-
Neurology Jan 2017To review population-based studies of the prevalence and incidence of epilepsy worldwide and use meta-analytic techniques to explore factors that may explain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To review population-based studies of the prevalence and incidence of epilepsy worldwide and use meta-analytic techniques to explore factors that may explain heterogeneity between estimates.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards were followed. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles published on the prevalence or incidence of epilepsy since 1985. Abstract, full-text review, and data abstraction were conducted in duplicate. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to explore the association between prevalence or incidence, age group, sex, country level income, and study quality.
RESULTS
A total of 222 studies were included (197 on prevalence, 48 on incidence). The point prevalence of active epilepsy was 6.38 per 1,000 persons (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 5.57-7.30), while the lifetime prevalence was 7.60 per 1,000 persons (95% CI 6.17-9.38). The annual cumulative incidence of epilepsy was 67.77 per 100,000 persons (95% CI 56.69-81.03) while the incidence rate was 61.44 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI 50.75-74.38). The prevalence of epilepsy did not differ by age group, sex, or study quality. The active annual period prevalence, lifetime prevalence, and incidence rate of epilepsy were higher in low to middle income countries. Epilepsies of unknown etiology and those with generalized seizures had the highest prevalence.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides a comprehensive synthesis of the prevalence and incidence of epilepsy from published international studies and offers insight into factors that contribute to heterogeneity between estimates. Significant gaps (e.g., lack of incidence studies, stratification by age groups) were identified. Standardized reporting of future epidemiologic studies of epilepsy is needed.
Topics: Databases, Bibliographic; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Incidence; International Cooperation; Male; Prevalence
PubMed: 27986877
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003509 -
Neurology Apr 2021To evaluate the incidence and prevalence of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) as well as its predictors and correlates, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the incidence and prevalence of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) as well as its predictors and correlates, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
METHODS
Our protocol was registered with PROSPERO, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting standards were followed. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. We used a double arcsine transformation and random-effects models to perform our meta-analyses. We performed random-effects meta-regressions using study-level data.
RESULTS
Our search strategy identified 10,794 abstracts. Of these, 103 articles met our eligibility criteria. There was high interstudy heterogeneity and risk of bias. The cumulative incidence of DRE was 25.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.8-34.3) in child studies but 14.6% (95% CI: 8.8-21.6) in adult/mixed age studies. The prevalence of DRE was 13.7% (95% CI: 9.2-19.0) in population/community-based populations but 36.3% (95% CI: 30.4-42.4) in clinic-based cohorts. Meta-regression confirmed that the prevalence of DRE was higher in clinic-based populations and in focal epilepsy. Multiple predictors and correlates of DRE were identified. The most reported of these were having a neurologic deficit, an abnormal EEG, and symptomatic epilepsy. The most reported genetic predictors of DRE were polymorphisms of the gene.
CONCLUSIONS
Our observations provide a basis for estimating the incidence and prevalence of DRE, which vary between populations. We identified numerous putative DRE predictors and correlates. These findings are important to plan epilepsy services, including epilepsy surgery, a crucial treatment option for people with disabling seizures and DRE.
Topics: Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Epilepsies, Partial; Humans; Incidence; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Prevalence; Seizures
PubMed: 33722992
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011839 -
Epilepsia Mar 2022Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neuromodulatory treatment used in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). The primary goal of this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neuromodulatory treatment used in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). The primary goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to describe recent advancements in the field of DBS for epilepsy, to compare the results of published trials, and to clarify the clinical utility of DBS in DRE. A systematic literature search was performed by two independent authors. Forty-four articles were included in the meta-analysis (23 for anterior thalamic nucleus [ANT], 8 for centromedian thalamic nucleus [CMT], and 13 for hippocampus) with a total of 527 patients. The mean seizure reduction after stimulation of the ANT, CMT, and hippocampus in our meta-analysis was 60.8%, 73.4%, and 67.8%, respectively. DBS is an effective and safe therapy in patients with DRE. Based on the results of randomized controlled trials and larger clinical series, the best evidence exists for DBS of the anterior thalamic nucleus. Further randomized trials are required to clarify the role of CMT and hippocampal stimulation. Our analysis suggests more efficient deep brain stimulation of ANT for focal seizures, wider use of CMT for generalized seizures, and hippocampal DBS for temporal lobe seizures. Factors associated with clinical outcome after DBS for epilepsy are electrode location, stimulation parameters, type of epilepsy, and longer time of stimulation. Recent advancements in anatomical targeting, functional neuroimaging, responsive neurostimulation, and sensing of local field potentials could potentially lead to improved outcomes after DBS for epilepsy and reduced sudden, unexpected death of patients with epilepsy. Biomarkers are needed for successful patient selection, targeting of electrodes and optimization of stimulation parameters.
Topics: Anterior Thalamic Nuclei; Death, Sudden; Deep Brain Stimulation; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Epilepsy; Hippocampus; Humans; Intralaminar Thalamic Nuclei; Seizures
PubMed: 34981509
DOI: 10.1111/epi.17157 -
Seizure May 2019To summarize definitions, prevalence, risk factors, consequences, and acute management of seizure clusters using rescue medications.
PURPOSE
To summarize definitions, prevalence, risk factors, consequences, and acute management of seizure clusters using rescue medications.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE for studies that assessed definitions, clinical characteristics, outcomes, and use of rescue medication for aborting seizure clusters.
RESULTS
Different clinical and statistical definitions for seizure clusters have been proposed, including: ≥3 seizures in 24 h, ≥2 seizures in 24 h, and ≥2 seizures in 6 h. Most studies of seizure clusters have been conducted in tertiary epilepsy centers, with refractory epilepsy patients. Patients with severe and poorly controlled epilepsy are more likely to experience seizure clusters. Seizure clusters can result in increased health care utilization and have negative impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. Use of benzodiazepine rescue medications in acute management of seizure clusters can help avoid progression to status epilepticus and reduce emergency room visits. Rescue medications are underutilized in seizure clusters. Currently, rectal diazepam gel is the only FDA approved rescue medication for seizure clusters. In addition, buccal midazolam is approved in European countries for treatment of prolonged seizures. However, various non-rectal non-IV benzodiazepines are safe and effective in treating acute seizures and clusters. Most patients and caregivers preferred non-rectal routes.
CONCLUSION
Identifying patients that are at high risk for seizure clusters, providing them with formal action plans and educating them about use of rescue medication for seizure clusters can help ameliorate the outcomes in this group of epilepsy patients.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool; Epilepsy; Humans; Infant; Middle Aged; Seizures; Young Adult
PubMed: 29871784
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2018.05.013 -
BMC Veterinary Research Oct 2014Various antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are used for the management of canine idiopathic epilepsy (IE). Information on their clinical efficacy remains limited. A systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Various antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are used for the management of canine idiopathic epilepsy (IE). Information on their clinical efficacy remains limited. A systematic review was designed to evaluate existing evidence for the effectiveness of AEDs for presumptive canine IE. Electronic searches of PubMed and CAB Direct were carried out without date or language restrictions. Conference proceedings were also searched. Peer-reviewed full-length studies describing objectively the efficacy of AEDs in dogs with IE were included. Studies were allocated in two groups, i.e. blinded randomized clinical trials (bRCTs), non-blinded randomized clinical trials (nbRCTs) and non-randomized clinical trials (NRCTs) (group A) and uncontrolled clinical trials (UCTs) and case series (group B). Individual studies were evaluated based on the quality of evidence (study design, study group sizes, subject enrolment quality and overall risk of bias) and the outcome measures reported (in particular the proportion of dogs with ≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency).
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies, including two conference proceedings, reporting clinical outcomes of AEDs used for management of IE were identified. Heterogeneity of study designs and outcome measures made meta-analysis inappropriate. Only four bRCTs were identified in group A and were considered to offer higher quality of evidence among the studies. A good level of evidence supported the efficacy of oral phenobarbital and imepitoin and fair level of evidence supported the efficacy of oral potassium bromide and levetiracetam. For the remaining AEDs, favorable results were reported regarding their efficacy, but there was insufficient evidence to support their use due to lack of bRCTs.
CONCLUSIONS
Oral phenobarbital and imepitoin in particular, as well as potassium bromide and levetiracetam are likely to be effective for the treatment of IE. However, variations in baseline characteristics of the dogs involved, significant differences between study designs and several potential sources of bias preclude definitive recommendations. There is a need for greater numbers of adequately sized bRCTs evaluating the efficacy of AEDs for IE.
Topics: Animals; Anticonvulsants; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Epilepsy
PubMed: 25338624
DOI: 10.1186/s12917-014-0257-9 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain May 2019Migraine aura (MA) is a common and disabling neurological condition, characterized by transient visual, and less frequently sensory and dysphasic aura disturbances. MA...
BACKGROUND
Migraine aura (MA) is a common and disabling neurological condition, characterized by transient visual, and less frequently sensory and dysphasic aura disturbances. MA is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disorders and is often clinically difficult to distinguish from other serious neurological disorders such as transient ischemic attacks and epilepsy. Optimal clinical classification of MA symptoms is important for more accurate diagnosis and improved understanding of the pathophysiology of MA through clinical studies.
MAIN BODY
A systematic review of previous prospective and retrospective systematic recordings of visual aura symptoms (VASs) was performed to provide an overview of the different types of visual phenomena occurring during MA and their respective frequencies in patients. We found 11 retrospective studies and three prospective studies systematically describing VASs. The number of different types of VASs reported by patients in the studies ranged from two to 23. The most common were flashes of bright light, "foggy" vision, zigzag lines, scotoma, small bright dots and 'like looking through heat waves or water'.
CONCLUSIONS
We created a comprehensive list of VAS types reported by migraine patients based on all currently available data from clinical studies, which can be used for testing and validation in future studies. We propose that, based on this work, an official list of VAS types should be developed, preferably within the context of the International Classification of Headache Disorders of the International Headache Society.
Topics: Adult; Epilepsy; Female; Hallucinations; Humans; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Male; Migraine with Aura; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Vision, Ocular
PubMed: 31146673
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-019-1008-x -
Drugs Nov 2018Approximately one-third of patients with epilepsy presents seizures despite adequate treatment. Hence, there is the need to search for new therapeutic options.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Approximately one-third of patients with epilepsy presents seizures despite adequate treatment. Hence, there is the need to search for new therapeutic options. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a major chemical component of the resin of Cannabis sativa plant, most commonly known as marijuana. The anti-seizure properties of CBD do not relate to the direct action on cannabinoid receptors, but are mediated by a multitude of mechanisms that include the agonist and antagonist effects on ionic channels, neurotransmitter transporters, and multiple 7-transmembrane receptors. In contrast to tetra-hydrocannabinol, CBD lacks psychoactive properties, does not produce euphoric or intrusive side effects, and is largely devoid of abuse liability.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to estimate the efficacy and safety of CBD as adjunctive treatment in patients with epilepsy using meta-analytical techniques.
METHODS
Randomized, placebo-controlled, single- or double-blinded add-on trials of oral CBD in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy were identified. Main outcomes included the percentage change and the proportion of patients with ≥ 50% reduction in monthly seizure frequency during the treatment period and the incidence of treatment withdrawal and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Four trials involving 550 patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) and Dravet syndrome (DS) were included. The pooled average difference in change in seizure frequency during the treatment period resulted 19.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.1-31.0; p = 0.001] percentage points between the CBD 10 mg and placebo groups and 19.9 (95% CI 11.8-28.1; p < 0.001) percentage points between the CBD 20 mg and placebo arms, in favor of CBD. The reduction in all-types seizure frequency by at least 50% occurred in 37.2% of the patients in the CBD 20 mg group and 21.2% of the placebo-treated participants [risk ratio (RR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.07-2.88; p = 0.025]. Across the trials, drug withdrawal for any reason occurred in 11.1% and 2.6% of participants receiving CBD and placebo, respectively (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.55-8.12; p = 0.003) [Chi squared = 2.53, degrees of freedom (df) = 3, p = 0.506; I = 0.0%]. The RRs to discontinue treatment were 1.45 (95% CI 0.28-7.41; p = 0.657) and 4.20 (95% CI 1.82-9.68; p = 0.001) for CBD at the doses of 10 and 20 mg/kg/day, respectively, in comparison to placebo. Treatment was discontinued due to AEs in 8.9% and 1.8% of patients in the active and control arms, respectively (RR 5.59, 95% CI 1.87-16.73; p = 0.002). The corresponding RRs for CBD at the doses of 10 and 20 mg/kg/day were 1.66 (95% CI 0.22-12.86; p = 0.626) and 6.89 (95% CI 2.28-20.80; p = 0.001). AEs occurred in 87.9% and 72.2% of patients treated with CBD and placebo (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.11-1.33; p < 0.001). AEs significantly associated with CBD were somnolence, decreased appetite, diarrhea, and increased serum aminotransferases.
CONCLUSIONS
Adjunctive CBD in patients with LGS or DS experiencing seizures uncontrolled by concomitant anti-epileptic treatment regimens is associated with a greater reduction in seizure frequency and a higher rate of AEs than placebo.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Cannabidiol; Child; Child, Preschool; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epilepsies, Myoclonic; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Lennox Gastaut Syndrome; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30390221
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-018-0992-5 -
Epilepsia Apr 2023There are three neurostimulation devices available to treat generalized epilepsy: vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and responsive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
There are three neurostimulation devices available to treat generalized epilepsy: vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). However, the choice between them is unclear due to lack of head-to-head comparisons. A systematic comparison of neurostimulation outcomes in generalized epilepsy has not been performed previously. The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine whether one of these devices is better than the others to treat generalized epilepsy.
METHODS
Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was performed for studies reporting seizure outcomes following VNS, RNS, and DBS implantation in generalized drug-resistant epilepsy between the first pivotal trial study for each modality through August 2022. Specific search criteria were used for VNS ("vagus", "vagal", or "VNS" in the title and "epilepsy" or "seizure"), DBS ("deep brain stimulation", "DBS", "anterior thalamic nucleus", "centromedian nucleus", or "thalamic stimulation" in the title and "epilepsy" or "seizure"), and RNS ("responsive neurostimulation" or "RNS" in the title and "epilepsy" or "seizure"). From 4409 articles identified, 319 underwent full-text reviews, and 20 studies were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model using the meta package in R.
RESULTS
Sufficient data for meta-analysis were available from seven studies for VNS (n = 510) and nine studies for DBS (n = 87). Data from RNS (five studies, n = 18) were insufficient for meta-analysis. The mean (SD) follow-up durations were as follows: VNS, 39.1 (23.4) months; DBS, 23.1 (19.6) months; and RNS, 22.3 (10.6) months. Meta-analysis showed seizure reductions of 48.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 38.7%-57.9%) for VNS and 64.8% (95% CI = 54.4%-75.2%) for DBS (p = .02).
SIGNIFICANCE
Our meta-analysis indicates that the use of DBS may lead to greater seizure reduction than VNS in generalized epilepsy. Results from RNS use are promising, but further research is required.
Topics: Humans; Epilepsy; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Seizures; Epilepsy, Generalized; Vagus Nerve Stimulation; Anterior Thalamic Nuclei; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36727550
DOI: 10.1111/epi.17524 -
Epilepsia Feb 2022Numerous genetic testing options for individuals with epilepsy have emerged over the past decade without clear guidelines regarding optimal testing strategies. We...
OBJECTIVE
Numerous genetic testing options for individuals with epilepsy have emerged over the past decade without clear guidelines regarding optimal testing strategies. We performed a systematic evidence review (SER) and conducted meta-analyses of the diagnostic yield of genetic tests commonly utilized for patients with epilepsy. We also assessed nonyield outcomes (NYOs) such as changes in treatment and/or management, prognostic information, recurrence risk determination, and genetic counseling.
METHODS
We performed an SER, in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central through December of 2020. We included studies that utilized genome sequencing (GS), exome sequencing (ES), multigene panel (MGP), and/or genome-wide comparative genomic hybridization/chromosomal microarray (CGH/CMA) in cohorts (n ≥ 10) ascertained for epilepsy. Quality assessment was undertaken using ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions). We estimated diagnostic yields and 95% confidence intervals with random effects meta-analyses and narratively synthesized NYOs.
RESULTS
From 5985 nonduplicated articles published through 2020, 154 met inclusion criteria and were included in meta-analyses of diagnostic yield; 43 of those were included in the NYO synthesis. The overall diagnostic yield across all test modalities was 17%, with the highest yield for GS (48%), followed by ES (24%), MGP (19%), and CGH/CMA (9%). The only phenotypic factors that were significantly associated with increased yield were (1) the presence of developmental and epileptic encephalopathy and/or (2) the presence of neurodevelopmental comorbidities. Studies reporting NYOs addressed clinical and personal utility of testing.
SIGNIFICANCE
This comprehensive SER, focused specifically on the literature regarding patients with epilepsy, provides a comparative assessment of the yield of clinically available tests, which will help shape clinician decision-making and policy regarding insurance coverage for genetic testing. We highlight the need for prospective assessment of the clinical and personal utility of genetic testing for patients with epilepsy and for standardization in reporting patient characteristics.
Topics: Comparative Genomic Hybridization; Epilepsy; Genetic Testing; Humans; Prospective Studies; Exome Sequencing
PubMed: 34893972
DOI: 10.1111/epi.17141 -
Epilepsia Jun 2022Summarize the current evidence on efficacy and tolerability of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS) through... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Summarize the current evidence on efficacy and tolerability of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting standards and searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and their corresponding open-label extension studies, as well as prospective case series, with ≥20 participants (excluding studies limited to children). Our primary outcome was the mean (or median, when unavailable) percentage decrease in frequency, as compared to baseline, of all epileptic seizures at last follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of treatment responders and proportion with seizure freedom.
RESULTS
We identified 30 eligible studies, six of which were RCTs. At long-term follow-up (mean 1.3 years), five observational studies for VNS reported a pooled mean percentage decrease in seizure frequency of 34.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.1, 74.5). In the open-label extension studies for RNS, the median seizure reduction was 53%, 66%, and 75% at 2, 5, and 9 years of follow-up, respectively. For DBS, the median reduction was 56%, 65%, and 75% at 2, 5, and 7 years, respectively. The proportion of individuals with seizure freedom at last follow-up increased significantly over time for DBS and RNS, whereas a positive trend was observed for VNS. Quality of life was improved in all modalities. The most common complications included hoarseness, and cough and throat pain for VNS and implant site pain, headache, and dysesthesia for DBS and RNS.
SIGNIFICANCE
Neurostimulation modalities are an effective treatment option for drug-resistant epilepsy, with improving outcomes over time and few major complications. Seizure-reduction rates among the three therapies were similar during the initial blinded phase. Recent long-term follow-up studies are encouraging for RNS and DBS but are lacking for VNS.
Topics: Child; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Epilepsy; Humans; Pain; Seizures; Treatment Outcome; Vagus Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 35352349
DOI: 10.1111/epi.17243