Monitoring for Adverse Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs

ADHD and ADHD-related neural networks in benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (BECTS or rolandic epilepsy) present with a very high level of comorbidity. We aimed to review the existing literature focusing on two aspects: the possible role of epileptic activity in the damage of ADHD-related neural networks and the clinical approach to patients presenting with both conditions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed using Sapienza Library System and PubMed. The following search terms have been considered: attention networks, ADHD, attention systems, rolandic epilepsy, benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes, centrotemporal spikes epilepsy, and focal epilepsy in children. The target population consisted of patients under 18 years of age diagnosed with either BECTS and ADHD or healthy controls.

RESULTS

Nine case-control and cohort studies have been selected. The reported prevalence of ADHD in patients with BECTS was around 60%. No clinical correlation was found between the medical records and the presence of ADHD in patients with BECTS, if not due to febrile convulsion (FC). One study showed higher levels of bilateral discharges in patients with severe ADHD. The negative influence of the age at onset of seizures was demonstrated on attention but not on intelligence quotient (IQ). Moreover, the frequency of seizures and the occurrence of discharges during nonrapid eye movement (NREM) sleep were correlated to attention impairment. From a neurobiological point of view, functional connectivity in patients with BECTS and ADHD appears to be disrupted. Two studies reported a specific impairment in selective visual attention, while one study underlined a decreased activation of the dorsal attention network (DAN). Two different studies found that patients with BECTS and comorbid ADHD presented with altered thickness in their magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in the cortical and subcortical regions (including the frontal lobes, lingual-fusiform cortex, cuneus and precuneus, limbic area and pericalcarine cortex among others). This might explain the cognitive and behavioral symptoms such as poor selective visual attention, speech disturbance, and impulsivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite BECTS being considered to have a relative benign course, many studies have documented cognitive and/or behavioral problems in patients diagnosed with this type of epilepsy. In particular, children affected by rolandic epilepsy should receive a complete neuropsychological evaluation at seizure onset considering the high rate of comorbidity with ADHD. A further investigation of the common pathogenic substrate is desirable to better orientate the clinical and therapeutic interventions applied.

The benefits of antiepileptic drug (AED) blood level monitoring to complement clinical management of people with epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Some argue that there is no evidence to support the use of antiepileptic drug (AED) blood level monitoring when treating people with epilepsy (PWE). This paper identifies how AED monitoring can be invaluable in such treatment. SPECIFIC EXAMPLES: (i) Compliance: Antiepileptic drug blood levels often confirm noncompliance rather than adequate seizure control, confirming subtherapeutic levels in PWE attending hospitals due to seizures. Routine monitoring of AED levels may prevent breakthrough seizures by identifying noncompliance and instituting heightened compliance measures before experiencing breakthrough seizures without modifying dosages. For PWE attending hospitals due to seizures, loading with the AED shown to be subtherapeutic may be all that is required. (ii) Cluster seizures and status epilepticus: When using long-acting AEDs to complement benzodiazepines, blood level monitoring confirms that an adequate dosage was given and, if not, a further bolus can be administered with further monitoring. This is particularly useful when using rectal administration of AEDs. (iii) Polypharmacy: Polypharmacy provokes drug interactions in which case AED monitoring helps in differentiating adequate dosing, offending AED with toxicity and free level measuring benefits when total levels are unhelpful. (iv) Generic substitution: Generic AEDs can fluctuate considerably from a parent compound, and even a parent compound, sourced from an alternative supplier, may have altered bioavailability for which blood level monitoring is very useful.

CONCLUSIONS

While therapeutic blood level monitoring is not a substitute for good clinical judgment, it offers a valuable adjunct to patient care.

Which drug-induced side effects would be tolerated in the prospect of seizure control?

There is ample evidence that side effects of antiepileptic pharmacotherapy negatively affect quality of life, adherence, and long-term retention. The study was set up to evaluate the anticipated tolerance of common side effects provided that a 50% or 100% reduction of seizure frequency would be achieved. An anonymous inquiry in 79 consecutive patients with epilepsy comprised questions regarding the severity of epilepsy/seizures and the perceived impact of seizures and drug treatment on daily functioning and a 10-tiered rating which assesses 11 common behavioral/psychiatric, cognitive, physiological, or physical side effects according to the degree to which they would be tolerated. Least acceptance was evident for psychiatric side effects followed by cognitive, physiological, and physical side effects. Weight gain and tiredness were the most tolerated side effects. The overall low acceptance of negative side effects was slightly higher in the case of a 100% vs. 50% seizure frequency reduction (28% vs. 21% of the maximum toleration score regarding all side effects). Surely, there is a trade-off between the severity of epilepsy, seizure control, and the acceptance of adverse treatment effects. However, the data disclose that psychiatric and cognitive side effects are least accepted. Thus, consideration of individual tolerance and monitoring of side effects in addition to seizures may increase adherence and therapy success.

Clinical outcomes associated with brand-to-generic phenytoin interchange

BACKGROUND

Concerns that antiepileptic brand-to-generic interchange results in disruption of seizure control are widespread. However, little within-patient evidence exists examining such interchanges.

OBJECTIVE

To compare within-patient seizure control before and after the interchange of a branded to a single-source generic phenytoin among patients with seizures in a managed care organization.

METHODS

This was a pre-post, self-controlled, retrospective study. Adults with a history of seizure who used Dilantin Kapseals 100 mg extended phenytoin sodium, USP, capsules and whose therapy was interchanged to Taro Pharmaceuticals' AB-rated generic extended phenytoin sodium capsules, USP, 100 mg between July 2007 and May 2008 were included. Study outcomes included the comparisons of the proportions of patients with at least emergency department (ED) visit/inpatient hospitalization and medical office visit/nonoffice consultation for acute seizure in the 6 months before and after interchange. Outcomes were confirmed with manual chart reviews and adjusted for potential confounding medication use.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were included in the study. Patients were primarily middle-aged (mean 56 years), equally mixed by sex (47% female); most had nonintractable seizures. The majority of patients (~70%) were on phenytoin as monotherapy and had equivalent rates of purchases for potentially confounding medications in both pre- and postinterchange time periods (all p > 0.05). Low serum concentrations were detected more often in the postinterchange study period (adjusted p < 0.001). Despite this, there were low proportions of patients with confirmed seizure events that resulted in an ED visit/inpatient hospitalization in both pre- and postinterchange periods (both 6.3%, adjusted p = 0.937). The proportion of patients with confirmed seizure events diagnosed at a medical office visit was not significantly different between the preinterchange and postinterchange periods (12.2% vs 11.3%, adjusted p = 0.545).

CONCLUSIONS

No increased proportion of seizures was observed within patients when branded phenytoin was interchanged to an AB-rated, single-source, generic equivalent. More rigorous studies should be conducted to more thoroughly evaluate patient tolerability and drug efficacy when antiepileptic drugs are interchanged from brand to generic formulations.

Idiosyncratic adverse reactions to antiepileptic drugs

Idiosyncratic drug reactions may be defined as adverse effects that cannot be explained by the known mechanisms of action of the offending agent, do not occur at any dose in most patients, and develop mostly unpredictably in susceptible individuals only. These reactions are generally thought to account for up to 10% of all adverse drug reactions, but their frequency may be higher depending on the definition adopted. Idiosyncratic reactions are a major source of concern because they encompass most life-threatening effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), as well as many other reactions requiring discontinuation of treatment. Based on the underlying mechanisms, idiosyncratic reactions can be differentiated into (1) immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, which may range from benign skin rashes to serious conditions such as drug-related rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms; (2) reactions involving unusual nonimmune-mediated individual susceptibility, often related to abnormal production or defective detoxification of reactive cytotoxic metabolites (as in valproate-induced liver toxicity); and (3) off-target pharmacology, whereby a drug interacts directly with a system other than that for which it is intended, an example being some types of AED-induced dyskinesias. Although no AED is free from the potential of inducing idiosyncratic reactions, the magnitude of risk and the most common manifestations vary from one drug to another, a consideration that impacts on treatment choices. Serious consequences of idiosyncratic reactions can be minimized by knowledge of risk factors, avoidance of specific AEDs in subpopulations at risk, cautious dose titration, and careful monitoring of clinical response.