounds should take advantage of new insights into the basic pathophysiology of epileptogenesis, drug metabolism and drug interactions. Many of them still need to be further evaluated mainly in real-world observational trials and registries. Among newer anticonvulsant drugs for partial-onset seizures (POSs), rufinamide, lacosamide, eslicarbazepine and perampanel are those new treatment options for which more substantial clinical evidence is currently available, both in adults and, to some extent, in children. Among the newest anticonvulsant drugs, brivaracetam, a high-affinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand, reported to be 10- to 30-fold more potent than levetiracetam, is highly effective in a broad range of experimental models of focal and generalized seizures. Unlike levetiracetam, brivaracetam does not inhibit high-voltage Ca2+ channels and AMPA receptors and appears to inhibit neuronal voltage-gated sodium channels playing a role as a partial antagonist. Brivaracetam has a linear pharmacokinetic profile, is extensively metabolized and is excreted by urine (only 8%-11% unchanged). It does not seem to influence the pharmacokinetics of other antiepileptic drugs. It was approved in the European Union in January 2016 and in the US in February 2016 as an adjunctive therapy for the treatment of POS in patients older than 16 years of age. To date, its clinical efficacy as adjunctive antiepileptic treatment in adults with refractory POS at doses between 50 and 200 mg daily has been extensively assessed in two Phase IIb and four Phase III randomized controlled studies. Long-term extension studies show sustained efficacy of brivaracetam. Overall, the drug is generally well tolerated with only mild-to-moderate side effects. This is true also by intravenous route. Brivaracetam has not yet been evaluated as monotherapy or in comparison with other new anticonvulsant drugs.

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

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 2, 2002 and its subsequent updates in 2010 and 2015.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which recurrent, unprovoked seizures are caused by abnormal electrical discharges from the brain. 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 partial 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, although the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide. Differences in efficacy may therefore be shown by synthesising the data of the individual trials.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to withdrawal, six- and 12-month remission, and first seizure with carbamazepine compared to phenytoin, used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial, or secondarily generalised tonic-clonic seizures), or generalised tonic-clonic seizures, with or without other generalised seizure types.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (1st November 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 1st November 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 1 November 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (1 November 2016), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 1st November 2016). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (1823 to 16th September 2014) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures, comparing carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1192 eligible individuals, from four out of 12 trials (i.e. 50% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. The methodological quality of the four studies providing IPD was generally good and we rated it at low risk of bias overall in the analyses.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to withdrawal of allocated treatment: 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.39; three trials, 546 participants); time to 12-month remission: 1.01 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.31; three trials, 551 participants); time to six-month remission: 1.11 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.37; three trials, 551 participants); and time to first seizure: 0.85 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.04; four trials, 582 participants). The results suggest no overall statistically significant difference between the drugs for these outcomes. There is some evidence of an advantage for phenytoin for individuals with generalised onset seizures for our primary outcome (time to withdrawal of allocated treatment): pooled HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.96; two trials, 118 participants); and a statistical interaction between treatment effect and epilepsy type (partial versus generalised) for this outcome (P = 0.02). However, misclassification of seizure type for up to 48 individuals (32% of those with generalised epilepsy) may have confounded the results of this review. Despite concerns over side effects leading to the withdrawal of phenytoin as a first-line treatment in the USA and Europe, we found no evidence that phenytoin is more likely to be associated with serious side effects than carbamazepine; 26 individuals withdrew from 290 randomised (9%) to carbamazepine due to adverse effects, compared to 12 out of 299 (4%) randomised to phenytoin from four studies conducted in the USA and Europe (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80, P = 0.014). We rated the quality of the evidence as low to moderate according to GRADE criteria, due to imprecision and potential misclassification of seizure type.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence for a statistically significant difference between carbamazepine and phenytoin for the efficacy outcomes examined in this review, but CIs are wide and we cannot exclude the possibility of important differences. There is no evidence in this review that phenytoin is more strongly associated with serious adverse events than carbamazepine. There is some evidence that people with generalised seizures may be less likely to withdraw early from phenytoin than from carbamazepine, but misclassification of seizure type may have impacted upon our results. We recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review, and do not recommend that our results alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenytoin. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible, with considerations of allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Protocol for a prospective observational study of adverse drug reactions of anti-epileptic drugs in children in the UK

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common chronic disease of children that can be treated with anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs). AEDs, however, have significant side effects. Newer AEDs are thought to have fewer side effects. There have, however, been few comparative studies of AED toxicity. The aim is to compare the safety profile of the most frequently used AEDs by performing a multicentre prospective cohort study. This protocol describes the planned study.

DESIGN

A multicentre prospective cohort study of children on AED treatment in hospitals across the UK. Ethical approval will be obtained.

SAMPLE SIZE

Three thousand children on treatment for epilepsy will be recruited from paediatric clinics. It is expected that this sample size will have the potential to compare toxicity between the most frequently used AEDs.

DURATION OF STUDY

24 months.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to AEDs. These will be identified by the use of a validated questionnaire, the Paediatric Epilepsy Side Effect Questionnaire. They will be evaluated using the Naranjo algorithm. Preventability will be assessed using the Schumock and Thornton scale.

DISCUSSION

Toxicity of individual AEDs when given as monotherapy and polytherapy will be determined. Additionally, discontinuation rates due to ADRs will be determined. The data will assist clinicians in choosing AEDs with the least toxicity.

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

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, first published in Issue 1, 2003 and updated in 2015. 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 partial 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 studies are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 18 August 2016: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (from 1823) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenobarbitone monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 836 participants out of 1455 eligible individuals from six out of 13 trials; 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for phenobarbitone, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were HR 1.50 for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; P = 0.003); HR 0.93 for time to achieve 12-month remission (95% CI 0.72 to 1.20; P = 0.57); HR 0.99 for time to achieve six-month remission (95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; P = 0.95); and HR 0.87 for time to first seizure (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06; P = 0.18). Results suggest an advantage for carbamazepine over phenobarbitone in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and no statistically significant evidence between the drugs for the other outcomes. We found evidence of a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (Chi² test for subgroup differences P = 0.03), where phenobarbitone was favoured for partial onset seizures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02) and carbamazepine was favoured for generalised onset seizures (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.77; P = 0.27). We found no evidence of an interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for the other outcomes. However, methodological quality of the included studies was variable, with 10 out of the 13 included studies (4 out of 6 studies contributing IPD) judged at high risk of bias for at least one methodological aspect, leading to variable individual study results, and therefore, heterogeneity in the analyses of this review. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of poor methodological aspects, where possible.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we found evidence suggestive of an advantage for carbamazepine in terms of drug effectiveness compared with phenobarbitone (retention of the drug in terms of seizure control and adverse events) and evidence suggestive of an association between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (phenobarbitone favoured for partial seizures and carbamazepine favoured for generalised seizures). However, this evidence was judged to be of low quality due to poor methodological quality and the potential impact on individual study results (and therefore variability (heterogeneity) present in the analysis within this review), we encourage caution when interpreting the results of this review and do not advocate that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations for allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Phenytoin versus valproate monotherapy for partial onset seizures and generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, phenytoin and valproate are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for partial onset seizures, and that valproate 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.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to withdrawal, remission and first seizure of phenytoin compared to valproate when used as monotherapy in people with partial 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 (19 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to 19 May 2015), SCOPUS (19 February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (19 May 2015), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (19 May 2015). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of valproate monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Outcomes were time to: (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment (retention time); (b) achieve 12-month remission (seizure-free period); (c) achieve six-month remission (seizure-free period); and (d) first seizure (post-randomisation). We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

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 partial 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: HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes: HR > 1 indicates an advantage for valproate.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to: (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.09 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.55); (b) achieve 12-month remission 0.98 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.23); (c) achieve six-month remission 0.95 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.15); and (d) first seizure 0.93 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.14). The results suggest no overall difference between the drugs for these outcomes. We did not find any statistical interaction between treatment and seizure type (partial versus generalised).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between phenytoin and valproate for the outcomes examined in this review. However misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review. Results do not apply to absence or myoclonus seizure types. No outright evidence was found to support or refute current treatment policies.

A preliminary observation of the adverse effects of phenobarbital among patients with convulsive epilepsy in rural West China

BACKGROUND

This study explored the adverse effect (AE) profile of phenobarbital (PB) among patients with active convulsive epilepsy (ACE) from resource-poor areas.

METHODS

Patients with ACE were enrolled into an epilepsy management project in rural West China. Information was obtained from monthly follow-up questionnaires. The demographic and clinical features of the patients with AE were firstly described. After that, the occurrence rate was estimated for each subtype of AE at three different severity levels (mild, moderate, and serious). Survival analysis was used to determine the potential risk factors of AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 7231 patients (3780 men) were included in the present cohort. During the follow-up time period (average 33.4months), the most common AEs were drowsiness (moderate: 4.4%, serious: 0.68%), dizziness (moderate: 3.7%, serious: 0.5%), and headache (moderate: 2.9%, serious: 0.41%). In the confirmed AE groups (moderate and serious severity levels), the symptoms tended to be transient, with durations of less than 3months. Polytherapy was an independent risk factor for AEs and had an increasing risk when the severity of the AE increased (Hazard Ratio 1.12, 1.55, and 2.52 for mild AE, moderate AE, and serious AE, respectively). Receiving a high dosage of PB (>180mg/day) indicated a slightly elevated risk (Hazard Ratio 1.22 and 1.27 for mild AE and moderate AE, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Phenobarbital demonstrates overall tolerability, and serious AEs were not common. Patients receiving a high dose of PB or polytherapy are at increased risk of developing AEs.

Cognition and behavior in a prevalent cohort of children with epilepsy in rural northern Tanzania: A three-year follow-up study

OBJECTIVES

Eighty-five percent of the 33 million children with epilepsy (CWE) worldwide live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is limited research into epilepsy-related comorbidities in LMICs, and there are no studies of the long-term progression of behavioral and intellectual difficulties in childhood epilepsy in sub-Saharan Africa. We aimed to assess behavior and cognition at three-year follow-up in CWE in rural Tanzania.

METHODS

In 2010, a cross-sectional study identified 112 CWE 6 to 14years of age and 113 age- and sex-matched controls in the Hai district of northern Tanzania. From March to June 2013, cases and controls (now 10 to 18years of age) were followed up. At baseline, behavior was assessed using the Rutter A Questionnaire and cognition using the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. Details of current seizure frequency and antiepileptic drug (AED) use among CWE were collected.

RESULTS

At follow-up, cases had significantly more behavioral difficulties compared with controls (48% of 108 cases versus 14% of 103 controls (p<0.001)). Additionally, 69% of the cases and 16% of the controls had cognitive impairment (p<0.001). In CWE with decreased seizure frequency from baseline to follow-up, behavior had improved significantly. At follow-up, there was no significant difference in behavior between CWE with decreased seizure frequency and those with good seizure control throughout.

SIGNIFICANCE

Behavioral difficulties and cognitive impairment are common among CWE in this population. Improved access to AED treatment and subsequent improved seizure control may reduce the frequency of behavioral difficulties seen in this population.

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

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002 and its subsequent update in 2010.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which recurrent, unprovoked seizures are caused by abnormal electrical discharges from the brain. 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 partial 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, however the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries due to it's low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials, however the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide. Therefore, differences in efficacy may be shown by synthesising the data of the individual trials.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to withdrawal, six- and 12-month remission, and first seizure of carbamazepine compared to phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial, or secondarily generalised tonic-clonic seizures) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures, with or without other generalised seizure types.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (16 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to 16 September 2014), SCOPUS (1823 to 16 September 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 September 2014), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (18 September 2014). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1192 eligible individuals, from four out of 12 trials (i.e. 50% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. Methodological quality of the four studies providing IPD was generally good and we rated it at low risk of bias overall in the analyses.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to withdrawal of allocated treatment: 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.39); time to 12-month remission: 1.01 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.31); time to six-month remission: 1.11 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.37); and time to first seizure: 0.85 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.04). The results suggest no overall statistically significant difference between the drugs for these outcomes. There is some evidence of an advantage for phenytoin for individuals with generalised onset seizures for our primary outcome (time to withdrawal of allocated treatment): pooled HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.96); and a statistical interaction between treatment effect and epilepsy type (partial versus generalised) for this outcome (P = 0.02), however misclassification of seizure type for up to 48 individuals (32% of those with generalised epilepsy) may have confounded the results of this review. Despite concerns over side effects leading to the withdrawal of phenytoin as first line treatment in the USA and Europe, we found no evidence that phenytoin is more likely to be associated with serious side effects than carbamazepine; 26 individuals withdrew from 290 randomised (9%) to carbamazepine due to adverse effects compared to 12 out of 299 (4%) randomised to phenytoin from four studies conducted in the USA and Europe (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80, P = 0.014). We rated the quality of the evidence as low - moderate according to GRADE criteria, due to imprecision and potential misclassification of seizure type.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence that a statistically significant difference exists between carbamazepine and phenytoin for the efficacy outcomes examined in this review, however, CIs are wide and the possibility of important differences existing has not been excluded. There is no evidence in this review that phenytoin is more strongly associated with serious adverse events than carbamazepine. There is some evidence that participants with generalised seizures may be less likely to withdraw early from phenytoin than carbamazepine, but misclassification of seizure type may have impacted upon the results of this review. We recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review, and do not recommend that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenytoin. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations on allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

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

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2003, 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 go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine (CBZ) and phenobarbitone (PB) are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for partial onset seizures 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, PB is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between CBZ and PB in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to September 2014: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946), Scopus (from 1823), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry platform (WHO ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of CBZ monotherapy versus PB monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Individual participant data were available for 836 participants out of 1455 eligible individuals from 6 out of 13 trials, 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for PB, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for CBZ.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were HR 1.50 for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (95% CI 1.15 to 1.95, P = 0.003); HR 0.93 for time to 12-month remission (95% CI 0.72 to 1.20, P = 0.57); HR 0.99 for time to 6-month remission (95% CI 0.80 to 1.23, P = 0.95); and HR 0.87 for time to first seizure (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, P = 0.18). Results suggest an advantage for CBZ over PB in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and no statistically significant evidence between the drugs for the other outcomes. We found evidence of a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (Chi² test for subgroup differences P = 0.03), where PB was favoured for partial onset seizures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96, P = 0.02) and CBZ was favoured for generalised onset seizures (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.77, P = 0.27). However, methodological quality of the included studies was variable, with 10 out of the 13 included studies (4 out of 6 studies contributing IPD) judged as high risk of bias for at least 1 methodological aspect, leading to variable individual study results and therefore heterogeneity in the analyses of this review. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of poor methodological aspects where possible.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we found evidence suggestive of an advantage for CBZ in terms of drug effectiveness compared with PB (retention of the drug in terms of seizure control and adverse events) and evidence of an association between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (PB favoured for partial seizures and CBZ favoured for generalised seizures). Given the varying quality of studies included in this review and the impact of poor methodological quality on individual study results (and therefore variability (heterogeneity) present in the analysis within this review), we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review and do not recommend that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between CBZ and PB. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations for allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Treatment registry in focal epilepsy (TRIP): multicenter observational study in Lebanon

PURPOSE

Treatment of newly diagnosed epilepsy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) is the favored approach for seizure management. This observational study aimed to assess, under daily practice conditions, remission and retention rates with the first AED prescribed as monotherapy in patients newly or recently diagnosed with focal epilepsy.

METHODS

The treatment registry in focal epilepsy (TRIP) study was conducted on 234 Lebanese patients with newly or recently diagnosed focal epilepsy, requiring treatment with an AED. Demographics, baseline focal seizure characteristics and results of the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale at the 12-month visit were reported. The primary objective of this study was to assess the percentage of patients who achieved a 6-month terminal seizure remission at the 12-month visit following treatment with a first AED administered as monotherapy. Secondary outcome variables included the calculation of the 6-month terminal seizure remission according to the baseline seizure types and patient retention at the 12 and 18 month visits. In addition, bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify independent predictors of 6-month terminal seizure remission at the 12-month visit.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 234 eligible patients was 31.6 years and the majority were males (62%). At baseline, the most common type of focal seizures was focal seizures with impairment of consciousness (45%), and the most frequent topographical localization was in the temporal lobe (47%). In total, 77.6% of the patients achieved a 6-month terminal seizure remission at the 12-month visit. Patients with an epileptogenic lesion on neuroimaging were significantly less likely to achieve a 6-month remission compared to those with no identifiable pathological substrate. Patients with focal motor seizures without impairment of consciousness at baseline had significantly lower odds of achieving a 6-month terminal seizure remission compared to patients with a combination of seizure types. There was no significant association between age or gender and 6-month terminal seizure remission. The retention rates were 95.7% and 88.5% at months 12 and 18 respectively with the great majority of patients (90.7%) reporting marked improvement on the CGI scale.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy achieved a 6-month terminal seizure remission following treatment with a first AED administered as monotherapy. Patients with an epileptogenic lesion on neuroimaging and those with focal motor seizures without impairment of consciousness at baseline were significantly less likely to achieve a 6-month terminal seizure remission. This study demonstrated the feasibility of conducting long-term multicenter studies in Lebanon and will hopefully serve as an impetus to conduct randomized studies in the field of epilepsy.

Antiepileptic drug treatment of rolandic epilepsy and Panayiotopoulos syndrome: clinical practice survey and clinical trial feasibility

BACKGROUND

The evidence base for management of childhood epilepsy is poor, especially for the most common specific syndromes such as rolandic epilepsy (RE) and Panayiotopoulos syndrome (PS). Considerable international variation in management and controversy about non-treatment indicate the need for high quality randomised controlled trials (RCT). The aim of this study is, therefore, to describe current UK practice and explore the feasibility of different RCT designs for RE and PS.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey of 590 UK paediatricians who treat epilepsy. Thirty-two questions covered annual caseload, investigation and management practice, factors influencing treatment, antiepileptic drug preferences and hypothetical trial design preferences.

RESULTS

132 responded (22%): 81% were paediatricians and 95% at consultant seniority. We estimated, annually, 751 new RE cases and 233 PS cases. Electroencephalography (EEG) is requested at least half the time in approximately 70% of cases; MRI brain at least half the time in 40%-65% cases and neuropsychological evaluation in 7%-8%. Clinicians reported non-treatment in 40%: main reasons were low frequency of seizures and parent/child preferences. Carbamazepine is the preferred older, and levetiracetam the preferred newer, RCT arm. Approximately one-half considered active and placebo designs acceptable, choosing seizures as primary and cognitive/behavioural measures as secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Management among respondents is broadly in line with national guidance, although with possible overuse of brain imaging and underuse of EEG and neuropsychological assessments. A large proportion of patients in the UK remains untreated, and clinicians seem amenable to a range of RCT designs, with carbamazepine and levetiracetam the preferred active drugs.

Antiepileptic Drug Treatment in Children with Epilepsy

Most children with new-onset epilepsy achieve seizure freedom with appropriate antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). However, nearly 20 % will continue to have seizures despite AEDs, as either monotherapy or in combination. Despite the growing market of new molecules over the last 20 years, the proportion of drug-resistant epilepsies has not changed. In this review, we report the evidence of efficacy and safety based on phase III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of AEDs currently used in the paediatric population. We conducted a literature search using the PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also analysed the RCTs of newer AEDs whose efficacy in adolescents and adults might suggest possible use in children. Most of the phase III trials on AEDs in children have major methodological limitations that considerably limit meaningful conclusions about comparative efficacy between old and new molecules. Since the efficacy of new drugs has only been reported versus placebo, the commonly held opinion that new and newer AEDs have a better safety profile than old ones does not appear to be supported by evidence. Despite limited solid evidence, pharmacological management has improved over the years as a consequence of increased awareness of some degree of specificity of treatment in relation to different epilepsy syndromes and attention to adverse events. Future research should be directed taking these factors, as well as the diversity of epilepsy, into consideration.

Time to 12-month remission and treatment failure for generalised and unclassified epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

To develop prognostic models for time to 12-month remission and time to treatment failure after initiating antiepileptic drug monotherapy for generalised and unclassified epilepsy.

METHODS

We analysed data from the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drug (arm B) study, a randomised trial that compared initiating treatment with lamotrigine, topiramate and valproate in patients diagnosed with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Multivariable regression modelling was used to investigate how clinical factors affect the probability of achieving 12-month remission and treatment failure.

RESULTS

Significant factors in the multivariable model for time to 12-month remission were having a relative with epilepsy, neurological insult, total number of tonic-clonic seizures before randomisation, seizure type and treatment. Significant factors in the multivariable model for time to treatment failure were treatment history (antiepileptic drug treatment prior to randomisation), EEG result, seizure type and treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The models described within this paper can be used to identify patients most likely to achieve 12-month remission and most likely to have treatment failure, aiding individual patient risk stratification and the design and analysis of future epilepsy trials.

Phenytoin versus valproate monotherapy for partial onset seizures and generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the previously published Cochrane review (Issue 4, 2009)Worldwide, phenytoin and valproate are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for partial onset seizures, and that valproate is more effective for generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types.

OBJECTIVES

To review the best evidence comparing phenytoin and valproate when used as monotherapy in individuals with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (19 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1, The Cochrane Library, January 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 February 2013), SCOPUS (19 February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (19 February 2013), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (19 February 2013). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of valproate monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual patient data review. Outcomes were time to (a) treatment withdrawal (b) 12-month remission (c) six-month remission and (d) first seizure post randomisation. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

Individual patient data were available for 669 individuals out of 1119 eligible individuals from five out of 11 trials, 60% of the potential data. Results apply to generalised tonic-clonic seizures, but not absence or myoclonus seizure types. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes HR > 1 indicates an advantage for valproateThe main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were time to (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.09 (0.76 to 1.55); (b) 12-month remission 0.98 (0.78 to 1.23); (c) six-month remission 0.95 (0.78 to 1.15) and (d) first seizure 0.93 (0.75 to 1.14). The results suggest no overall difference between the drugs for these outcomes. No statistical interaction between treatment and seizure type (partial versus generalised) was found, but misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between phenytoin and valproate for the outcomes examined in this review. However misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review. Results do not apply to absence or myoclonus seizure types. No outright evidence was found to support or refute current treatment policies.

Pharmacotherapy of focal epilepsy in children: a systematic review of approved agents

BACKGROUND

Partial-onset seizures contribute the bulk of seizure burden in childhood epilepsy. The therapeutic decision making involves consideration of factors specific to drug, patient and socioeconomic situation.

OBJECTIVES

This paper systematically reviews the available efficacy/effectiveness evidence for various anti-epileptic drugs (AED) as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in children.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified by a structured PubMed search, supplemented by an additional hand search of reference lists and authors' files.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Eligible studies were reviewed and data extracted into tables. Included RCTs were classified based on accepted published criteria.

OUTCOMES

Only efficacy and effectiveness outcome measures were evaluated since there is little scientifically rigorous comprehensive AED adverse effects data.

RESULTS

Oxcarbazepine is the only AED with Class I evidence for efficacy/effectiveness as initial monotherapy for partial-onset seizures in children. Carbamazepine, clobazam, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, topiramate, valproate, vigabatrin and zonisamide have, at best, Class III efficacy/effectiveness evidence for monotherapy of partial-onset seizures in children. For adjunctive therapy, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine and topiramate have Class I efficacy/effectiveness evidence for treatment of pediatric partial-onset seizures.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

This efficacy/effectiveness analysis must not be used in isolation when selecting therapy. AED selection for a specific child needs to integrate a drug's efficacy/effectiveness data with its safety and tolerability profile, pharmacokinetic properties, available formulations, and patient specific characteristics. It is critical that physicians and patients incorporate all these relevant variables when choosing AED therapy.

Impact of early life exposure to antiepileptic drugs on neurobehavioral outcomes based on laboratory animal and clinical research

Epilepsy affects approximately 1% of children under the age of 15, making it a very common neurological disorder in the pediatric population (Russ et al., 2012). In addition, ~0.4-0.8% of all pregnant women have some form of epilepsy (Hauser et al., 1996a,b; Borthen et al., 2009; Krishnamurthy, 2012). Despite the potential deleterious effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on the developing brain, their use is still required for seizure control in pregnant women (Krishnamurthy, 2012), and they represent the standard approach for treating children with epilepsy (Chu-Shore and Thiele, 2010; Quach et al., 2010; Verrotti et al., 2011). Even when AEDs are effective, there are potential side effects, including cognitive and affective changes or altered sleep and appetite. The consequences of AED exposure in development have been studied extensively (Canger et al., 1999; Modi et al., 2011a,b; Oguni, 2011). Despite intensive study, there is still debate about the long-term consequences of early life AED exposure. Here, we consider the evidence to date that AED exposure, either prenatally or in early postnatal life, has significant adverse effects on the developing brain and incorporate studies of laboratory animals as well as those of patients. We also note the areas of research where greater clarity seems critical in order to make significant advances. A greater understanding of the impact of AEDs on somatic, cognitive and behavioral development has substantial value because it has the potential to inform clinical practice and guide studies aimed at understanding the genetic and molecular bases of comorbid pathologies associated with common treatment regimens. Understanding these effects has the potential to lead to AEDs with fewer side effects. Such advances would expand treatment options, diminish the risk associated with AED exposure in susceptible populations, and improve the quality of life and health outcomes of children with epilepsy and children born to women who took AEDs during pregnancy.

How phenobarbital revolutionized epilepsy therapy: the story of phenobarbital therapy in epilepsy in the last 100 years

Phenobarbital (phenobarbitone) was first used as an antiepileptic drug 100 years ago, in 1912. This article tells the story of the discovery of its antiepileptic action, its early development, and the subsequent course of its clinical use over the 100-year period. The side effects, pharmacokinetics, and misuse of barbiturates are considered, along with the more recent clinical trials and the drug's current clinical utilization. The introduction of controlled drug regulations, the comparative cost of phenobarbital, and its inclusion on the World Health Organization (WHO) essential drug list are discussed. It is one of the few drugs on the formulary in 1912 that is still listed today, and remarkably its efficacy in epilepsy has not been significantly bettered. The current recommendation by the WHO is that phenobarbital should be offered as the first option for therapy for convulsive epilepsy in adults and children if availability can be ensured. This is rated as a strong recommendation because of the proven efficacy and low cost of phenobarbital, and despite its perceived side-effect profile and the practical problems of access. Whether this recommendation puts "a hierarchy on the brain," as has been suggested, is arguable. Much still needs to be learned about the drug's effects, and the issues raised by phenobarbital have lessons for all antiepileptic drug therapy.

Phenobarbitone versus phenytoin monotherapy for partial onset seizures and generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2001, Issue 4.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 best evidence comparing phenobarbitone and phenytoin when used as monotherapy in participants with partial onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group trials register (31 May 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 5 of 12, The Cochrane Library 2012) and MEDLINE (1946 to May week 4, 2012). We hand-searched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.  

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of phenobarbitone monotherapy with phenytoin monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Outcomes were time to (a) treatment withdrawal (b) 12-month remission (c) six-month remission and (d) first seizure post randomisation. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled estimate of HRs and 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

Data have been obtained for four of eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria, amounting to 599 individuals, or approximately 63% of the potential data.The main overall results (pooled HR, 95% CI) were (a) time to treatment withdrawal 1.62 (1.23 to 2.14); (b) time to 12-month remission 0.90 (0.69 to 1.18) (c) time to six-month remission 0.92 (0.73 to 1.16) and (d) time to first seizure 0.85 (0.68 to 1.05). These results indicate a statistically significant clinical advantage for phenytoin in terms of treatment withdrawal. However, this result may have been confounded by several factors including substantial statistical heterogeneity between studies and lack of blinding in two studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review show that phenobarbitone was significantly more likely to be withdrawn than phenytoin. Given that no significant differences for seizure outcomes were found, the higher withdrawal rate with phenobarbitone may be due to adverse effects. Several factors may have confounded the results of this review.  

Updated ILAE evidence review of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes

The purpose of this report was to update the 2006 International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) report and identify the level of evidence for long-term efficacy or effectiveness for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy. All applicable articles from July 2005 until March 2012 were identified, evaluated, and combined with the previous analysis (Glauser et al., 2006) to provide a comprehensive update. The prior analysis methodology was utilized with three modifications: (1) the detectable noninferiority boundary approach was dropped and both failed superiority studies and prespecified noninferiority studies were analyzed using a noninferiority approach, (2) the definition of an adequate comparator was clarified and now includes an absolute minimum point estimate for efficacy/effectiveness, and (3) the relationship table between clinical trial ratings, level of evidence, and conclusions no longer includes a recommendation column to reinforce that this review of efficacy/evidence for specific seizure types does not imply treatment recommendations. This evidence review contains one clarification: The commission has determined that class I superiority studies can be designed to detect up to a 20% absolute (rather than relative) difference in the point estimate of efficacy/effectiveness between study treatment and comparator using an intent-to-treat analysis. Since July, 2005, three class I randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 11 class III RCTs have been published. The combined analysis (1940-2012) now includes a total of 64 RCTs (7 with class I evidence, 2 with class II evidence) and 11 meta-analyses. New efficacy/effectiveness findings include the following: levetiracetam and zonisamide have level A evidence in adults with partial onset seizures and both ethosuximide and valproic acid have level A evidence in children with childhood absence epilepsy. There are no major changes in the level of evidence for any other subgroup. Levetiracetam and zonisamide join carbamazepine and phenytoin with level A efficacy/effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy for adults with partial onset seizures. Although ethosuximide and valproic acid now have level A efficacy/effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy for children with absence seizures, there continues to be an alarming lack of well designed, properly conducted epilepsy RCTs for patients with generalized seizures/epilepsies and in children in general. These findings reinforce the need for multicenter, multinational efforts to design, conduct, and analyze future clinically relevant adequately designed RCTs. When selecting a patient's AED, all relevant variables and not just efficacy and effectiveness should be considered.