-
Epilepsia Open Mar 2023Rare case reports describe genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE) starting de novo in people ≥50 years of age (older adults and the elderly). We aimed to provide...
Rare case reports describe genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE) starting de novo in people ≥50 years of age (older adults and the elderly). We aimed to provide comprehensive detail of electro-clinical findings of this extremely late-onset GGE using a retrospective, single-center cohort design and a systematic review of the literature. People with de novo seizure onset ≥50 years of age with EEG and clinical history consistent with GGE were included. These 12 individuals (9; 75% females) with a median age of 56 years at seizure onset accounted for 7.9% of 152 older adults and the elderly with generalized epilepsy. Three patients only had absence seizures. A family history of epilepsy was present in 5 individuals. They had tried a median of 2 anti-seizure medications. More than 90% (11 of 12) were seizure-free for >1 year at the last follow-up, including four requiring monotherapy. Valproate was used in only two patients and levetiracetam in 75% of them. A systematic literature review revealed six papers with 10 extreme late-onset GGE cases. They similarly had good seizure outcomes but a majority were on valproate. Our study shows that rarely, late-onset epilepsy can be GGE, which mostly has a good prognosis.
Topics: Female; Humans; Aged; Middle Aged; Male; Anticonvulsants; Valproic Acid; Cohort Studies; Retrospective Studies; Epilepsy, Generalized; Epilepsy, Absence
PubMed: 36366877
DOI: 10.1002/epi4.12671 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free, and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, sodium valproate and phenytoin are commonly used antiepileptic drugs for monotherapy treatment. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for focal onset seizures, and that sodium pvalproate is more effective for generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons. This is the latest updated version of the review first published in 2001, and updated in 2013 and 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of sodium valproate compared to phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP on 19 February 2018. We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monotherapy with either sodium valproate or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month, and 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 trials in this review and IPD were available for 669 individuals out of 1119 eligible individuals from five out of 11 trials, 60% of the potential data. Results apply to focal onset seizures (simple, complex and secondary generalised tonic-clonic seizures), and generalised tonic-clonic seizures, but not other generalised seizure types (absence or myoclonus seizure types). For remission outcomes, a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin, and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for sodium valproate.The main overall results were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.27; 5 studies; 528 participants; moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 0.77, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.37; 4 studies; 418 participants; moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR for all participants 1.16 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 5 studies; 451 participants; moderate-quality evidence). These results suggest that treatment failure for any reason related to treatment and treatment failure due to adverse events may occur earlier on phenytoin compared to sodium valproate, while treatment failure due to lack of efficacy may occur earlier on sodium valproate than phenytoin; however none of these results were statistically significant.Results for time to first seizure (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; 5 studies; 639 participants; low-quality evidence) suggest that first seizure recurrence may occur slightly earlier on sodium valproate compared to phenytoin. There were no clear differences between drugs in terms of time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28; 4 studies; 514 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; 5 studies; 639 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Limited information was available regarding adverse events in the trials and we could not make comparisons between the rates of adverse events on sodium valproate and phenytoin. Some adverse events reported with both drugs were drowsiness, rash, dizziness, nausea and gastrointestinal problems. Weight gain was also reported with sodium valproate and gingival hypertrophy/hyperplasia was reported on phenytoin.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however four out of the five trials providing IPD for analysis were of an open-label design, therefore all results were at risk of detection bias. There was also evidence that misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review, particularly for the outcome 'time to first seizure' and heterogeneity was present in analysis of treatment failure outcomes which could not be explained by subgroup analysis by epilepsy type or by sensitivity analysis for misclassification of seizure type. Therefore, for treatment failure outcomes we judged the quality of the evidence to be moderate to low, for 'time to first seizure' we judged the quality of the evidence to be low, and for remission outcomes we judged the quality of the evidence to be moderate.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between valproate and phenytoin for any of the outcomes examined in this review. However detection bias, classification bias and heterogeneity may have impacted on the results of this review. We did not find any outright evidence to support or refute current treatment policies. We recommend that future trials be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy, Generalized; Humans; Phenytoin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Treatment Outcome; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 30091458
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001769.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is the most common acute leukaemia affecting adults. Most patients diagnosed with AML are at advanced age and present with co-morbidities,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is the most common acute leukaemia affecting adults. Most patients diagnosed with AML are at advanced age and present with co-morbidities, so that intensive therapy such as stem cell transplantation (SCT) is impossible to provide or is accompanied by high risks for serious adverse events and treatment-related mortality. Especially for these patients, it is necessary to find out whether all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), an intermediate of vitamin A inducing terminal differentiation of leukaemic cell lines, added to chemotherapy confers increased benefit or harm when compared with the same chemotherapy alone.
OBJECTIVES
This review aims to determine benefits and harms of ATRA in addition to chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone for adults with AML (not those with acute promyelocytic leukaemia (non-APL)).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, study registries and relevant conference proceedings up to July 2018 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also contacted experts for unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing chemotherapy alone with chemotherapy plus ATRA in patients with all stages of AML. We excluded trials if less than 80% of participants were adults or participants with AML, and if no subgroup data were available. Patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were included, if they had a refractory anaemia and more than 20% of blasts.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We used hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS; instead of the pre-planned event-free survival, as this outcome was not reported), and we calculated risk ratios (RR) for the other outcomes quality of life, on-study mortality and adverse events. We presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search resulted in 2192 potentially relevant references, of which we included eight trials with 28 publications assessing 3998 patients. Overall, we judged the potential risk of bias of the eight included trials as moderate. Two of eight trials were published as abstracts only. All the included trials used different chemotherapy schedules and one trial only evaluated the effect of the hypomethylating agent decitabine, a drug know to affect epigenetics, in combination with ATRA.The addition of ATRA to chemotherapy resulted in probably little or no difference in OS compared to chemotherapy only (2985 participants; HR 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.02); moderate-certainty evidence). Based on a mortality rate at 24 months of 70% with chemotherapy alone, the mortality rate with chemotherapy plus ATRA was 68% (95% CI 65% to 71%).For DFS, complete response rate (CRR) and on-study mortality there was probably little or no difference between treatment groups (DFS: 1258 participants, HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; CRR: 3081 participants, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; on-study mortality: 2839 participants, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.30, all moderate-certainty evidence).Three trials with 1428 participants reported the adverse events 'infection' and 'cardiac toxicity': There was probably no, or little difference in terms of infection rate between participants receiving ATRA or not (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.15; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ATRA decreases cardiac toxicity (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.90; P = 0.02, very low certainty-evidence, however, cardiac toxicity was low).Rates and severity of diarrhoea and nausea/vomiting were assessed in two trials with 337 patients and we are uncertain whether there is a difference between treatment arms (diarrhoea: RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 4.47; nausea/vomiting: RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.85; both very low-certainty evidence).Quality of life was not reported by any of the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence for a difference between participants receiving ATRA in addition to chemotherapy or chemotherapy only for the outcome OS. Regarding DFS, CRR and on-study mortality, there is probably no evidence for a difference between treatment groups. Currently, it seems the risk of adverse events are comparable to chemotherapy only.As quality of life has not been evaluated in any of the included trials, further research is needed to clarify the effect of ATRA on quality of life.
Topics: Adult; Antineoplastic Agents; Decitabine; Diarrhea; Disease Progression; Heart; Humans; Infections; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Nausea; Recurrence; Tretinoin; Vomiting
PubMed: 30080246
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011960.pub2 -
Neurologia Apr 2019Very little has been written on seizure management in palliative care (PC). Given this situation, and considering the forthcoming setting up of the Palliative Care Unit...
INTRODUCTION
Very little has been written on seizure management in palliative care (PC). Given this situation, and considering the forthcoming setting up of the Palliative Care Unit at our neurorehabilitation centre, the Clínica San Vicente, we decided to establish a series of guidelines on the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for handling seizures in PC.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search in PubMed to identify articles, recent manuals, and clinical practice guidelines on seizure management in PC published by the most relevant scientific societies.
RESULTS
Clinical practice guidelines are essential to identify patients eligible for PC, manage seizures adequately, and avoid unnecessary distress to these patients and their families. Given the profile of these patients, we recommend choosing AEDs with a low interaction potential and which can be administered by the parenteral route, preferably intravenously. Diazepam and midazolam appear to be the most suitable AEDs during the acute phase whereas levetiracetam, valproic acid, and lacosamide are recommended for refractory cases and long-term treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
These guidelines provide general recommendations that must be adapted to each particular clinical case. Nevertheless, we will require further well-designed randomised controlled clinical trials including large samples of patients eligible for PC to draft a consensus document recommending adequate, rational, and effective use of AEDs, based on a high level of evidence, in this highly complex area of medical care.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Levetiracetam; Palliative Care; Seizures; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 28249697
DOI: 10.1016/j.nrl.2016.11.010