Oxcarbazepine add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder. In approximately 30% of epilepsy cases, seizures are uncontrolled by one antiepileptic drug (AED). These people require treatment with a combination of multiple AEDs and are described as having drug-resistant epilepsy. Oxcarbazepine is a keto-analogue of carbamazepine, an established AED, and can be used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of oxcarbazepine as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched on 24 September 2018: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Medline (Ovid) 1946 to 21 September 2018; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Originally, we also searched SCOPUS as a substitute for Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials with parallel-group or cross-over design, recruiting people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We accepted any level of blinding and trials could be placebo- or active-controlled. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In accordance with the methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration, two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility before extracting data and assessing risk of bias. We assessed the primary outcomes: median percentage seizure reduction per 28 days; 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; and adverse effects including ataxia, hyponatraemia, and somnolence. We assessed the secondary outcomes: seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; cognitive effects; and quality of life. We used an intention-to-treat population for all primary analyses. We present results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), with the exception of adverse effects which we present with 99% CI. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six eligible studies, involving 1593 participants. We judged that three studies were at unclear risk of bias and three were at high risk of bias. Bias mainly arose from lack of methodological details and from high attrition rates. Participants were aged 1 month to 65 years, with a diagnosis of drug-resistant focal epilepsy. All studies were either placebo- or alternative-dose-controlled with parallel-group design. The treatment period varied from 9 days to 26 weeks. The median percentage seizure reduction per 28 days (3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) ranged from 26% to 83.3% for participants randomised to experimental oxcarbazepine compared to 7.6% to 28.7% for participants randomised to control treatment. Oxcarbazepine may increase the responder rate for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to control treatment (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.56; random-effects model; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). For seizure freedom, the RR was 2.86 (95% CI 1.19 to 6.87; random-effects model; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), suggesting an advantageous effectiveness of oxcarbazepine over control treatment. Treatment with oxcarbazepine was associated with an increased treatment withdrawal rate compared to control (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; fixed-effect model; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). The largest oxcarbazepine dose used, 2400 mg/d, was associated with a higher treatment withdrawal rate (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.92 to 2.94; fixed-effect model; 2 studies) compared to control, than 1200 mg/d (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.95; fixed-effect model; 3 studies) or 600 mg/d oxcarbazepine (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; fixed-effect model; 1 study). Treatment with oxcarbazepine was associated with an increased incidence of multiple adverse effects including: ataxia (RR 2.54, 99% CI 0.86 to 7.54; random-effects model; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); and somnolence (RR 2.03, 99% CI 1.17 to 3.54; random-effects model; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). Hyponatraemia occurred more frequently with oxcarbazepine treatment but not significantly so (RR 2.53, 99% CI 0.27 to 23.85; fixed-effect model; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oxcarbazepine might be effective at reducing seizure frequency when used as an add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The efficacy outcomes - 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom - were derived from low-certainty evidence. We are, therefore, uncertain whether the estimated effect size is representative of the true effect. In contrast, the evidence for median percentage seizure reduction and treatment withdrawal were of moderate certainty: thus, we are fairly certain of the effect estimates' reliability. Overall, we are unsure of the true efficacy of oxcarbazepine, but have concerns about its tolerability.

A Caenorhabditis elegans assay of seizure-like activity optimised for identifying antiepileptic drugs and their mechanisms of action.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy affects around 1% of people, but existing antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) only offer symptomatic relief and are ineffective in approximately 30% of patients. Hence, new AEDs are sorely needed. However, a major bottleneck is the low-throughput nature of early-stage AED screens in conventional rodent models. This process could potentially be expedited by using simpler invertebrate systems, such as the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. NEW METHOD: Head-bobbing convulsions were previously reported to be inducible by pentylenetetrazol (PTZ) in C. elegans with loss-of-function mutations in unc-49, which encodes a GABAA receptor. Given that epilepsy-linked mutations in human GABAA receptors are well documented, this could represent a clinically-relevant system for early-stage AED screens. However, the original agar plate-based assay is unsuited to large-scale screening and has not been validated for identifying AEDs. Therefore, we established an alternative streamlined, higher-throughput approach whereby mutants were treated with PTZ and AEDs via liquid-based incubation. RESULTS: Convulsions induced within minutes of PTZ exposure in unc-49 mutants were strongly inhibited by the established AED ethosuximide. This protective activity was independent of ethosuximide's suggested target, the T-type calcium channel, as a null mutation in the worm cca-1 ortholog did not affect ethosuximide's anticonvulsant action. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD: Our streamlined assay is AED-validated, feasible for higher throughput compound screens, and can facilitate insights into AED mechanisms of action. CONCLUSIONS: Based on an epilepsy-associated genetic background, this C. elegans unc-49 model of seizure-like activity presents an ethical, higher throughput alternative to conventional rodent seizure models for initial AED screens.

Non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of patients with epilepsy remain refractory to drug treatment and continue to experience seizures whilst taking one or more antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Several non-pharmacological interventions that may be used in conjunction with or as an alternative to AEDs are available for refractory patients. In view of the fact that seizures in people with intellectual disabilities are often complex and refractory to pharmacological interventions, it is evident that good quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to assess the efficacy of alternatives or adjuncts to pharmacological interventions.This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review (Beavis 2007) published in The Cochrane Library (2007, Issue 4). OBJECTIVES: To assess data derived from randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities.Non-pharmacological interventions include, but are not limited to, the following.• Surgical procedures.• Specialised diets, for example, the ketogenic diet, or vitamin and folic acid supplementation.• Psychological interventions for patients or for patients and carers/parents, for example, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), electroencephalographic (EEG) biofeedback and educational intervention.• Yoga.• Acupuncture.• Relaxation therapy (e.g. music therapy). SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (19 August 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via CRSO (19 August 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 August 2014) and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 to 19 August 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted study data. MAIN RESULTS: One study is included in this review. When two surgical procedures were compared, results indicated that corpus callosotomy with anterior temporal lobectomy was more effective than anterior temporal lobectomy alone in improving quality of life and performance on IQ tests among people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities. No evidence was found to support superior benefit in seizure control for either intervention. This is the only study of its kind and was rated as having an overall unclear risk of bias. The previous update (December 2010) identified one RCT in progress. The study authors have confirmed that they are aiming to publish by the end of 2015; therefore this study (Bjurulf 2008) has not been included in the current review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need for well-designed randomised controlled trials conducted to assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on seizure and behavioural outcomes in people with intellectual disabilities and epilepsy.

Thalamotemporal alteration and postoperative seizures in temporal lobe epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: There are competing explanations for persistent postoperative seizures after temporal lobe surgery. One is that 1 or more particular subtypes of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (mTLE) exist that are particularly resistant to surgery. We sought to identify a common brain structural and connectivity alteration in patients with persistent postoperative seizures using preoperative quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). METHODS: We performed a series of studies in 87 patients with mTLE (47 subsequently rendered seizure free, 40 who continued to experience postoperative seizures) and 80 healthy controls. We investigated the relationship between imaging variables and postoperative seizure outcome. All patients had unilateral temporal lobe seizure onset, had ipsilateral hippocampal sclerosis as the only brain lesion, and underwent amygdalohippocampectomy. RESULTS: Quantitative imaging factors found not to be significantly associated with persistent seizures were volumes of ipsilateral and contralateral mesial temporal lobe structures, generalized brain atrophy, and extent of resection. There were nonsignificant trends for larger amygdala and entorhinal resections to be associated with improved outcome. However, patients with persistent seizures had significant atrophy of bilateral dorsomedial and pulvinar thalamic regions, and significant alterations of DTI-derived thalamotemporal probabilistic paths bilaterally relative to those patients rendered seizure free and controls, even when corrected for extent of mesial temporal lobe resection. INTERPRETATION: Patients with bihemispheric alterations of thalamotemporal structural networks may represent a subtype of mTLE that is resistant to temporal lobe surgery. Increasingly sensitive multimodal imaging techniques should endeavor to transform these group-based findings to individualize prediction of patient outcomes.

Psychological and behavioural treatments for adults with non-epileptic attack disorder.

BACKGROUND: Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, also known as non-epileptic attack disorder (NEAD), have the outward appearance of epilepsy in the absence of physiological or electroencephalographic correlates. Non-epileptic seizures can occur in isolation or in combination with epileptic seizures. The development and maintenance of non-epileptic seizures has been well documented and there is a growing literature on the treatment of non-epileptic seizures which includes non-psychological (including anti-anxiety and antidepressant pharmacological treatment) and psychological therapies (including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), hypnotherapy and paradoxical therapy). Various treatment methodologies have been tried with variable success. The purpose of this Cochrane review was to establish the evidence base for the treatment of non-epileptic seizures with behavioural and psychological therapies only. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether behavioural or psychological treatments for non-epileptic seizures or NEAD result in a reduction in the frequency of seizures or improvement in quality of life, or both, and whether any treatment is significantly more effective than others. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (4 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1) (January 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to 4 February 2013), PsycINFO (4 February 2013) and SCOPUS (4 February 2013). No language restrictions were imposed. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and before and after controlled and non-controlled studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies were required to assess one or more types of behavioural or psychological interventions, or both, for the treatment of non-epileptic seizures. Studies of childhood non-epileptic seizures were excluded from our review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (JM, JP) independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes included reduction in seizure frequency and improvements in quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies, with a total of 343 participants, met our inclusion criteria (four RCTs and eight before and after non-controlled studies). Of the four RCTs, one examined patients with non-epileptic seizures and three had a mixed diagnosis (pseudoseizures, conversion disorder and somatisation disorder). Most of the non-randomised studies used non-epileptic seizure patients exclusively. Overall, five studies examined the effectiveness of psychotherapy, three examined CBT, two investigated hypnosis, one assessed paradoxical intention and one had a mixed intervention design. We classified two included studies as low risk of bias, one as unclear and nine as high risk of bias. Meta-analysis could not be undertaken due to the heterogeneity of design and interventions. Most included studies reported improved outcomes for the intervention under investigation. One RCT investigating the effectiveness of CBT in this patient group found a significant reduction in seizure frequency compared to controls (P < 0.001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little reliable evidence to support the use of any treatment, including CBT, in the treatment of non-epileptic seizures. Further randomised controlled trials of CBT and other interventions are needed.

Calcium antagonists as an add-on therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2001, Issue 4.Nearly a third of people with epilepsy do not have their seizures controlled with current treatments. Continuous attempts have been made to find new antiepileptic drugs based on increasing knowledge of the cellular and molecular biology involved in the genesis of epilepsy and seizures. Therefore, calcium antagonists that can alter the effects of calcium on brain cells have been investigated for their effect on epileptic seizures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of calcium antagonists when used as an add-on therapy for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (29 January 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1948 to 29 January 2013) and SCOPUS (all years to 29 January 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised placebo-controlled or active-controlled add-on trials of any calcium antagonist in people with drug-resistant epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (MH and JP) independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, cognition and quality of life. Analyses were by intention to treat. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials were included with a total of 424 participants, one parallel-group and seven cross-over trials of flunarizine, two cross-over trials of nimodipine and one cross-over trial of nifedipine.For flunarizine, the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency in a single parallel trial was 1.53 (95% CI 0.59 to 3.96) indicating a non-significant advantage of flunarizine. We were unable to acquire data for this outcome from the other seven cross-over trials. The overall RR for treatment withdrawal of flunarizine was 7.11 (95% CI 1.73 to 29.30) indicating individuals were significantly more likely to have flunarizine withdrawn than placebo. No adverse effects were associated statistically with flunarizine.For nifedipine, we were unable to acquire the data we required for our specified outcomes.For nimodipine, we had data only from the first treatment period from one of the two cross-over trials (17 participants). The RR for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 7.78 (99% CI 0.46 to 130.88) and for treatment withdrawal the RR was 2.25 (99% CI 0.25 to 20.38). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Flunarizine may have a weak effect on seizure frequency but had a significant withdrawal rate, probably due to adverse effects, and should not be recommended for use as an add-on treatment. Similarly, there is no convincing evidence to support the use of nifedipine or nimodipine as add-on treatments for epilepsy.

The SANAD study of effectiveness of carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate for treatment of partial epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carbamazepine is widely accepted as a drug of first choice for patients with partial onset seizures. Several newer drugs possess efficacy against these seizure types but previous randomised controlled trials have failed to inform a choice between these drugs. We aimed to assess efficacy with regards to longer-term outcomes, quality of life, and health economic outcomes. METHODS: SANAD was an unblinded randomised controlled trial in hospital-based outpatient clinics in the UK. Arm A recruited 1721 patients for whom carbamazepine was deemed to be standard treatment, and they were randomly assigned to receive carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate. Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure, and time to 12-months remission, and assessment was by both intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN38354748. FINDINGS: For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was significantly better than carbamazepine (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95% CI 0.63-0.97]), gabapentin (0.65 [0.52-0.80]), and topiramate (0.64 [0.52-0.79]), and had a non-significant advantage compared with oxcarbazepine (1.15 [0.86-1.54]). For time to 12-month remission carbamazepine was significantly better than gabapentin (0.75 [0.63-0.90]), and estimates suggest a non-significant advantage for carbamazepine against lamotrigine (0.91 [0.77-1.09]), topiramate (0.86 [0.72-1.03]), and oxcarbazepine (0.92 [0.73-1.18]). In a per-protocol analysis, at 2 and 4 years the difference (95% CI) in the proportion achieving a 12-month remission (lamotrigine-carbamazepine) is 0 (-8 to 7) and 5 (-3 to 12), suggesting non-inferiority of lamotrigine compared with carbamazepine. INTERPRETATION: Lamotrigine is clinically better than carbamazepine, the standard drug treatment, for time to treatment failure outcomes and is therefore a cost-effective alternative for patients diagnosed with partial onset seizures.