-
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 -
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 -
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 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 -
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 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 -
CNS Drugs Mar 2021Cannabidiol (CBD), which is one major constituent of the Cannabis sativa plant, has anti-seizure properties and does not produce euphoric or intrusive side effects. A...
BACKGROUND
Cannabidiol (CBD), which is one major constituent of the Cannabis sativa plant, has anti-seizure properties and does not produce euphoric or intrusive side effects. A plant-derived, highly purified CBD formulation with a known and constant composition has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, and tuberous sclerosis complex. In the European Union, the drug has been authorized by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, in conjunction with clobazam, and is under regulatory review for the treatment of seizures in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to summarize the currently available body of knowledge about the use of this US Food and Drug Administration/European Medicines Agency-approved oral formulation of pharmaceutical-grade CBD in patients with epileptic conditions, especially developmental and epileptic encephalopathies other than Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome.
METHODS
The relevant studies were identified through MEDLINE and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry in October 2020. There were no date limitations or language restrictions. The following types of studies were included: clinical trials, cohorts, case-control, cross-sectional, clinical series, and case reports. Participants had to meet the following criteria: any sex, any ethnicity, any age, diagnosis of epilepsy, receiving plant-derived, highly purified (> 98% w/w) CBD in a sesame oil-based oral solution for the treatment of seizures. Data extracted from selected records included efficacy, tolerability, and safety outcomes.
RESULTS
Five hundred and seventy records were identified by database and trial register searching. Fifty-seven studies were retrieved for detailed assessment, of which 42 were eventually included for the review. The participants of the studies included patients of both pediatric and adult age. Across the trials, purified CBD was administered at dosages up to 50 mg/kg/day. In a randomized double-blind controlled trial in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex, CBD was associated with a significantly greater percent reduction in seizure frequency than placebo over the treatment period. Open-label studies suggested the effectiveness of CBD in the treatment of children and adults presenting with other epilepsy syndromes than those addressed by regulatory trials, including CDKL5 deficiency disorder and Aicardi, Dup15q, and Doose syndromes, SYNGAP1 encephalopathy, and epilepsy with myoclonic absences. The most common adverse events observed during treatment with CBD included somnolence, decreased appetite, diarrhea, and increased serum aminotransferases.
CONCLUSIONS
The currently available data suggest that response to treatment with a highly purified, plant-derived CBD oil-based solution can be seen in patients across a broad range of epilepsy disorders and etiologies. The existing evidence can provide preliminary support for additional research.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Cannabidiol; Case-Control Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Double-Blind Method; Epilepsies, Myoclonic; Epilepsy; Epileptic Syndromes; Humans; Lennox Gastaut Syndrome; Seizures
PubMed: 33754312
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-021-00807-y -
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