-
Seizure Oct 2021Diverse neuronal antibodies are related to autoimmune encephalitis (AE) and AE-related epilepsy. However, the epidemiological characteristics of AE, AE-associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diverse neuronal antibodies are related to autoimmune encephalitis (AE) and AE-related epilepsy. However, the epidemiological characteristics of AE, AE-associated antibodies, and AE-related seizures are still unclear.
AIMS
This research evaluated the relationship between AE, AE-related seizures, and neuronal antibodies, as well as the morbidity of AE with early incidence.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Of the 4,869 citations identified, 100 articles were reviewed in full, and 42 subgroups were analyzed. The overall incidence of AE patients with seizures was 42% (95% CI: 0.40-0.44), and among them, the incidence of epilepsy in anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) encephalitis patients was 73% (95% CI: 0.70-0.77). Subsequently, we found that the prevalence of AE as the cause of epilepsy within the pooled period was 1% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02), while the overall positive rate of neuronal antibodies in epilepsy patients was 4% (95% CI: 0.03-0.05). Additionally, the detection rates of different antibodies among epilepsy patients were as follows: anti-NMDAR, 1%; anti-leucine-rich glioma inactivated 1 (LGI1), 1%; anti-contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CASPR2), 2%.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings, neuronal antibodies may serve as a bridge to study AE and immune-related epilepsy. To further understand the differences in outcomes following different treatment measures, and to provide more information for public health policy and prevention, more research is needed to improve the accuracy of estimations.
Topics: Anti-N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptor Encephalitis; Autoantibodies; Encephalitis; Epilepsy; Hashimoto Disease; Humans
PubMed: 34284303
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2021.07.005 -
Epilepsy & Behavior : E&B May 2023Different neurostimulation modalities are available to treat drug-resistant focal epilepsy when surgery is not an option including vagus nerve stimulation (VNS),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Different neurostimulation modalities are available to treat drug-resistant focal epilepsy when surgery is not an option including vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS). Head-to-head comparisons of efficacy do not exist between them nor are likely to be available in the future. We performed a meta-analysis on VNS, RNS, and DBS outcomes to compare seizure reduction efficacy for focal epilepsy.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the literature for reported seizure outcomes following implantation with VNS, RNS, and DBS in focal-onset seizures and performed a meta-analysis. Prospective or retrospective clinical studies were included.
RESULTS
Sufficient data were available at years one (n = 642, two (n = 480), and three (n = 385) for comparing the three modalities with each other. Seizure reduction for the devices at years one, two, and three respectively were: RNS: 66.3%, 56.0%, 68.4%; DBS- 58.4%, 57.5%, 63.8%; VNS 32.9%, 44.4%, 53.5%. Seizure reduction at year one was greater for RNS (p < 0.01) and DBS (p < 0.01) compared to VNS.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicate the seizure reduction efficacy of RNS is similar to DBS, and both had greater seizure reductions compared to VNS in the first-year post-implantation, with the differences diminishing with longer-term follow-up.
SIGNIFICANCE
The results help guide neuromodulation treatment in eligible patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Deep Brain Stimulation; Epilepsies, Partial; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Seizures; Vagus Nerve Stimulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36972642
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2023.109182 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2014. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition characterised by recurrent seizures.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2014. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition characterised by recurrent seizures. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Sulthiame (STM) is widely used as an antiepileptic drug in Europe and Israel. In this review, we have presented a summary of evidence for the use of STM as monotherapy in epilepsy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and side effect profile of STM as monotherapy when compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug for people with epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 13 April 2020: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 10 April 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of STM and researchers in the field to ask about ongoing and unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled monotherapy trials of STM in people of any age with epilepsy of any aetiology.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: treatment withdrawal; seizure-free at six months; adverse effects; and quality of life scoring. We conducted the primary analyses by intention-to-treat where possible, and presented a narrative analysis of the data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies involving a total of 355 participants: three studies (209 participants) with a diagnosis of benign epilepsy of childhood with centrotemporal spikes (BECTS), and one study (146 participants) with a diagnosis of generalised tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). STM was given as monotherapy compared with placebo and with levetiracetam in the BECTS studies, and compared with phenytoin in the GTCS study. An English translation of the full text of one of the BECTS studies could not be found, and analysis of this study was based solely on the English translation of the abstract. For the primary outcome, the total number of dropouts caused either by seizure recurrence or adverse reaction was significantly higher in the levetiracetam treatment arm compared to the STM treatment arm (RR 0.32, 95% Cl 0.10 to 1.03; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes for this comparison, results for seizure freedom were inconclusive (RR 1.12, 95% Cl 0.88 to 1.44; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Reporting of adverse effects was incomplete. Participants receiving STM were significantly less likely to develop gingival hyperplasia than participants receiving phenytoin in the GTCS study (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.58; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence). No further statistically significant adverse events were noted when STM was compared with phenytoin or placebo. The most common adverse events were related to behavioural disturbances when STM was compared with levetiracetam (RR 0.95, 95% Cl 0.59 to 1.55; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence), with the same incidence in both groups. No data were reported for quality of life. Overall, we assessed one study at high risk of bias and one study at unclear bias across the seven domains, mainly due to lack of information regarding study design. Only one trial reported effective methods for blinding. The risk of bias assessments for the other two studies ranged from low to high. We rated the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes as low using the GRADE approach.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides insufficient information to inform clinical practice. Small sample sizes, poor methodological quality, and lack of data on important outcome measures precluded any meaningful conclusions regarding the efficacy and tolerability of sulthiame as monotherapy in epilepsy. More trials, recruiting larger populations, over longer periods, are needed to determine whether sulthiame has a clinical use.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy; Humans; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiazines
PubMed: 34554571
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010062.pub3 -
JAMA Network Open Apr 2023Epilepsy is one of the most common neurologic disorders globally. Cannabidiol (CBD) has been approved for the treatment of epilepsy, but its use has been associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Epilepsy is one of the most common neurologic disorders globally. Cannabidiol (CBD) has been approved for the treatment of epilepsy, but its use has been associated with several different adverse events (AEs).
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the frequency and risk of AEs developing in patients with epilepsy who are using CBD.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies published from database inception up to August 4, 2022. The search strategy included a combination of the following keywords: (cannabidiol OR epidiolex) AND (epilepsy OR seizures).
STUDY SELECTION
The review included all randomized clinical trials that investigated at least 1 AE from the use of CBD in patients with epilepsy.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Basic information about each study was extracted. I2 statistics were calculated using Q statistics to assess the statistical heterogeneity among the included studies. A random-effects model was used in cases of substantial heterogeneity, and a fixed-effects model was used if the I2 statistic for the AEs was lower than 40%. This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Frequency of each AE and risk of developing each AE in patients with epilepsy using CBD.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included. Overall incidences of 9.7% in the CBD group and 4.0% in the control group were found for any grade AEs. The overall risk ratios (RRs) for any grade and severe grade AEs were 1.12 (95% CI, 1.02-1.23) and 3.39 (95% CI, 1.42-8.09), respectively, for the CBD group compared with the control group. Compared with the control group, the CBD group had a greater risk for incidence of serious AEs (RR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.83-3.88), AEs resulting in discontinuation (RR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.86-8.37), and AEs resulting in dose reduction (RR, 9.87; 95% CI, 5.34-14.40). Because most of the included studies had some risk of bias (3 raised some concerns and 3 were at high risk of bias), these findings should be interpreted with some caution.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials, the use of CBD to treat patients with epilepsy was associated with an increased risk of several AEs. Additional studies are needed to determine the safe and effective CBD dosage for treating epilepsy.
Topics: Humans; Cannabidiol; Epilepsy; Seizures; Bias
PubMed: 37079302
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.9126 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Catamenial epilepsy describes worsening seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Catamenial epilepsy describes worsening seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the menstrual cycle for seizures are perimenstrually (C1 pattern), at ovulation (C2 pattern), and during the luteal phase (C3 pattern). A reduction in progesterone levels premenstrually and reduced secretion during the luteal phase is implicated in catamenial C1 and C3 patterns. A reduction in progesterone has been demonstrated to reduce sensitivity to the inhibitory neurotransmitter in preclinical studies, hence increasing risk of seizures. A pre-ovulatory surge in oestrogen has been implicated in the C2 pattern of seizure exacerbation, although the exact mechanism by which this surge increases risk is uncertain. Current treatment practices include the use of pulsed hormonal (e.g. progesterone) and non-hormonal treatments (e.g. clobazam or acetazolamide) in women with regular menses, and complete cessation of menstruation using synthetic hormones (e.g. medroxyprogesterone (Depo-Provera) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (triptorelin and goserelin)) in women with irregular menses. Catamenial epilepsy and seizure exacerbation is common in women with epilepsy. Women may not receive appropriate treatment for their seizures because of uncertainty regarding which treatment works best and when in the menstrual cycle treatment should be taken, as well as the possible impact on fertility, the menstrual cycle, bone health, and cardiovascular health. This review aims to address these issues to inform clinical practice and future research.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for seizures exacerbated by the menstrual cycle in women with regular or irregular menses. We synthesised the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments in women with catamenial epilepsy of any pattern.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 20 July 2021 for the latest update: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 July 2021). CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We used no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs of blinded or open-label design that randomised participants individually (i.e. cluster-randomised trials were excluded). We included cross-over trials if each treatment period was at least 12 weeks in length and the trial had a suitable wash-out period. We included the following types of interventions: women with any pattern of catamenial epilepsy who received a hormonal or non-hormonal drug intervention in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen for a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on study design factors and participant demographics for the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were: proportion seizure-free, proportion of responders (at least 50% decrease in seizure frequency from baseline), and change in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes included: number of withdrawals, number of women experiencing adverse events of interest (seizure exacerbation, cardiac events, thromboembolic events, osteoporosis and bone health, mood disorders, sedation, menstrual cycle disorders, and fertility issues), and quality of life outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, we included eight full-text articles reporting on four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. We included two cross-over RCTs of pulsed norethisterone, and two parallel RCTs of pulsed progesterone recruiting a total of 192 women aged between 13 and 45 years with catamenial epilepsy. We found no RCTs for non-hormonal treatments of catamenial epilepsy or for women with irregular menses. Meta-analysis was not possible for the primary outcomes, therefore we undertook a narrative synthesis. For the two RCTs evaluating norethisterone versus placebo (24 participants), there were no reported treatment differences for change in seizure frequency. Outcomes for the proportion seizure-free and 50% responders were not reported. For the two RCTs evaluating progesterone versus placebo (168 participants), the studies reported conflicting results for the primary outcomes. One progesterone RCT reported no significant difference between progesterone 600 mg/day taken on day 14 to 28 and placebo with respect to 50% responders, seizure freedom rates, and change in seizure frequency for any seizure type. The other progesterone RCT reported a decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the progesterone group that was significantly higher than the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the placebo group. The results of secondary efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference between groups in the pooled progesterone RCTs in terms of treatment withdrawal for any reason (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 3.00, P = 0.18, I = 0%) or treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (pooled RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 16.17, P = 0.22, I = 0%). No treatment withdrawals were reported from the norethisterone RCTs. The RCTs reported limited information on adverse events, although one progesterone RCT reported no significant difference in the number of women experiencing adverse events (diarrhoea, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, dizziness, headache, and depression). No studies reported on quality of life. We judged the evidence for outcomes related to the included progesterone RCTs to be of low to moderate certainty due to risk of bias, and for outcomes related to the included norethisterone RCTs to be of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides very low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between norethisterone and placebo, and moderate- to low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between progesterone and placebo for catamenial epilepsy. However, as all the included studies were underpowered, important clinical effects cannot be ruled out. Our review highlights an overall deficiency in the literature base on the effectiveness of a wide range of other hormonal and non-hormonal interventions currently being used in practice, particularly for those women who do not have regular menses. Further clinical trials are needed in this area.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Menstruation; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Young Adult
PubMed: 34528245
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013225.pub3 -
Epilepsia Jan 2021Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) considerably affects patient health, cognition, and well-being, and disproportionally contributes to the overall burden of epilepsy. The...
Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) considerably affects patient health, cognition, and well-being, and disproportionally contributes to the overall burden of epilepsy. The most common DRE syndromes are temporal lobe epilepsy related to mesiotemporal sclerosis and extratemporal epilepsy related to cortical malformations. Both syndromes have been traditionally considered as "focal," and most patients benefit from brain surgery for long-term seizure control. However, increasing evidence indicates that many DRE patients also present with widespread structural and functional network disruptions. These anomalies have been suggested to relate to cognitive impairment and prognosis, highlighting their importance for patient management. The advent of multimodal neuroimaging and formal methods to quantify complex systems has offered unprecedented ability to profile structural and functional brain networks in DRE patients. Here, we performed a systematic review on existing DRE network biomarker candidates and their contribution to three key application areas: (1) modeling of cognitive impairments, (2) localization of the surgical target, and (3) prediction of clinical and cognitive outcomes after surgery. Although network biomarkers hold promise for a range of clinical applications, translation of neuroimaging biomarkers to the patient's bedside has been challenged by a lack of clinical and prospective studies. We therefore close by highlighting conceptual and methodological strategies to improve the evaluation and accessibility of network biomarkers, and ultimately guide clinically actionable decisions.
Topics: Anisotropy; Brain Mapping; Cognitive Dysfunction; Connectome; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Diffusion Tensor Imaging; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Electroencephalography; Epilepsy, Temporal Lobe; Functional Neuroimaging; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Malformations of Cortical Development; Neural Pathways; Neurosurgical Procedures; Prognosis
PubMed: 33236784
DOI: 10.1111/epi.16753 -
Current Neuropharmacology 2023Compelling evidence from preclinical and clinical studies supports the therapeutic role of cannabidiol (CBD) in several medical disorders. We reviewed the scientific...
BACKGROUND
Compelling evidence from preclinical and clinical studies supports the therapeutic role of cannabidiol (CBD) in several medical disorders. We reviewed the scientific evidence on CBD-related toxicity and adverse events (AEs) in 2019, at the beginning of the spike in clinical studies involving CBD. However, CBD safety remained uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
With the benefit of hindsight, we aimed to provide an update on CBD-related toxicity and AEs in humans.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were accessed in October 2022 to identify clinical studies mentioning CBDrelated toxicity/AEs from February 2019 to September 2022. Study design, population characteristics, CBD doses, treatment duration, co-medications, and AEs were compiled.
RESULTS
A total of 51 reports were included. Most studies investigated CBD efficacy and safety in neurological conditions, such as treatment-resistant epilepsies, although a growing number of studies are focusing on specific psychopathological conditions, such as substance use disorders, chronic psychosis, and anxiety. Most studies report mild or moderate severity of AEs. The most common AEs are diarrhea, somnolence, sedation, and upper respiratory disturbances. Few serious AEs have been reported, especially when CBD is co-administered with other classes of drugs, such as clobazam and valproate.
CONCLUSION
Clinical data suggest that CBD is well tolerated and associated with few serious AEs at therapeutic doses both in children and adults. However, interactions with other medications should be monitored carefully. Additional data are needed to investigate CBD's long-term efficacy and safety, and CBD use in medical conditions other than epilepsy syndromes.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Cannabidiol; Epilepsy; Anxiety; Anticonvulsants
PubMed: 36946485
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X21666230322143401 -
Epilepsia Open Mar 2023Epilepsy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. Whether cardiac structure and function are altered in epilepsy remains unclear. To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Epilepsy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. Whether cardiac structure and function are altered in epilepsy remains unclear. To address this, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating cardiac structure and function in patients with epilepsy.
METHODS
We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, PubMed, COCHRANE, and Web of Science from inception to 31 December 2021. Primary outcomes of interest included left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) for studies reporting echocardiogram findings and cardiac weight and fibrosis for postmortem investigations. Study quality was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) assessment tools.
RESULTS
Among the 10 case-control studies with epilepsy patients (n = 515) and healthy controls (n = 445), LVEF was significantly decreased in epilepsy group compared with controls (MD: -1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.56 to -0.04; P = 0.045), whereas A-wave velocity (MD: 4.73; 95% CI: 1.87-7.60; P = 0.001), E/e' ratio (MD: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.06-0.71; P = 0.019), and isovolumic relaxation time (MD: 10.18; 95% CI: 2.05-18.32; P = 0.014) were increased in epilepsy, compared with controls. A pooled analysis was performed in sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) cases with autopsy data (n = 714). Among SUDEP cases, the prevalence of cardiac hypertrophy was 16% (95% CI: 9%-23%); cardiac fibrosis was 20% (95% CI: 15%-26%). We found no marked differences in cardiac hypertrophy, heart weight, or cardiac fibrosis between SUDEP cases and epilepsy controls.
SIGNIFICANCE
Our findings suggest that epilepsy is associated with altered diastolic and systolic echocardiogram parameters compared with healthy controls. Notably, SUDEP does not appear to be associated with a higher incidence of structural cardiac abnormalities, compared with non-SUDEP epilepsy controls. Longitudinal studies are needed to understand the prognostic significance of such changes. Echocardiography may be a useful noninvasive diagnostic test in epilepsy population.
Topics: Humans; Stroke Volume; Risk Factors; Ventricular Function, Left; Epilepsy; Death, Sudden; Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy; Fibrosis; Cardiomegaly
PubMed: 36648338
DOI: 10.1002/epi4.12692 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. It is estimated that up to 30%... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. It is estimated that up to 30% of individuals with epilepsy continue to have epileptic seizures despite treatment with an antiepileptic drug. These patients are classified as drug-resistant and require treatment with a combination of multiple antiepileptic drugs. Brivaracetam is a third-generation antiepileptic drug that is a high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A. In this review we investigated the use of brivaracetam as add-on therapy for epilepsy.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 7 September 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web); MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to 3 September 2021. CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for parallel-group RCTs that recruited people of any age with drug-resistant epilepsy. We accepted studies with any level of blinding (double-blind, single-blind, or unblinded).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
In accordance with standard Cochrane methodological procedures, two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion before evaluating trial quality and extracting relevant data. The primary outcome to be assessed was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes were: seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse events, the proportion of participants who experienced any adverse events, and drug interactions. We used an intention-to-treat population for all primary analyses, and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore the results and conclusions of the review are unchanged. The previous review included six studies involving a total of 2411 participants. Only one study included participants with both focal and generalised onset seizures; the other five trials included participants with focal onset seizures only. Study participants were aged 16 to 80 years. Treatment periods ranged from 7 to 16 weeks. We judged two studies to have low risk of bias and four to have unclear risk of bias. Details on the method used for allocation concealment and how blinding was maintained were insufficient in one study each. One study did not report all outcomes prespecified in the trial protocol, and there were discrepancies in reporting in a further study. Participants receiving brivaracetam add-on were more likely to experience a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those receiving placebo (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.14; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants receiving brivaracetam were more likely to attain seizure freedom; however, the evidence is of low certainty (RR 5.89, 95% CI 2.30 to 15.13; 6 studies). The incidence of treatment withdrawal for any reason was slightly greater for participants receiving brivaracetam compared to those receiving placebo (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.74; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). The risk of participants experiencing one or more adverse events did not differ significantly following treatment with brivaracetam compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, participants receiving brivaracetam did appear to be more likely to withdraw from treatment due to adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.33; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When used as add-on therapy for individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy, brivaracetam may be effective in reducing seizure frequency and may aid patients in achieving seizure freedom. However, add-on brivaracetam is probably associated with a greater proportion of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo. It is important to note that only one of the eligible studies included participants with generalised epilepsy. None of the included studies involved participants under the age of 16, and all studies were of short duration. Consequently, the findings of this review are mainly applicable to adult patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Future research should focus on investigating the tolerability and efficacy of brivaracetam during longer-term follow-up, as well as assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam in managing other types of seizures and in other age groups.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epilepsy, Generalized; Humans; Pyrrolidinones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures
PubMed: 35285519
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011501.pub3 -
Paediatric Drugs Jul 2022There are numerous potential factors that may affect growth in children with epilepsy, and these must be evaluated in any child with appetite and weight concerns.... (Review)
Review
There are numerous potential factors that may affect growth in children with epilepsy, and these must be evaluated in any child with appetite and weight concerns. Antiseizure medications (ASMs) have potential adverse effects, and many may affect appetite, thus impacting normal growth and weight gain. The aim of this review is to focus on the impact of both epilepsy and ASMs on appetite and weight in children. We systematically reviewed studies using Medline assessing the impact of ASMs on appetite and weight in children. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and open-label studies (open-label extension and interventional) that targeted or included the pediatric population (0-18 years of age). Each study was classified using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Classification of Evidence for Therapeutic Studies, and the level of evidence for impact on appetite and weight in children was graded. ASMs associated with decreased appetite and/or weight loss include fenfluramine, topiramate, zonisamide, felbamate, rufinamide, stiripentol, cannabidiol, brivaracetam and ethosuximide; ASMs with minimal impact on weight and appetite in children include oxcarbazepine, eslicarbazepine, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, lacosamide, carbamazepine, vigabatrin and clobazam. The ASM most robustly associated with increased appetite and/or weight gain is valproic acid; however, both pregabalin and perampanel may also lead to modest weight gain or increased appetite in children. Certain ASMs may impact both appetite and weight, which may lead to increased morbidity of the underlying disease and impaired adherence to the treatment regimen.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Appetite; Child; Epilepsy; Humans; Lamotrigine; Weight Gain
PubMed: 35596110
DOI: 10.1007/s40272-022-00505-2