Dezinamide for partial seizures: results of an n-of-1 design trial

N-of-1 trials in epilepsy: A systematic review and lessons paving the way forward

OBJECTIVE

Defined as prospective single-patient crossover studies with repeated paired cycles of active and control intervention, N-of-1 trials have gained attention as an option to obtain high-quality evidence of efficacy, particularly for patients with rare epilepsies in whom conduction of well-powered randomized controlled trials can be challenging. The objective of this systematic review is to provide an appraisal of the literature on N-of-1 trials in individuals with epilepsy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase on January 12, 2024, for studies meeting the following criteria: prospectively planned, within-patient, multiple-crossover design in individuals with epilepsy and outcomes related to comorbidities. Information on design, outcome measurements, intervention, and analyses was retrieved. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias in N-of-1 Trials (RoBiNT) scale. We highlighted methodological aspects of the N-of-1 trials identified and discuss future recommendations.

RESULTS

Five studies met our inclusion criteria. An additional multiple-crossover trial that evaluated treatment effects exclusively at group level was also included because of its relevance to N-of-1 study methodology. The studies enrolled individuals with focal seizures, absences or cognitive impairement and electrographic discharges. Treatments included established or investigational antiseizure medications, off-label medications, neurostimulation or lifestyle intervention. Three of the five N-of-1 trials reported on individual cases. The studies' strengths were the use of individualized treatment dosages and symptom-specific patient-reported outcomes. Limitations were related to minimal reporting of baseline characteristics and seizure burden.

SIGNIFICANCE

The trials identified by our search exemplify how the N-of-1 design can be applied to assess interventions in individuals with epilepsy-related disorders. Future N-of-1 trials of antiseizure interventions should take into account baseline seizure frequency, should apply statistical models suited to capture seizure frequency changes reliably and make predefined interim assessments. Non-seizure outcome measures evaluable over short periods should be considered. Tailored N-of-1 methodology could pave the way to evidence-based, treatment selection for patients with rare epilepsies.

N-of-1 Trials in Neurology: A Systematic Review

ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review of published N-of-1 trials (e.g. single patient cross-over trials) in neurological disorders, including an assessment of methodological quality and reporting.MethodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase, from inception date - the first of December 2019, for reports on N-of-1 trials in neurological disorders. Basic trial information on design, disease, intervention, analysis and treatment success was extracted. Strengths and weaknesses of the N-of-1 trials were assessed using the CONSORT extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015 criteria checklist and the Jadad score as measures of quality and reporting.ResultsWe retrieved 40 reports of N-of-1 trials in neurological disorders (19 individual N-of-1 trials, 21 series of N-of-1 trials). Most N-of-1 trials were performed in neuromuscular and neurodegenerative / movement disorders. Unlike the majority of trials that studied the main symptom(s) of a chronic stable condition, nine N-of-1 trials studied a stable chronic symptom of a progressive or acute neurological disorder. Besides pharmacological interventions, electrical stimulation protocols and nutritional products were studied. A mean total CENT score of 20.88 (SD, 9.10; range 0-43) and mean total Jadad score of 2.90 (SD, 2.15; range 0-5) were found as methodological measures of quality and reporting across all N-of-1 trialsConclusionsN-of-1 trials have been reported in numerous neurological disorders, not only in chronic stable disorders, but also in progressive or acute disorders with a stable symptom. This indicates the emerging therapeutic area of N-of-1 trials in Neurology.Methodological quality and reporting of N-of-1 trials were found suboptimal and can easily be improved in future trials by appropriately describing the methods of blinding and randomization and follow CENT guidelines. As most N-of-1 trials remain unreported in medical literature, this systematic review probably only represent the tip of the iceberg of conducted N-of-1 trials in neurological disorders. In addition to conventional trial designs, N-of-1 trials can help to bridge the gap between research and clinical care by providing an alternative, personalized level 1 evidence-base for suitable treatments.

4-Aminopyridine is a promising treatment option for patients with gain-of-function KCNA2-encephalopathy

[Figure: see text].

Making the switch: From case studies to N-of-1 trials

Case studies can generate hypothesis based on unique clinical patient encounters and provide guidance among populations with limited numbers of patients. However, case studies are not blinded and are susceptible to a variety of factors that can influence study outcomes. One potential solution to minimize this bias is to use an N-of-1 trial. N-of-1 trials are a double-blinded randomized crossover trial within a limited number of patients, often as small as a single patient. These trials borrow many concepts from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which in turn increases the validity of findings compared with a case report. Situations best suited for an N-of-1 trial include chronic disease states and therapies with quick onset and offset, such as in patients with seizures. There are many opportunities to use N-of-1 trials among patients with epilepsy, and providers are encouraged to explore and employ these methods. The purpose of this article was to describe N-of-1 trials along with considerations for conducting, publishing, and evaluating N-of-1 trials.

•

The use of N-of-1 trials can minimize bias found in traditional case studies.

•

N-of-1 trials are a double-blinded randomized crossover trial within a single patient.

•

There are methods and reporting standards to guide the development and interpretation of N-of-1 trials.

Not all that glitters is gold: A guide to the critical interpretation of drug trials in epilepsy

Clinical trials represent the best source of evidence on which to base treatment decisions. For such evidence to be utilized meaningfully, however, it is essential that results are interpreted correctly. This requires a good understanding of strengths and weaknesses of the adopted design, the clinical relevance of the outcome measures, and the many factors that could affect such outcomes. As a general rule, uncontrolled studies tend to provide misleading evidence as a result of the impact of confounders such as regression to the mean, patient‐related bias, and observer bias. On the other hand, although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are qualitatively superior, aspects of their execution may still decrease their validity. Bias and decreased validity in RCTs may occur by chance alone (for example, treatment groups may not necessarily be balanced for important variables despite randomization) or because of specific features of the trial design. In the case of industry‐driven studies, bias often influences the outcome in favor of the sponsor's product. Factors that need to be carefully scrutinized include (1) the purpose for which the trial is conducted; (2) potential bias due to unblinding or lack of blinding; (3) the appropriateness of the control group; (4) the power of the study in detecting clinically relevant differences; (5) the extent to which eligibility criteria could affect outcomes and be representative of routine clinical practice; (6) whether the treatments being compared are used optimally in terms of dosing, duration of treatment, and other variables; (7) the appropriateness of the statistical comparisons; (8) the clinical relevance of the outcome measures and whether all key outcome information is reported (for example, responder rates in completers); and (9) potential bias in the way results are presented and discussed. This article discusses each of these aspects and illustrates the discussion with examples taken from published antiepileptic drug trials.

What can we learn from clinical trials of anticonvulsant drugs in epilepsy?

Any physician who intends to utilize the available antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) judiciously, cannot do so without being well versed on their pharmacological properties and the large body of evidence that is continuously accumulating on their relative efficacy and tolerability in different types of epilepsy. While informal observations such as retrospective surveys and case reports can be useful under special circumstances, prospective randomized clinical studies represent by far the most important tool by which objective information can be obtained about the clinical value of existing drugs. Even randomized trials, however, can produce misleading conclusions because of inherent weaknesses or bias in study design, analysis, and interpretation. Common deficiencies identified in some of the most recent drug trials in epilepsy include 1) inclusion of inappropriately heterogeneous patient groups (for example, patients with partial and primarily generalized seizures); 2) low statistical power due to insufficient sample size (for trials designed to show therapeutic equivalence); 3) inappropriate titration rates or suboptimal dosages or dosing schedules (often favouring the sponsor's product over the comparator); 4) insufficient duration of treatment; and 5) utilization of endpoints of questionable clinical significance. In part, some of the above shortcomings can be ascribed to the fact that most clinical drug trials are designed to address regulatory needs rather than to provide the type of information required for rational prescribing. Physicians need to be alerted about the importance of these issues, and they should make every possible effort to interpret critically the medical literature on which they rely to guide and support their therapeutic decisions.

Review article: Single subject trials as a research instrument in gastrointestinal pharmacology

The single subject trial is a randomized controlled trial carried out in the individual patient, and the result obtained is specific to the individual patient and the drug being investigated. This type of trial offers a supplement to traditional parallel group trials, especially in patients with heterogeneous disorders, often characterized by varying treatment responses and/or high placebo response rates. Pooled results from several individual single subject trials could extend the conclusions beyond the individual patient, and help to characterize a subset of responders to a specific treatment or clarify the heterogeneity of the disease. The basic principles of the different single subject trial designs are described. Advantages and limitations are reviewed with a special focus on published trials in functional gastrointestinal disorders. The single subject trial may be a valuable supplement to traditional drug treatment trials, either used as isolated trials in individual patients to determine optimal therapy, or in groups of patients to identify those with a uniform response to treatment. However, the lack of validation and reliability studies limits the value of the single subject trials presented so far.

Quality-of-life and behavioral outcome measures in randomized controlled trials of antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of methodology and reporting standards

PURPOSE

To review the methodology and use of quality-of-life and behavioral measures used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antiepileptic drugs in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

Trial reports were found by searching a previously developed comprehensive database of epilepsy RCTs and searching through journals by hand. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and methodological and quality-of-life and behavioral measure data were extracted.

RESULTS

There were 52 different measures used in 46 trials, with the Profile of Mood States, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and the Washington Psychosocial Seizure Inventory being applied the most frequently. Overall, evidence of the reliability, validity, and sensitivity of measures used in populations of people with epilepsy was sparse. There was also little information on the clinical interpretation of the results.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight a consistent failure to apply quality-of-life and behavioral measures in RCTs in a systematic way. We found repeated evidence of researchers' failure to review the use of previous measures and selection of measures without evidence of their appropriateness for use in a population with epilepsy. We recommend the use of quality-of-life and behavioral measures in RCTs with proven psychometric properties in a population with epilepsy.

The symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome are related to abnormal ion channel function

The pathogenesis of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is unknown but one of the most characteristic features of the illness is fluctuation in symptoms which can be induced by physical and/or mental stress. Other conditions in which fluctuating fatigue occurs are caused by abnormal ion channels in the cell membrane. These include genetically determined channelopathies, e.g. hypokalemic periodic paralysis, episodic ataxia type 2 and acquired conditions such as neuromyotonia, myasthenic syndromes, multiple sclerosis and inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathies. Our hypothesis is that abnormal ion channel function underlies the symptoms of CFS and this is supported also by the finding of abnormal cardiac-thallium201 SPECT scans in CFS, similar to that found in syndrome X, another disorder of ion channels. CFS and syndrome X can have identical clinical symptoms. CFS may begin after exposure to specific toxins which are known to produce abnormal sodium ion channels. Finally, in CFS, increased resting energy expenditure (REE) occurs, a state influenced by transmembrane ion transport. The hypothesis that ion channels are abnormal in CFS may help to explain the fluctuating fatigue and other symptoms.

Progress report on new antiepileptic drugs: a summary of the Third Eilat Conference

The Third Eilat Conference on New Antiepileptic Drugs was held at the Royal Beach Hotel from May 27 to May 30, 1996. Epileptologists and scientists from 20 countries attended the conference, which was held to discuss critical issues in drug development, new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in development, progress reports and recent findings of newly marketed AEDs, the use of AEDs in special populations and their utilization in non-epileptic disorders. Over the last seven years, six new AEDs have been introduced worldwide and new information on their safety and efficacy has become available. These include felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate and vigabatrin. Drugs in development include those at an advanced stage, such as remacemide and tiagabine, as well as those just entering clinical trials, such as rufinamide (CGP 331010) and levetiracetam (ucb LO59). The following is a summary of the presentations for drugs in development and recent findings on newly marketed drugs.