A double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of vigabatrin 2 g/day and 3 g/day in uncontrolled partial seizures

Efficacy and safety of add-on antiseizure medications for focal epilepsy: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several antiseizure medications (ASMs) have been approved for the treatment of focal epilepsy. However, there is a paucity of evidence on direct comparison of ASMs. We evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of all approved add-on ASMs for the treatment of focal epilepsy using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Data through extensive literature search was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrial.gov databases using predefined search terms from inception through March 2023. PRISMA reporting guidelines (CRD42023403450) were followed in this study. Efficacy outcomes assessed were ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% responder rates. Patient retention rate and safety outcomes such as overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and individual TEAEs were assessed. "Gemtc" 4.0.4 package was used to perform Bayesian analysis. Outcomes are reported as relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Literature search retrieved 5807 studies of which, 75 studies were included in the analysis. All ASMs showed significantly higher ≥50% responder rate compared with placebo. Except the ≥75% seizure frequency reduction for zonisamide (2.23; 95% CI: 1.00-5.70) and 100% for rufinamide (2.03; 95% CI: 0.54-11.00), all other interventions showed significantly higher ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared with placebo. Among treatments, significantly higher 100% responder rate was observed with cenobamate compared to eslicarbazepine (10.71; 95% CI: 1.56-323.9) and zonisamide (10.63; 95% CI: 1.37-261.2). All ASMs showed a lower patient retention rate compared to placebo, with the least significant value observed for oxcarbazepine (0.77; 95% CI: 0.7-0.84). Levetiracetam showed a lower risk of incidence (1.0; 95%CI: 0.94-1.1; SUCRA: 0.885067) for overall TEAE compared with other medications.

SIGNIFICANCE

All approved ASMs were effective as add-on treatment for focal epilepsy. Of the ASMs included, cenobamate had the greatest likelihood of allowing patients to attain seizure freedom.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

This article compares the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs) currently available to neurologists in the treatment of epileptic patients. Several newer generation ASMs that have been developed may be as effective or better than the older medications. We included 75 studies in the analysis. In comparison, all drugs improved ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared to control, except for Zonisamide and Rufinamide in the ≥75% and 100% responder rate categories. Retention of patients undergoing treatment was lower in drugs than placebo. All drugs were tolerated, the levetiracetam showed the best tolerability. Cenobamate more likely help completely to reduce seizures.

Vigabatrin add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2008 and updated in 2013. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition which affects up to 1% of the population. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy do not respond to treatment with currently available drugs. The majority of these people have focal epilepsy. Vigabatrin is an antiepileptic drug licensed for use in drug-resistant epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of vigabatrin as an add-on therapy for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update of this review, we searched the following databases on 1 November 2018: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 31 October 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) are both included in the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web). We checked reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies and contacted Hoechst Marion Roussel (manufacturers of vigabatrin) in 2000.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully published trials of vigabatrin in people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat (ITT). We evaluated: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, dose-response analysis, cognitive outcomes and quality of life. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% or 99% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 trials that included 756 participants (age range: 10 to 64 years). The trials tested vigabatrin doses between 1 g/day and 6 g/day. All 11 trials displayed a risk of bias across at least three risk of bias domains. Predominantly, the risk of bias was associated with: allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Participants treated with vigabatrin may be two to three times more likely to obtain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared with those treated with placebo (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.63; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Those treated with vigabatrin may also be three times more likely to have treatment withdrawn although we are uncertain (RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.25 to 6.55; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, participants given vigabatrin were more likely to experience adverse effects: dizziness/light-headedness (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.87; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence), fatigue (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.51; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence), drowsiness (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.44; 8 studies) and depression (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.30 to 8.27; 6 studies). Although the incidence rates were higher among participants receiving vigabatrin compared to those receiving placebo, the effect was not significant for the following adverse effects: ataxia (RR 2.76, 95% CI 0.96 to 7.94; 7 studies; very low-certainty evidence), nausea (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.63 to 20.30; 4 studies), abnormal vision (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.02; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence), headache (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.92; 9 studies), diplopia (RR 1.76, 99% CI 0.94 to 3.30) and nystagmus (RR 1.53, 99% CI 0.62 to 3.76; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Vigabatrin had little to no effect on cognitive outcomes or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Vigabatrin may significantly reduce seizure frequency in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The results largely apply to adults and should not be extrapolated to children under 10 years old. Short-term follow-up of participants showed that some adverse effects were associated with its use. Analysis of longer-term observational studies elsewhere, however, has demonstrated that vigabatrin use can lead to the development of visual field defects.

Understanding the challenge of comparative effectiveness research in focal epilepsy: A review of network meta-analyses and real-world evidence on antiepileptic drugs

OBJECTIVE

Head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing comparative treatment effects. In the absence of direct comparisons between all possible antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), however, clinical decision-making in focal (partial onset) epilepsy relies on alternative evidence borne from indirect comparisons including network meta-analyses (NMAs) and from real-world evidence (RWE) studies. We review NMAs and observational RWE studies comparing AEDs in the adjunctive setting to compare the robustness of these methods and to formulate recommendations for future evidence development.

METHODS

A literature review identified NMAs and RWE studies comparing AEDs for the adjunctive treatment of focal seizures published between January 2008 and October 2018. NMAs were evaluated for robustness using a framework based on guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. RWE studies were evaluated using the GRACE checklist.

RESULTS

From a total of 1993 records, 11 NMAs and six RWE studies were eligible. Key limitations identified in the NMAs include nonsystematic selection of RCTs, unexplored heterogeneity between included RCTs in terms of study and patient characteristics, and selection of AEDs and AED doses or dosing strategies that are not reflective of clinical practice. The main limitations of RWE studies concern sample size, design, and analysis methods. Approximately 90% of comparisons between individual AEDs were nonsignificant in the NMAs. None of the RWE studies adjusted for baseline differences between comparator groups; therefore, they lack the validity to make comparative conclusions.

SIGNIFICANCE

Current NMAs and RWE studies provide only nominal comparative evidence for AED treatments in focal epilepsy, and should be used with caution for decision-making due to their methodological limitations. To overcome these hurdles, adherence to methodological guidelines and concerted efforts to collect relevant outcome data in the real world are needed.

Justification for conducting neurological clinical trials as part of patient care within private practice

The aim of this review was to assess the benefits and drawbacks of conducting neurological clinical trials and research in private practice for the patients, clinician, Practice Manager, sponsors/Clinical Research Organisations (CROs) and Clinical Trial Coordinator (CTC) to determine if this is justified for all involved. A combination of literature reviews, original research articles and books were selected from 2005 to 2015. Provided that the practice has sufficient number of active trials to prevent financial loss, support staff, adequate facilities and equipment and time, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Clinical trials provide patients with more thorough monitoring, re-imbursement of trial-related expenses and the opportunity to try an innovative treatment at no charge when other options have failed. For the clinician, clinical trials provide more information to ensure better care for their patients and improved treatment methods, technical experience and global recognition. Trials collect detailed and up-to-date information on the benefits and risks of drugs, improving society's confidence in clinical research and pharmaceuticals, allow trial sponsors to explore new scientific questions and accelerate innovation. For the CTC, industry-sponsored clinical trials allow potential entry for a career in clinical research giving CTCs the opportunity to become Clinical Research Associates (CRAs), Study Start-Up Managers or Drug Safety Associates.

Drug-induced cerebellar ataxia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cerebellar ataxia can be induced by a large number of drugs. We here conducted a systemic review of the drugs that can lead to cerebellar ataxia as an adverse drug reaction (ADR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in Pubmed (1966 to January 2014) and EMBASE (1988 to January 2014) to identify all of the drugs that can have ataxia as an ADR and to assess the frequency of drug-induced ataxia for individual drugs. Furthermore, we collected reports of drug-induced ataxia over the past 20 years in the Netherlands by querying a national register of ADRs.

RESULTS

Drug-induced ataxia was reported in association with 93 individual drugs (57 from the literature, 36 from the Dutch registry). The most common groups were antiepileptic drugs, benzodiazepines, and antineoplastics. For some, the number needed to harm was below 10. Ataxia was commonly reversible, but persistent symptoms were described with lithium and certain antineoplastics.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to be aware of the possibility that ataxia might be drug-induced, and for some drugs the relative frequency of this particular ADR is high. In most patients, symptoms occur within days or weeks after the introduction of a new drug or an increase in dose. In general, ataxia tends to disappear after discontinuation of the drug, but chronic ataxia has been described for some drugs.

Vigabatrin for refractory partial epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition which affects between 0.5% and 1% of the population. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy do not respond to treatment with currently available drugs. The majority of these people have partial epilepsy. Vigabatrin is an antiepileptic drug licensed for use in the treatment of refractory epilepsy. No major side effects associated with the use of vigabatrin were detected by initial randomised controlled trials of the drug. However, longer-term observational studies have subsequently identified that its use is associated with asymptomatic visual field constriction.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to synthesise evidence from short-term, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of vigabatrin. We summarised the effects of vigabatrin on seizures and short-term side effects when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. A review of longer-term observational studies and estimates of proportions of patients developing visual field constrictions is currently being undertaken and results will be cited in this review in due course.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (12 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1946 to October week 1, 2012) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted the manufacturers of vigabatrin (Hoechst Marion Roussel).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully published trials of vigabatrin in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat (ITT). Outcomes evaluated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal and side effects observable in the short term. Results are presented on the risk ratio (RR) scale with 95% or 99% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven suitable trials that tested vigabatrin doses between 1000 mg and 6000 mg were identified and included in the analysis. There were 982 observations on 747 patients in the primary ITT analysis of treatment efficacy. Patients treated with vigabatrin were significantly more likely to obtain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared with those treated with placebo (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.57). Those treated with vigabatrin were also significantly more likely to have treatment withdrawn (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.05 to 5.88), and were more likely to experience a number of side effects, significantly so for fatigue or drowsiness. There was some evidence of small study effect bias, with smaller studies tending to report greater estimates of RR than larger studies. It is possible, therefore, that the actual RR of obtaining 50% reduction in seizure frequency is less than that obtained by a meta-analysis of fully published studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review of randomised controlled trials showed that vigabatrin can reduce seizure frequency in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Short-term follow-up of patients showed that some side effects were associated with its use. Further analysis of longer-term observational studies is required to evaluate how likely patients are to develop visual field defects and whether such side effects are associated with dose and duration of drug use.

Effect of second-generation antiepileptic drugs on diplopia: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies

Different antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may cause similar adverse effects, one of which is diplopia. However, the AEDs causing diplopia and the dose-response effect of each drug remains uncertain. In this study, we compared several second-generation AEDs to find out whether they would contribute to the risk of diplopia and their effect-causing dose. A meta-analysis was performed on 19 studies in agreement with our inclusion criteria. The results showed that eight commonly used second-generation AEDs (gabapentin, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, pregabalin, topiramate, vigabatrin and zonisamide) could cause diplopia. The reported odds ratios (ORs) ranged from 1.406 to 7.996. Ranking risks from the highest to the lowest ORs of the eight AEDs of any dose resulted in the following order: use of oxcarbazepine (7.996), levetiracetam (7.472), lamotrigine (5.258), vigabatrin (3.562), pregabalin (3.048), topiramate (2.660), gabapentin (1.966), zonisamide (1.406). Taking into account the ORs above, we can conclude that second-generation AEDs of any dose may cause diplopia. However, the levetiracetam-caused diplopia needs to be further studied according to the data (OR, 7.472; 95% confidence interval, 0.375-148.772). These findings ask for better concerns about patients' quality of life when giving antiepileptic treatments.

Treatment of refractory complex partial seizures: role of vigabatrin

Vigabatrin (VGB) is an antiepileptic drug that was designed to inhibit GABA-transaminase, and increase levels of gamma-amino-butyric acid (GABA), a major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain. VGB has demonstrated efficacy as an adjunctive antiepileptic drug for refractory complex partial seizures (CPS) and for infantile spasms (IS). This review focuses on its use for complex partial seizures. Although VGB is well tolerated, there have been significant safety concerns about intramyelinic edema and visual field defects. VGB is associated with a risk of developing bilateral concentric visual field defects. Therefore, the use of VGB for complex partial seizures should be limited to those patients with seizures refractory to other treatments. Patients must have baseline and follow-up monitoring of visual fields, early assessment of its efficacy, and ongoing evaluation of the benefits and risks of VGB therapy.

Vigabatrin for refractory partial epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition which affects between 0.5% and 1% of the population. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy do not respond to treatment with currently available drugs, and the majority of these people have partial epilepsy. Vigabatrin is an antiepileptic drug licensed for use in the treatment of refractory epilepsy. No major side effects associated with the use of vigabatrin were detected by initial randomised controlled trials of the drug. However, longer term observational studies have subsequently identified that its use is associated with asymptomatic visual field constriction.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to synthesise evidence from short-term, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of vigabatrin. We summarise the effects of vigabatrin on seizures and short-term side effects when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. A review of longer term observational studies and estimates of proportions of patients developing visual field constrictions is currently being undertaken and results will be cited here in due course.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2008), MEDLINE (1950-March 2008), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted the manufacturers of vigabatrin (Hoechst Marion Roussel).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully published trials of vigabatrin, in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat (ITT). Outcomes evaluated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal and side effects observable in the short term. Results are presented on the relative risk (RR) scale with 95 or 99% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven suitable trials, testing doses between 1000 mg and 6000 mg, were identified and included in the analysis. There were 982 observations on 747 patients in the primary ITT analysis of treatment efficacy. Patients treated with vigabatrin were significantly more likely to obtain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared with those treated with placebo (RR 2.58 (95% CI 1.87 to 3.57)). Those treated with vigabatrin were also significantly more likely to have treatment withdrawn (RR 2.49 (95% CI 1.05 to 5.88)), and more likely to experience a number of side effects, significantly so for fatigue or drowsiness. There was some evidence of small study effect bias, with smaller studies tending to report greater estimates of RR than larger studies. It is possible that the actual relative risk of obtaining 50% reduction in seizure frequency may therefore be less than that obtained by a meta-analysis of fully published studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review of randomised controlled trials shows that vigabatrin can reduce seizure frequency in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Short-term follow up of patients shows some side effects are associated with its use. Further analysis of longer term observational studies is required to evaluate how likely patients are to develop visual field defects, and whether such side effects are associated with dose and duration of drug use.

Treating epilepsy in the elderly: safety considerations

The incidence of epilepsy increases with advancing age. Epilepsy in the elderly has different aetiologies from that in younger populations, cerebrovascular disease being the most common condition associated with seizures. Partial seizures are the predominant seizure type in older patients. A diagnosis of epilepsy in the elderly is based mainly on the history and is frequently delayed. In addition, seizure imitators are especially frequent. In many cases ancillary tests for diagnosis may show normal age-related variants, sometimes making results difficult to interpret. Treating epilepsy in the elderly is problematic due to a number of issues that relate to age and comorbidity. The physical changes associated with increasing age frequently lead to changes in the pharmacokinetics of many anticonvulsants. The treatment of epilepsy in the elderly is also complicated by the existence of other diseases that might affect the metabolism or excretion of anticonvulsants and the presence of concomitant medications that might interact with them. Moreover, specific trials of anticonvulsants in the aged population are scarce. General guidelines for treatment include starting at lower doses, slowing the titration schedule, individualising the choice of anticonvulsant to the characteristics of the patient, avoiding anticonvulsants with important cognitive or sedative adverse effects, and where possible, treating with monotherapy.

GABAergic mechanisms in epilepsy

gamma-Aminobutyric acid (GABA), the principal inhibitory neurotransmitter in the cerebral cortex, maintains the inhibitory tone that counterbalances neuronal excitation. When this balance is perturbed, seizures may ensue. GABA is formed within GABAergic axon terminals and released into the synapse, where it acts at one of two types of receptor: GABAA, which controls chloride entry into the cell, and GABAB, which increases potassium conductance, decreases calcium entry, and inhibits the presynaptic release of other transmitters. GABAA-receptor binding influences the early portion of the GABA-mediated inhibitory postsynaptic potential, whereas GABAB binding influences the late portion. GABA is rapidly removed by uptake into both glia and presynaptic nerve terminals and then catabolized by GABA transaminase. Experimental and clinical study evidence indicates that GABA has an important role in the mechanism and treatment of epilepsy: (a) Abnormalities of GABAergic function have been observed in genetic and acquired animal models of epilepsy; (b) Reductions of GABA-mediated inhibition, activity of glutamate decarboxylase, binding to GABAA and benzodiazepine sites, GABA in cerebrospinal fluid and brain tissue, and GABA detected during microdialysis studies have been reported in studies of human epileptic brain tissue; (c) GABA agonists suppress seizures, and GABA antagonists produce seizures; (d) Drugs that inhibit GABA synthesis cause seizures; and (e) Benzodiazepines and barbiturates work by enhancing GABA-mediated inhibition. Finally, drugs that increase synaptic GABA are potent anticonvulsants. Two recently developed antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), vigabatrin (VGB) and tiagabine (TGB), are examples of such agents. However, their mechanisms of action are quite different (VGB is an irreversible suicide inhibitor of GABA transaminase, whereas TGB blocks GABA reuptake into neurons and glia), which may account for observed differences in drug side-effect profile.

Vigabatrin: a novel therapy for seizure disorders

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and adverse effects of vigabatrin and its role in the management of seizure disorders.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search of English-language literature from January 1993 through January 1999 was conducted using vigabatrin as a search term to identify pertinent studies and review articles. Additional studies were identified from the bibliographies of reviewed literature. The manufacturer provided postmarketing surveillance data. Priority was given to randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

FINDINGS

Vigabatrin is a selective and irreversible inhibitor of gamma-aminobutyric acid transaminase. In controlled clinical trials of vigabatrin add-on therapy in patients with uncontrolled partial seizures, 24-67% of patients achieved a < or =50% reduction in seizure frequency. Data from two comparative trials with carbamazepine monotherapy indicate that vigabatrin monotherapy reduces the frequency of partial seizures in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Vigabatrin also controls infantile spasms, particularly those associated with tuberous sclerosis. Vigabatrin is more effective in patients with partial seizures than in those with generalized seizures. The drug is generally well tolerated. Headache and drowsiness were the most common adverse effects observed in controlled clinical trials; visual field defects, psychiatric reactions, and hyperactivity also have been reported. There are no known clinically significant drug interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Vigabatrin improves seizure control as add-on therapy for refractory partial seizures and may produce therapeutic benefits in the treatment of infantile spasms. Vigabatrin is generally well tolerated, with a convenient administration schedule, a lack of known significant drug interactions, and no need for routine monitoring of plasma concentrations.

New antiepileptic drugs: comparison of key clinical trials

PURPOSE

Data accrued from clinical trials of five new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are compared for efficacy in reducing seizures and self-reported adverse events as a basis of selection among new AEDs. Drawbacks to use of these data also are demonstrated.

METHODS

A review of double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of a new AED or placebo added to a standard AED provided data on reduction of complex partial seizures (CPSs). Success is > or =50% fewer CPSs with a new AED or placebo; Overall Improvement is the success rate with drug minus the success rate with placebo. Adverse events were tabulated from product-labeling lists of COSTART items (incidence, > or =5%). The Summary Complaint score is the total number of reports of individual events for each AED.

RESULTS

Efficacy data demonstrate differences in Overall Improvement rates among five new AEDs and placebos (p = 0.001). However, rates of response to placebo also differed significantly among trials (p = 0.01). Adverse events predominantly affect central nervous system, psychiatric, and general body systems. However, patients in the placebo control groups did not consistently report adverse effects. Summary Complaint scores differ among the five new AEDs, but variability in use of COSTART terms nullifies comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparisons of data for five new AEDs provide information for selection among treatments when a second drug is needed to improve control of CPSs. However, significant differences among the control groups and other problems make comparisons between trials problematic. The final choice should be based on the need of the individual patient for superior seizure control versus minimal adverse effects.