-
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 -
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 -
Experimental Neurology Jan 2023Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are the mainstay for the treatment of seizure disorders. However, about one-third of people with epilepsy remain refractory to current... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are the mainstay for the treatment of seizure disorders. However, about one-third of people with epilepsy remain refractory to current ASMs. Cannabidiol (CBD) has recently been approved as ASM for three refractory epilepsy syndrome indications in children and adults. In this study, we evaluated the overall clinical potential of an oral CBD to treat refractory epilepsy in patients with Dravet syndrome (DS), Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS), and tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive search of databases was conducted, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of CBD in epilepsy patients. The review was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review focused on RCTs involving patients receiving highly purified oral CBD (Epidiolex, 10 to 50 mg/kg/day) for up to 16 weeks. A subgroup analysis by syndrome and CBD with or without concomitant clobazam was conducted. The key outcomes were reduction in seizure frequency, differences in 50% responder rates, adverse events, and interactions with clobazam as co-therapy. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated. Of 1183 articles screened, we included 6 RCTs meeting our eligibility criteria. All studies were considered to have a low risk of bias. In the pooled analysis, CBD treatment was found to be more efficacious compared to placebo (OR = 2.45, 95% CI =1.81-3.32, p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis by syndrome demonstrated the odds of ≥50% reduction in seizures with CBD treatment in patients with DS (OR = 2.26, 95% CI:1.38-3.70), LGS (OR = 2.98, 95% CI:1.83-4.85) and TSC (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.06-3.76). Compared with placebo, CBD was associated with increased adverse events (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.33-2.46) such as diarrhea, somnolence, and sedation, and any serious adverse events (OR = 2.86, 95% CI = 1.63-5.05). Other factors, including dosage and clobazam co-therapy, were significantly associated with a greater effect on seizure control and side effects of CBD. In conclusion, the study shows that CBD is highly efficacious both as standalone and adjunct therapy with clobazam for controlling seizures in DS, LGS, and TSC conditions while limiting side effects. Further pharmacodynamic investigation of CBD actions, drug interaction assessments, and therapeutic management guidelines are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Anticonvulsants; Cannabidiol; Clobazam; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Epilepsies, Myoclonic; Epilepsy; Lennox Gastaut Syndrome; Seizures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36206805
DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2022.114238 -
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 -
Epilepsia Jan 2021Clinical genetic sequencing is frequently utilized to diagnose individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). Here we perform a meta-analysis and systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Clinical genetic sequencing is frequently utilized to diagnose individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). Here we perform a meta-analysis and systematic review of the success rate (diagnostic yield) of clinical sequencing through next-generation sequencing (NGS) across NDDs. We compare the genetic testing yield across NDD subtypes and sequencing technology.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the PubMed literature until May 2020. We included clinical sequencing studies that utilized NGS in individuals with epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or intellectual disability (ID). Data were extracted, reviewed, and categorized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two investigators performed clinical evaluation and grouping following the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) guidelines. Pooled rates of the diagnostic yield and 95% confidence intervals were estimated with a random-effects model.
RESULTS
We identified 103 studies (epilepsy, N = 72; ASD, N = 14; ID, N = 21) across 32,331 individuals. Targeted gene panel sequencing was used in 73, and exome sequencing in 36 cohorts. Given highly selected patient cohorts, the diagnostic yield was 17.1% for ASD, 24% for epilepsy, and 28.2% for ID (23.7% overall). The highest diagnostic yield for epilepsy subtypes was observed in individuals with ID (27.9%) and early onset seizures (36.8%). The diagnostic yield for exome sequencing was higher than for panel sequencing, even though not statistically significant (27.2% vs 22.6%, P = .071). We observed that clinical sequencing studies are performed predominantly in countries with a high Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) (countries with sequencing studies: IHDI median = 0.84, interquartile range [IQR] = 0.09 vs countries without sequencing studies: IHDI median = 0.56, IQR = 0.3). No studies from Africa, India, or Latin America were identified, indicating potential barriers to genetic testing.
SIGNIFICANCE
This meta-analysis and systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of clinical sequencing studies of NDDs and will help guide policymaking and steer decision-making in patient management.
Topics: Age of Onset; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Epilepsy; High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing; Humans; Intellectual Disability; Sequence Analysis, DNA; Exome Sequencing
PubMed: 33200402
DOI: 10.1111/epi.16755 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Jul 2021No curative therapy for mitochondrial disease (MD) exists, prioritizing supportive treatment for symptom relief. In animal and cell models ketones decrease oxidative... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
No curative therapy for mitochondrial disease (MD) exists, prioritizing supportive treatment for symptom relief. In animal and cell models ketones decrease oxidative stress, increase antioxidants and scavenge free radicals, putting ketogenic diets (KDs) on the list of management options for MD. Furthermore, KDs are well-known, safe and effective treatments for epilepsy, a frequent symptom of MD. This systematic review evaluates efficacy and safety of KD for MD.
METHODS
We searched Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase and Cinahl (November 2020) with search terms linked to MD and KD. From the identified records, we excluded studies on Pyruvate Dehydrogenase Complex deficiency. From these eligible reports, cases without a genetically confirmed diagnosis and cases without sufficient data on KD and clinical course were excluded. The remaining studies were included in the qualitative analysis.
RESULTS
Only 20 cases (14 pediatric) from the 694 papers identified met the inclusion criteria (one controlled trial (n = 5), 15 case reports). KD led to seizure control in 7 out of 8 cases and improved muscular symptoms in 3 of 10 individuals. In 4 of 20 cases KD reversed the clinical phenotype (e.g. cardiomyopathy, movement disorder). In 5 adults with mitochondrial DNA deletion(s) related myopathy rhabdomyolysis led to cessation of KD. Three individuals with POLG mutations died while being on KD, however, their survival was not different compared to individuals with POLG mutations without KD.
CONCLUSION
Data on efficacy and safety of KD for MD is too scarce for general recommendations. KD should be considered in individuals with MD and therapy refractory epilepsy, while KD is contraindicated in mitochondrial DNA deletion(s) related myopathy. When considering KD for MD the high rate of adverse effects should be taken into account, but also spectacular improvements in individual cases. KD is a highly individual management option in this fragile patient group and requires an experienced team. To increase knowledge on this-individually-promising management option more (prospective) studies using adequate outcome measures are crucial.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Child; Diet, Ketogenic; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Epilepsy; Humans; Mitochondrial Diseases; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 34217336
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-021-01927-w -
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, eventrate, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: eventrate 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and eventrate was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or eventrate in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), eventrate 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, eventrate, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug eventrate, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and eventrate would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Child; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Phenytoin
PubMed: 35363878
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub4 -
European Journal of Neurology Feb 2022New-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) is a clinical presentation, neither a specific diagnosis nor a clinical entity. It refers to a patient without active... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
New-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) is a clinical presentation, neither a specific diagnosis nor a clinical entity. It refers to a patient without active epilepsy or other pre-existing relevant neurological disorder, with a NORSE without a clear acute or active structural, toxic or metabolic cause. This study reviews the currently available evidence about the aetiology of patients presenting with NORSE and NORSE-related conditions.
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out for clinical trials, observational studies, case series and case reports including patients who presented with NORSE, febrile-infection-related epilepsy syndrome or the infantile hemiconvulsion-hemiplegia and epilepsy syndrome.
RESULTS
Four hundred and fifty records were initially identified, of which 197 were included in the review. The selected studies were retrospective case-control (n = 11), case series (n = 83) and case reports (n = 103) and overall described 1334 patients both of paediatric and adult age. Aetiology remains unexplained in about half of the cases, representing the so-called 'cryptogenic NORSE'. Amongst adult patients without cryptogenic NORSE, the most often identified cause is autoimmune encephalitis, either non-paraneoplastic or paraneoplastic. Infections are the prevalent aetiology of paediatric non-cryptogenic NORSE. Genetic and congenital disorders can have a causative role in NORSE, and toxic, vascular and degenerative conditions have also been described.
CONCLUSIONS
Far from being a unitary condition, NORSE is a heterogeneous and clinically challenging presentation. The development and dissemination of protocols and guidelines to standardize diagnostic work-up and guide therapeutic approaches should be implemented. Global cooperation and multicentre research represent priorities to improve the understanding of NORSE.
Topics: Adult; Child; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Encephalitis; Epileptic Syndromes; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 34661330
DOI: 10.1111/ene.15149