Vagus nerve stimulation for refractory epilepsy

The Present and Future of Vagus Nerve Stimulation

Epilepsy is one of the major chronic neurological diseases affecting many patients. Resection surgery is the most effective therapy for medically intractable epilepsy, but it is not feasible in all patients. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an adjunctive neuromodulation therapy that was approved in 1997 for the alleviation of seizures; however, efforts to control epilepsy by stimulating the vagus nerve have been studied for over 100 years. Although its exact mechanism is still under investigation, VNS is thought to affect various brain areas. Hence, VNS has a wide indication for various intractable epileptic syndromes and epilepsyrelated comorbidities. Moreover, recent studies have shown anti-inflammatory effects of VNS, and the indication is expanding beyond epilepsy to rheumatoid arthritis, chronic headaches, and depression. VNS yields a more than 50% reduction in seizures in approximately 60% of recipients, with an increase in reduction rates as the follow-up duration increases. The complication rate of VNS is 3–6%, and infection is the most important complication to consider. However, revision surgery was reported to be feasible and safe with appropriate measures. Recently, noninvasive VNS (nVNS) has been introduced, which can be performed transcutaneously without implantation surgery. Although more clinical trials are being conducted, nVNS can reduce the risk of infection and subsequent device failure. In conclusion, VNS has been demonstrated to be beneficial and effective in the treatment of epilepsy and various diseases, and more development is expected in the future.

Clinical neurocardiology defining the value of neuroscience-based cardiovascular therapeutics

The autonomic nervous system regulates all aspects of normal cardiac function, and is recognized to play a critical role in the pathophysiology of many cardiovascular diseases. As such, the value of neuroscience-based cardiovascular therapeutics is increasingly evident. This White Paper reviews the current state of understanding of human cardiac neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, pathophysiology in specific disease conditions, autonomic testing, risk stratification, and neuromodulatory strategies to mitigate the progression of cardiovascular diseases.

Vagus nerve stimulation for partial seizures

BACKGROUND

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory treatment that is used as an adjunctive therapy for treating people with medically refractory epilepsy. VNS consists of chronic intermittent electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, delivered by a programmable pulse generator. The majority of people given a diagnosis of epilepsy have a good prognosis, and their seizures will be controlled by treatment with a single antiepileptic drug (AED), but up to 20%-30% of patients will develop drug-resistant epilepsy, often requiring treatment with combinations of AEDs. The aim of this systematic review was to overview the current evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of vagus nerve stimulation when used as an adjunctive treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review published in Issue 7, 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To determine:(1) The effects on seizures of VNS compared to controls e.g. high-level stimulation compared to low-level stimulation (presumed sub-therapeutic dose); and(2) The adverse effect profile of VNS compared to controls e.g. high-level stimulation compared to low-level stimulation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (23 February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 23 February 2015), MEDLINE (1946 to 23 February 2015), SCOPUS (1823 to 23 February 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (23 February 2015) and ICTRP (23 February 2015). No language restrictions were imposed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The following study designs were eligible for inclusion: randomised, double-blind, parallel or crossover studies, controlled trials of VNS as add-on treatment comparing high and low stimulation paradigms (including three different stimulation paradigms - duty cycle: rapid, mid and slow) and VNS stimulation versus no stimulation or a different intervention. Eligible participants were adults or children with drug-resistant partial seizures not eligible for surgery or who failed surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. The following outcomes were assessed: (a) 50% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency; (b) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (c) adverse effects; (d) quality of life; (e) cognition; (f) mood. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. Sensitivity best and worst case analyses were also undertaken to account for missing outcome data. Pooled Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl) were estimated for the primary outcomes of seizure frequency and treatment withdrawal. For adverse effects, pooled RRs and 99% CI's were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials recruited a total of 439 participants and between them compared different types of VNS stimulation therapy. Baseline phase ranged from 4 to 12 weeks and double-blind treatment phases from 12 to 20 weeks in the five trials. Overall, two studies were rated as having a low risk of bias and three had an unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. Effective blinding of studies of VNS is difficult due to the frequency of stimulation-related side effects such as voice alteration; this may limit the validity of the observed treatment effects. Four trials compared high frequency stimulation to low frequency stimulation and were included in quantitative syntheses (meta-analyses).The overall risk ratio (95% CI) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency across all studies was 1.73 (1.13 to 2.64) showing that high frequency VNS was over one and a half times more effective than low frequency VNS. For this outcome, we rated the evidence as being moderate in quality due to incomplete outcome data in one included study; however results did not vary substantially and remained statistically significant for both the best and worst case scenarios. The risk ratio (RR) for treatment withdrawal was 2.56 (0.51 to 12.71), however evidence for this outcome was rated as low quality due to imprecision of the result and incomplete outcome data in one included study. The RR of adverse effects were as follows: (a) voice alteration and hoarseness 2.17 (99% CI 1.49 to 3.17); (b) cough 1.09 (99% CI 0.74 to 1.62); (c) dyspnea 2.45 (99% CI 1.07 to 5.60); (d) pain 1.01 (99% CI 0.60 to 1.68); (e) paresthesia 0.78 (99% CI 0.39 to 1.53); (f) nausea 0.89 (99% CI 0.42 to 1.90); (g) headache 0.90 (99% CI 0.48 to 1.69); evidence of adverse effects was rated as moderate to low quality due to imprecision of the result and/or incomplete outcome data in one included study. No important heterogeneity between studies was found for any of the outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

VNS for partial seizures appears to be an effective and well tolerated treatment in 439 included participants from five trials. Results of the overall efficacy analysis show that VNS stimulation using the high stimulation paradigm was significantly better than low stimulation in reducing frequency of seizures. Results for the outcome "withdrawal of allocated treatment" suggest that VNS is well tolerated as withdrawals were rare. No significant difference was found in withdrawal rates between the high and low stimulation groups, however limited information was available from the evidence included in this review so important differences between high and low stimulation cannot be excluded . Adverse effects associated with implantation and stimulation were primarily hoarseness, cough, dyspnea, pain, paresthesia, nausea and headache, with hoarseness and dyspnea more likely to occur on high stimulation than low stimulation. However, the evidence on these outcomes is limited and of moderate to low quality. Further high quality research is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS for drug resistant partial seizures.

Vagus nerve stimulation for refractory epilepsy: experience from Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) has been approved for the treatment of refractory partial epilepsy in adults and children over 12 years of age. Later on, its application expanded to include younger children and other types of epilepsy. We report our experience with this treatment modality for refractory epilepsy in Saudi Arabia.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

Open-label, uncontrolled, retrospective study of patients with refractory epilepsy, who were treated with VNS in a tertiary care hospital from January 2010 to June 2013.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Collected data included 26 patients' demographics, epilepsy characteristics, seizure frequency, and treatment history. Patients with a follow-up duration of minimum 12 months were included in the analysis. The examined outcome measures were seizure reduction rates, antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) burden, and impact on patients' quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

Onset of seizures was from birth to 30 years. Patients' ages at VNS implantation ranged from 4 to 38 years (18.9 [8.7] years). Epilepsy was classified as focal in 8 patients (30%), multifocal in 9 patients (35%), and generalized in 9 patients (35%). The average number of AEDs failed before VNS was 4.2 (1.4). Greater than 50% seizure reduction was achieved in 50% of patients at 3 months, 67% at 6 months, 73% at 12 months, and 78% at 24 months. There was no significant reduction in AEDs burden during the same period. Subjective QOL improvement was reported by 72% of patients at 3 months, 83% at 6 months, 78% at 12 months, and 73% at 24 months after VNS. Minor adverse effects were reported in 27% of patients. One patient had the device replaced due to malfunction.

CONCLUSION

The experience with VNS in a single center in Saudi Arabia confirms that it is a safe and effective adjunctive therapy for refractory epilepsy in adult and pediatric patients.