Should substitution monotherapy or combination therapy be used after failure of the first antiseizure medication? Observations from a 30-year cohort study

Second antiseizure medication monotherapy in patients with adult-onset epilepsy: A register-based analysis

OBJECTIVE

Revision of therapy is fundamental in epilepsy care, since only half of patients achieve seizure freedom and tolerate the first antiseizure medication (ASM). We studied the selection and retention of second antiseizure medication monotherapy in adults who discontinued treatment with one of the three most frequently prescribed first ASMs, and the impact of age or brain comorbidities.

METHODS

Using Swedish national registers, we conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study from 2007 to 2019 on patients age ≥ 30 at the epilepsy diagnosis that had switched to a second monotherapy after the three most common initial monotherapies (n = 7369). Retention rates (RR) were estimated via Kaplan-Meier. Discontinuation of the second monotherapy was defined as 12-month prescription gap or initiation of a third ASM. Analyses were stratified by sex, age, and presence of stroke or dementia.

RESULTS

The three most commonly prescribed second ASMs were carbamazepine, levetiracetam, and lamotrigine. The 1-year retention rate was 63-76% in all patients. For groups with stroke or dementia, the maximal 1-year RRs were 77% and 87%, respectively. After five years, retention rates ranged from 12% to 39%. There were no major differences between ASMs, apart from in patients discontinuing carbamazepine, where lamotrigine had a superior retention compared to levetiracetam as second monotherapy.

SIGNIFICANCE

The three most often prescribed second ASMs seem to be suitable treatment options according to present guidelines. The second ASMs' retention rates were initially high in all studied patient groups but dropped to approximately the expected proportion of second monotherapy responders over the next five years. This suggests that therapy revision could be expedited.

Minimum clinical utility standards for wearable seizure detectors: A simulation study

OBJECTIVE

Epilepsy management employs self-reported seizure diaries, despite evidence of seizure underreporting. Wearable and implantable seizure detection devices are now becoming more widely available. There are no clear guidelines about what levels of accuracy are sufficient. This study aimed to simulate clinical use cases and identify the necessary level of accuracy for each.

METHODS

Using a realistic seizure simulator (CHOCOLATES), a ground truth was produced, which was then sampled to generate signals from simulated seizure detectors of various capabilities. Five use cases were evaluated: (1) randomized clinical trials (RCTs), (2) medication adjustment in clinic, (3) injury prevention, (4) sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) prevention, and (5) treatment of seizure clusters. We considered sensitivity (0%-100%), false alarm rate (FAR; 0-2/day), and device type (external wearable vs. implant) in each scenario.

RESULTS

The RCT case was efficient for a wide range of wearable parameters, though implantable devices were preferred. Lower accuracy wearables resulted in subtle changes in the distribution of patients enrolled in RCTs, and therefore higher sensitivity and lower FAR values were preferred. In the clinic case, a wide range of sensitivity, FAR, and device type yielded similar results. For injury prevention, SUDEP prevention, and seizure cluster treatment, each scenario required high sensitivity and yet was minimally influenced by FAR.

SIGNIFICANCE

The choice of use case is paramount in determining acceptable accuracy levels for a wearable seizure detection device. We offer simulation results for determining and verifying utility for specific use case and specific wearable parameters.

A multi-center comparison of surgical techniques for corpus Callosotomy in pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

Corpus callosotomy (CC) is used to reduce seizures, primarily in patients with generalized drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). The invasive nature of the procedure contributes to underutilization despite its potential superiority to other palliative procedures. The goal of this study was to use a multi-institutional epilepsy surgery database to characterize the use of CC across participating centers.

METHODS

Data were acquired from the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium (PERC) Surgery Database, a prospective observational study collecting data on children 0-18 years referred for surgical evaluation of DRE across 22 U.S. pediatric epilepsy centers. Patient, epilepsy, and surgical characteristics were collected across multiple CC modalities. Outcomes and complications were recorded and analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients undergoing 85 CC procedures at 14 participating epilepsy centers met inclusion criteria. Mean age at seizure onset was 2.3 years (0-9.4); mean age for Phase I evaluation and surgical intervention were 9.45 (.1-20) and 10.46 (.2-20.6) years, respectively. Generalized seizure types were the most common (59%). Complete CC was performed in 88%. The majority of CC procedures (57%) were via open craniotomy, followed by laser interstitial thermal therapy (LiTT) (20%) and mini-craniotomy/endoscopic (mc/e) (22%). Mean operative times were significantly longer for LiTT, whereas mean estimated blood loss was greater in open cases. Complications occurred in 11 cases (13%) and differed significantly between surgical techniques (p < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in length of postoperative stay across approaches. Mean follow-up was 12.8 months (range 1-39). Favorable Engel outcomes were experienced by 37 (78.7%) of the patients who underwent craniotomy, 10 (58.8%) with LiTT, and 12 (63.2%) with mc/e; these differences were not statistically significant.

SIGNIFICANCE

CC is an effective surgical modality for children with DRE. Regardless of surgical modality, complication rates are acceptable and seizure outcomes generally favorable. Newer, less-invasive, surgical approaches may lead to increased adoption of this efficacious therapeutic option for pediatric DRE.

The pharmacological treatment of epilepsy in adults

The pharmacological treatment of epilepsy entails several critical decisions that need to be based on an individual careful risk-benefit analysis. These include when to initiate treatment and with which antiseizure medication (ASM). With more than 25 ASMs on the market, physicians have opportunities to tailor the treatment to individual patients´ needs. ASM selection is primarily based on the patient's type of epilepsy and spectrum of ASM efficacy, but several other factors must be considered. These include age, sex, comorbidities, and concomitant medications to mention the most important. Individual susceptibility to adverse drug effects, ease of use, costs, and personal preferences should also be taken into account. Once an ASM has been selected, the next step is to decide on an individual target maintenance dose and a titration scheme to reach this dose. When the clinical circumstances permit, a slow titration is generally preferred since it is associated with improved tolerability. The maintenance dose is adjusted based on the clinical response aiming at the lowest effective dose. Therapeutic drug monitoring can be of value in efforts to establish the optimal dose. If the first monotherapy fails to control seizures without significant adverse effects, the next step will be to gradually switch to an alternative monotherapy, or sometimes to add another ASM. If an add-on is considered, combining ASMs with different modes of action is usually recommended. Misdiagnosis of epilepsy, non-adherence and suboptimal dosing are frequent causes of treatment failure and should be excluded before a patient is regarded as drug-resistant. Other treatment modalities, including epilepsy surgery, neuromodulation, and dietary therapies, should be considered for truly drug-resistant patients. After some years of seizure freedom, the question of ASM withdrawal often arises. Although successful in many, withdrawal is also associated with risks and the decision needs to be based on careful risk-benefit analysis.