Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo. RESULTS: Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control. CONCLUSIONS: Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

Radiological features characterising indeterminate testes masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The use of scrotal ultrasonography (SUS) has increased the detection rate of indeterminate testicular masses. Defining radiological characteristics that identify malignancy may reduce the number of men undergoing unnecessary radical orchidectomy. OBJECTIVE: To define which SUS or scrotal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics can predict benign or malignant disease in pre- or post-pubertal males with indeterminate testicular masses. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration guidance. Medline, Embase, Cochrane controlled trials and systematic reviews databases were searched from (1970 to 26 March 2021). Benign and malignant masses were classified using the reported reference test: i.e., histopathology, or 12 months progression-free radiological surveillance. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool (QUADAS-2). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 32 studies were identified, including 1692 masses of which 28 studies and 1550 masses reported SUS features, four studies and 142 masses reported MRI features. Meta-analysis of different SUS (B-mode) values in post-pubertal men demonstrated that a size of ≤0.5 cm had a significantly lower odds ratio (OR) of malignancy compared to masses of >0.5 cm (P < 0.001). Comparison of masses of 0.6-1.0 cm and masses of >1.5 cm also demonstrated a significantly lower OR of malignancy (P = 0.04). There was no significant difference between masses of 0.6-1.0 and 1.1-1.5 cm. SUS in post-pubertal men also had a statistically significantly lower OR of malignancy for heterogenous masses vs homogenous masses (P = 0.04), hyperechogenic vs hypoechogenic masses (P < 0.01), normal vs increased enhancement (P < 0.01), and peripheral vs central vascularity (P < 0.01), respectively. There were limited data on pre-pubertal SUS, pre-pubertal MRI and post-pubertal MRI. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis identifies radiological characteristics that have a lower OR of malignancy and may be of value in the management of the indeterminate testis mass.

A cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals supporting children and young people with epilepsy and their parents/carers: which topics are raised in clinical consultations and can healthcare professionals provide the support needed?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Children and young people (CYP) with epilepsy see healthcare professionals (HCPs) for management of their seizures but may require information, advice and support with a range of broader topics. The purpose of the survey was to identify from HCPs, which topics CYP with epilepsy and their parents/carers ask about other than seizure management, and how adequately HCPs feel able to support them with these topics. METHOD: A cross-sectional online survey was used to collect data. Adverts which included a link to the survey were shared via social media channels, professional networks and United Kingdom (UK)-based epilepsy networks. Eighty-eight HCPs in the UK (who worked with CYP with epilepsy and their parents/carers) completed the survey. Quantitative data are presented descriptively. Qualitative data (free-text responses) were reflexively thematically analysed. RESULTS: CYP with epilepsy and their parents/carers were reported to ask HCPs for information, advice and support about a range of topics, most commonly, cognition and mental health. CYP were reported as also frequently asking about aspects of their social life while parents/carers commonly asked about sleep. HCPs varied in how able they felt to adequately support families about these topics, as well as in their views about which resources could be most useful. Having insufficient time and a lack of suitable services and resources to refer to, or draw upon, were key barriers to HCPs being able to support CYP and their families. DISCUSSION: Findings highlight the broad array of topics CYP with epilepsy and their families are reported as seeking support for. HCPs identified gaps in services and their abilities to meet those needs. There appeared to be a mismatch between the support that families were seeking and the ability of HCPs to meet these needs. Findings have implications for how HCPs could best be supported to deal with topics raised by CYP and families in clinic, highlighting the potential usefulness of informational resources on key topics for HCPs, parents/carers and CYP.

Monotherapy treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy: congenital malformation outcomes in the child.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal exposure to certain anti-seizure medications (ASMs) is associated with an increased risk of major congenital malformations (MCM). The majority of women with epilepsy continue taking ASMs throughout pregnancy and, therefore, information on the potential risks associated with ASM treatment is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prenatal exposure to ASMs on the prevalence of MCM in the child. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update of this review, we searched the following databases on 17 February 2022: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to February 16, 2022), SCOPUS (1823 onwards), and ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). No language restrictions were imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective cohort controlled studies, cohort studies set within pregnancy registries, randomised controlled trials and epidemiological studies using routine health record data. Participants were women with epilepsy taking ASMs; the two control groups were women without epilepsy and untreated women with epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five authors independently selected studies for inclusion. Eight authors completed data extraction and/or risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome was the presence of an MCM. Secondary outcomes included specific types of MCM. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we reviewed included studies narratively. MAIN RESULTS: From 12,296 abstracts, we reviewed 283 full-text publications which identified 49 studies with 128 publications between them. Data from ASM-exposed pregnancies were more numerous for prospective cohort studies (n = 17,963), than data currently available for epidemiological health record studies (n = 7913). The MCM risk for children of women without epilepsy was 2.1% (95% CI 1.5 to 3.0) in cohort studies and 3.3% (95% CI 1.5 to 7.1) in health record studies. The known risk associated with sodium valproate exposure was clear across comparisons with a pooled prevalence of 9.8% (95% CI 8.1 to 11.9) from cohort data and 9.7% (95% CI 7.1 to 13.4) from routine health record studies. This was elevated across almost all comparisons to other monotherapy ASMs, with the absolute risk differences ranging from 5% to 9%. Multiple studies found that the MCM risk is dose-dependent. Children exposed to carbamazepine had an increased MCM prevalence in both cohort studies (4.7%, 95% CI 3.7 to 5.9) and routine health record studies (4.0%, 95% CI 2.9 to 5.4) which was significantly higher than that for the children born to women without epilepsy for both cohort (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.59) and routine health record studies (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.64); with similar significant results in comparison to the children of women with untreated epilepsy for both cohort studies (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.96) and routine health record studies (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.83). For phenobarbital exposure, the prevalence was 6.3% (95% CI 4.8 to 8.3) and 8.8% (95% CI 0.0 to 9277.0) from cohort and routine health record data, respectively. This increased risk was significant in comparison to the children of women without epilepsy (RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.84 to 5.65) and those born to women with untreated epilepsy (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.83) in cohort studies; data from routine health record studies was limited. For phenytoin exposure, the prevalence of MCM was elevated for cohort study data (5.4%, 95% CI 3.6 to 8.1) and routine health record data (6.8%, 95% CI 0.1 to 701.2). The prevalence of MCM was higher for phenytoin-exposed children in comparison to children of women without epilepsy (RR 3.81, 95% CI 1.91 to 7.57) and the children of women with untreated epilepsy (RR 2.01. 95% CI 1.29 to 3.12); there were no data from routine health record studies. Pooled data from cohort studies indicated a significantly increased MCM risk for children exposed to lamotrigine in comparison to children born to women without epilepsy (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.39); with a risk difference (RD) indicating a 1% increased risk of MCM (RD 0.01. 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03). This was not replicated in the comparison to the children of women with untreated epilepsy (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63), which contained the largest group of lamotrigine-exposed children (> 2700). Further, a non-significant difference was also found both in comparison to the children of women without epilepsy (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.64) and children born to women with untreated epilepsy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.28) from routine data studies. For levetiracetam exposure, pooled data provided similar risk ratios to women without epilepsy in cohort (RR 2.20, 95% CI 0.98 to 4.93) and routine health record studies (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.66). This was supported by the pooled results from both cohort (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28) and routine health record studies (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.71) when comparisons were made to the offspring of women with untreated epilepsy. For topiramate, the prevalence of MCM was 3.9% (95% CI 2.3 to 6.5) from cohort study data and 4.1% (0.0 to 27,050.1) from routine health record studies. Risk ratios were significantly higher for children exposed to topiramate in comparison to the children of women without epilepsy in cohort studies (RR 4.07, 95% CI 1.64 to 10.14) but not in a smaller comparison to the children of women with untreated epilepsy (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.27); few data are currently available from routine health record studies. Exposure in utero to topiramate was also associated with significantly higher RRs in comparison to other ASMs for oro-facial clefts. Data for all other ASMs were extremely limited. Given the observational designs, all studies were at high risk of certain biases, but the biases observed across primary data collection studies and secondary use of routine health records were different and were, in part, complementary. Biases were balanced across the ASMs investigated, and it is unlikely that the differential results observed across the ASMs are solely explained by these biases. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exposure in the womb to certain ASMs was associated with an increased risk of certain MCMs which, for many, is dose-dependent.

ANTECEDENTES: La exposición prenatal a determinados fármacos anticonvulsivos (FAC) se asocia con un mayor riesgo de malformaciones congénitas graves (MCG). La mayoría de las mujeres con epilepsia continúan tomando FAC durante todo el embarazo y, por lo tanto, se requiere información sobre los riesgos potenciales asociados con el tratamiento con FAC. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos de la exposición prenatal a los FAC sobre la prevalencia de MCG en el niño. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Para la última actualización de esta revisión se hicieron búsquedas el 17 de febrero de 2022 en las siguientes bases de datos: Registro Cochrane de Estudios (Cochrane Register of Studies [CRS Web]), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 hasta el 16 de febrero de 2022), SCOPUS (1823 en adelante) y ClinicalTrials.gov , Plataforma de registros internacionales de ensayos clínicos (ICTRP). No se impusieron restricciones de idioma. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron estudios prospectivos controlados de cohortes, estudios de cohortes establecidos dentro de registros de embarazos, ensayos controlados aleatorizados y estudios epidemiológicos que utilizaron datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos. Las participantes fueron mujeres con epilepsia que tomaban FAC; los dos grupos de control fueron mujeres sin epilepsia y mujeres con epilepsia que no recibían tratamiento. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Cinco autores seleccionaron de forma independiente los estudios para inclusión. Ocho autores completaron la extracción de los datos y las evaluaciones del riesgo de sesgo. El desenlace principal fue la presencia de una MCG. Los desenlaces secundarios incluyeron tipos específicos de MCG. Cuando no fue posible realizar un metanálisis, los estudios incluidos se examinaron de forma narrativa. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: De 12 296 resúmenes, se revisaron 283 publicaciones a texto completo que identificaron 49 estudios con 128 publicaciones entre ellos. Los datos de los embarazos expuestos a FAC fueron más numerosos en el caso de los estudios prospectivos de cohortes (n = 17 963), que los datos actualmente disponibles de estudios de registros sanitarios epidemiológicos (n = 7913). El riesgo de MCG en los hijos de mujeres sin epilepsia fue del 2,1% (IC del 95%: 1,5 a 3,0) en los estudios de cohortes y del 3,3% (IC del 95%: 1,5 a 7,1) en los estudios de registros sanitarios. El riesgo conocido asociado con la exposición al valproato de sodio fue evidente en todas las comparaciones, con una prevalencia agrupada del 9,8% (IC del 95%: 8,1 a 11,9) a partir de los datos de los estudios de cohortes y del 9,7% (IC del 95%: 7,1 a 13,4) a partir de los estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos. Este fue elevado en casi todas las comparaciones con otros FAC como monoterapia, con diferencias absolutas de riesgo que variaron entre el 5% y el 9%. Múltiples estudios han constatado que el riesgo de MCG depende de la dosis. Los niños expuestos a la carbamazepina tuvieron una mayor prevalencia de MCG tanto en los estudios de cohortes (4,7%; IC del 95%: 3,7 a 5,9) como en los estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos (4,0%; IC del 95%: 2,9 a 5,4), que fue significativamente superior a la de los niños nacidos de mujeres sin epilepsia tanto en los estudios de cohortes (RR 2,30; IC del 95%: 1,47 a 3,59) como en los estudios de historias clínicas habituales (RR 1,14; IC del 95%: 0,80 a 1,64), con resultados significativos similares en comparación con los hijos de mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento tanto en los estudios de cohortes (RR 1,44; IC del 95%: 1,05 a 1,96) como en los estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos (RR 1,42; IC del 95%: 1,10 a 1,83). Para la exposición al fenobarbital, la prevalencia fue del 6,3% (IC del 95%: 4,8 a 8,3) y del 8,8% IC del 95%: 0,0 a 9277,0) a partir de los datos de estudios de cohortes y los datos de estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos, respectivamente. Este aumento del riesgo fue significativo en comparación con los hijos de mujeres sin epilepsia (RR 3,22; IC del 95%: 1,84 a 5,65) y los nacidos de mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento (RR 1,64; IC del 95%: 0,94 a 2,83) en estudios de cohortes; los datos procedentes de estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos fueron limitados. En cuanto a la exposición a la fenitoína, la prevalencia de MCG fue elevada en los datos de los estudios de cohortes (5,4%; IC del 95%: 3,6 a 8,1) y en los datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos (6,8%; IC del 95%: 0,1 a 701,2). La prevalencia de MCG fue mayor en los niños expuestos a la fenitoína en comparación con los hijos de mujeres sin epilepsia (RR 3,81; IC del 95%: 1,91 a 7,57) y los hijos de mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento (RR 2,01; IC del 95%: 1,29 a 3,12); no hubo datos procedentes de estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos. Los datos agrupados de los estudios de cohortes indicaron un riesgo significativamente mayor de MCG en los niños expuestos a lamotrigina en comparación con los niños nacidos de mujeres sin epilepsia (RR 1,99; IC del 95%: 1,16 a 3,39); con una diferencia de riesgos (DR) que indica un riesgo 1% mayor de MCG (DR 0,01. IC del 95%: 0,00 a 0,03). Esto no se repitió en la comparación con los hijos de las mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento (RR 1,04; IC del 95%: 0,66 a 1,63), que contenía el mayor grupo de niños expuestos a la lamotrigina (> 2700). Además, también se encontró una diferencia no significativa tanto en comparación con los hijos de mujeres sin epilepsia (RR 1,19; IC del 95%: 0,86 a 1,64) como con los hijos de mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento (RR 1,00; IC del 95%: 0,79 a 1,28) a partir de los estudios con datos rutinarios. Para la exposición al levetiracetam, los datos agrupados proporcionaron razones de riesgos similares a las de las mujeres sin epilepsia en los estudios de cohortes (RR 2,20; IC del 95%: 0,98 a 4,93) y en los estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos (RR 0,67; IC del 95%: 0,17 a 2,66). Los resultados agrupados de los estudios de cohortes (RR: 0,71; IC del 95%: 0,39 a 1,28) y de los estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos (RR: 0,82; IC del 95%: 0,39 a 1,71) respaldan esta afirmación cuando se comparan con los hijos de las mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento. En el caso del topiramato, la prevalencia de MCG fue del 3,9% (IC del 95%: 2,3 a 6,5) a partir de los datos de los estudios de cohortes y del 4,1% (0,0 a 27.050,1) a partir de los estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos. Las razones de riesgos fueron significativamente más altas para los niños expuestos al topiramato en comparación con los hijos de mujeres sin epilepsia en estudios de cohortes (RR 4,07; IC del 95%: 1,64 a 10,14), pero no en una comparación más pequeña con los hijos de mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento (RR 1,37; IC del 95%: 0,57 a 3,27); actualmente se dispone de pocos datos a partir de estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos. La exposición en el útero al topiramato también se asoció con RR significativamente mayores en comparación con otros FAC para las hendiduras orofaciales. Los datos de todos las demás FAC fueron extremadamente limitados. Debido a los diseños observacionales, todos los estudios presentaron un alto riesgo de ciertos sesgos, pero los sesgos observados en los estudios de obtención de datos primarios y el uso secundario de historiales médicos rutinarios fueron diferentes y, en parte, complementarios. Los sesgos estaban equilibrados entre los FAC investigados, y es poco probable que los resultados diferenciales observados entre los FAC se expliquen únicamente por estos sesgos. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La exposición en el útero a ciertos FAC se asoció con un mayor riesgo de ciertos MCG que, para muchos, depende de la dosis.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. INTERPRETATION: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. INTERPRETATION: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Care in Europe after presenting to the emergency department with a seizure; position paper and insights from the European Audit of Seizure Management in Hospitals.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This position paper makes recommendations following an audit of care provided to people presenting with a seizure to emergency departments (EDs) in Europe. METHODS: Participating countries were asked to include five hospitals agreeing to identify 50 consecutive seizure patients presenting to their ED between 1 August 2016 and 31 August 2017. Anonymous data were collected to a web database. Where quoted, percentages are mean site values and ranges are the 10th-90th centile. RESULTS: Data were collected on 2204 ED visits (47 sites, up to six per country, across 15 countries): 1270 (58%) known epilepsy, 299 (14%) previous blackouts but no epilepsy diagnosis, 634 (29%) with a first seizure. Wide variability was identified for most variables. Of those with known epilepsy, 41.2% (range 26.2%-59.6%) attended the ED in the previous 12 months, but only 64.7% (range 37.2%-79.8%) had seen an epilepsy specialist in the previous 12 months. 67.7% (range 34.0%-100%) were admitted, 53.1% to a neurology ward (range 0.0%-88.9%). Only 37.5% first seizure patients (range 0.0%-71.4%) were given advice about driving. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that in Europe guidance is agreed on the management and onward referral of those presenting to the ED with a seizure; a referral process is created that can be easily implemented; it is ensured that the seizure services receive referrals and see the patients within a short time period; and a simple system is developed and implemented to allow continuous monitoring of key indices of epilepsy care.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.

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.

Ketogenic diets as an adjuvant therapy for glioblastoma (KEATING): a randomized, mixed methods, feasibility study.

PURPOSE: We conducted a feasibility study to investigate the use of ketogenic diets (KDs) as an adjuvant therapy for patients with glioblastoma (GBM), investigating (i) trial feasibility; (ii) potential impacts of the trial on patients' quality of life and health; (iii) patients' perspectives of their decision-making when invited to participate in the trial and (iv) recommending improvements to optimize future phase III trials. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, randomized, pilot study (KEATING), with an embedded qualitative design. Twelve newly diagnosed patients with GBM were randomized 1:1 to modified ketogenic diet (MKD) or medium chain triglyceride ketogenic diet (MCTKD). Primary outcome was retention at three months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of patients and caregivers (n = 15). Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative outcomes and qualitative data were analyzed thematically aided by NVivo. RESULTS: KEATING achieved recruitment targets, but the recruitment rate was low (28.6%). Retention was poor; only four of 12 patients completed the three-month diet (MCTKD n = 3; MKD n = 1). Participants' decisions were intuitive and emotional; caregivers supported diet implementation and influenced the patients' decision to participate. Those who declined made a deliberative and considered decision factoring diet burden and quality of life. A three-month diet was undesirable to patients who declined and withdrew. CONCLUSION: Recruitment to a KD trial for patients with GBM is possible. A six-week intervention period is proposed for a phase III trial. The role of caregivers should not be underestimated. Future trials should optimize and adequately support the decision-making of patients.

Vigabatrin add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2008 and updated in 2013. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition which affects up to 1% of the population. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy do not respond to treatment with currently available drugs. The majority of these people have focal epilepsy. Vigabatrin is an antiepileptic drug licensed for use in drug-resistant epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of vigabatrin as an add-on therapy for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update of this review, we searched the following databases on 1 November 2018: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 31 October 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) are both included in the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web). We checked reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies and contacted Hoechst Marion Roussel (manufacturers of vigabatrin) in 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully published trials of vigabatrin in people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat (ITT). We evaluated: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, dose-response analysis, cognitive outcomes and quality of life. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% or 99% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 trials that included 756 participants (age range: 10 to 64 years). The trials tested vigabatrin doses between 1 g/day and 6 g/day. All 11 trials displayed a risk of bias across at least three risk of bias domains. Predominantly, the risk of bias was associated with: allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Participants treated with vigabatrin may be two to three times more likely to obtain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared with those treated with placebo (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.63; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Those treated with vigabatrin may also be three times more likely to have treatment withdrawn although we are uncertain (RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.25 to 6.55; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, participants given vigabatrin were more likely to experience adverse effects: dizziness/light-headedness (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.87; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence), fatigue (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.51; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence), drowsiness (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.44; 8 studies) and depression (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.30 to 8.27; 6 studies). Although the incidence rates were higher among participants receiving vigabatrin compared to those receiving placebo, the effect was not significant for the following adverse effects: ataxia (RR 2.76, 95% CI 0.96 to 7.94; 7 studies; very low-certainty evidence), nausea (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.63 to 20.30; 4 studies), abnormal vision (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.02; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence), headache (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.92; 9 studies), diplopia (RR 1.76, 99% CI 0.94 to 3.30) and nystagmus (RR 1.53, 99% CI 0.62 to 3.76; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Vigabatrin had little to no effect on cognitive outcomes or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Vigabatrin may significantly reduce seizure frequency in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The results largely apply to adults and should not be extrapolated to children under 10 years old. Short-term follow-up of participants showed that some adverse effects were associated with its use. Analysis of longer-term observational studies elsewhere, however, has demonstrated that vigabatrin use can lead to the development of visual field defects.

Aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the prevention of dementia.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a worldwide concern. Its global prevalence is increasing. At present, there is no medication licensed to prevent or delay the onset of dementia. Inflammation has been suggested as a key factor in dementia pathogenesis. Therefore, medications with anti-inflammatory properties could be beneficial for dementia prevention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the primary or secondary prevention of dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group up to 9 January 2020. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP) and six other databases to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. We also reviewed citations of reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing aspirin or other NSAIDs with placebo for the primary or secondary prevention of dementia. We included trials with cognitively healthy participants (primary prevention) or participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or cognitive complaints (secondary prevention). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the strength of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 23,187 participants. Because of the diversity of these trials, we did not combine data to give summary estimates, but presented a narrative description of the evidence. We identified one trial (19,114 participants) comparing low-dose aspirin (100 mg once daily) to placebo. Participants were aged 70 years or older with no history of dementia, cardiovascular disease or physical disability. Interim analysis indicated no significant treatment effect and the trial was terminated slightly early after a median of 4.7 years' follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference in incidence of dementia between aspirin and placebo groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.15; high-certainty evidence). Participants allocated aspirin had higher rates of major bleeding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.60, high-certainty evidence) and slightly higher mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.28; high-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in activities of daily living between groups (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; high-certainty evidence). We identified three trials comparing non-aspirin NSAIDs to placebo. All three trials were terminated early due to adverse events associated with NSAIDs reported in other trials. One trial (2528 participants) investigated the cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor celecoxib (200 mg twice daily) and the non-selective NSAID naproxen (220 mg twice daily) for preventing dementia in cognitively healthy older adults with a family history of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Median follow-up was 734 days. Combining both NSAID treatment arms, there was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of AD between participants allocated NSAIDs and those allocated placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.89 to 4.10; moderate-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference in rates of myocardial infarction (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.40), stroke (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.37) or mortality (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.43) between treatment groups (all moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (88 participants) assessed the effectiveness of celecoxib (200 mg or 400 mg daily) in delaying cognitive decline in participants aged 40 to 81 years with mild age-related memory loss but normal memory performance scores. Mean duration of follow-up was 17.6 months in the celecoxib group and 18.1 months in the placebo group. There was no evidence of a difference between groups in test scores in any of six cognitive domains. Participants allocated celecoxib experienced more gastrointestinal adverse events than those allocated placebo (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.75; low-certainty evidence). One trial (1457 participants) assessed the effectiveness of the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib (25 mg once daily) in delaying or preventing a diagnosis of AD in participants with MCI. Median duration of study participation was 115 weeks in the rofecoxib group and 130 weeks in the placebo group. There was a higher incidence of AD in the rofecoxib than the placebo group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.72; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.66; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.05; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants allocated rofecoxib had more upper gastrointestinal adverse events (RR 3.53, 95% CI 1.17 to 10.68; moderate-certainty evidence). Reported annual mean difference scores showed no evidence of a difference between groups in activities of daily living (year 1: no data available; year 2: 0.0, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.2; year 3: 0.1, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.3; year 4: 0.1, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.4; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support the use of low-dose aspirin or other NSAIDs of any class (celecoxib, rofecoxib or naproxen) for the prevention of dementia, but there was evidence of harm. Although there were limitations in the available evidence, it seems unlikely that there is any need for further trials of low-dose aspirin for dementia prevention. If future studies of NSAIDs for dementia prevention are planned, they will need to be cognisant of the safety concerns arising from the existing studies.

Core Health Outcomes in Childhood Epilepsy (CHOICE): Development of a core outcome set using systematic review methods and a Delphi survey consensus.

OBJECTIVE: Establishing a core set of outcomes to be evaluated and reported in intervention trials aims to improve the usefulness of health research. There is no established core outcome set (COS) for childhood epilepsies. The aim of this study was to select a COS to be used in evaluative research of interventions for children with rolandic epilepsy (RE). METHODS: We followed guidance from the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative. First, we identified outcomes that had been measured in research through a systematic review. Second, young people with RE, parents, and professionals were invited to take part in a Delphi survey in which participants rated the importance of candidate outcomes. Last, a face-to-face meeting was convened to seek consensus on which outcomes were critical to include and to ratify the final COS. RESULTS: From 37 eligible papers in the review, we identified and included 48 candidate outcomes in the survey. We sent invitations to 165 people registered to take part in the survey; of these, 102 (62%) completed Round 1, and 80 (78%) completed Round 2 (three young people, 16 parents, 61 professionals). In Round 2 we included four additional outcomes suggested by participants in Round 1. The consensus meeting included two young people, four parents, and nine professionals who were eligible to vote and ratified the COS as 39 outcomes across 10 domains. SIGNIFICANCE: Our methodology was a proportionate and pragmatic approach toward producing a COS for evaluating research on interventions aiming to improve the health of children with RE.

Investigation of one-stage meta-analysis methods for joint longitudinal and time-to-event data through simulation and real data application.

BACKGROUND: Joint modeling of longitudinal and time-to-event data is often advantageous over separate longitudinal or time-to-event analyses as it can account for study dropout, error in longitudinally measured covariates, and correlation between longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes. The current literature on joint modeling focuses mainly on the analysis of single studies with a lack of methods available for the meta-analysis of joint data from multiple studies. METHODS: We investigate a variety of one-stage methods for the meta-analysis of joint longitudinal and time-to-event outcome data. These methods are applied to the INDANA dataset to investigate longitudinally measured systolic blood pressure, with each of time to death, time to myocardial infarction, and time to stroke. Results are compared to separate longitudinal or time-to-event meta-analyses. A simulation study is conducted to contrast separate versus joint analyses over a range of scenarios. RESULTS: The performance of the examined one-stage joint meta-analytic models varied. Models that accounted for between study heterogeneity performed better than models that ignored it. Of the examined methods to account for between study heterogeneity, under the examined association structure, fixed effect approaches appeared preferable, whereas methods involving a baseline hazard stratified by study were least time intensive. CONCLUSIONS: One-stage joint meta-analytic models that accounted for between study heterogeneity using a mix of fixed effects or a stratified baseline hazard were reliable; however, models examined that included study level random effects in the association structure were less reliable.

Topiramate versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2016. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy, the majority of which may be able to achieve remission with a single antiepileptic drug (AED).The correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance and should be based on the highest-quality evidence available regarding the potential benefits and harms of various treatments for an individual.Topiramate and carbamazepine are commonly used AEDs. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of results of outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability, and may help inform a choice between the two drugs. OBJECTIVES: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with topiramate compared with carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the 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); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to 22 May 2018. We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monotherapy with either topiramate or carbamazepine in children or adults 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), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: IPD were available for 1151 of 1239 eligible individuals from two of three eligible studies (93% of the potential data). A small proportion of individuals recruited into these trials had 'unclassified seizures;' for analysis purposes, these individuals are grouped with those with generalised onset seizures. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine, and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for topiramate.The main overall results for the primary outcome, time to treatment failure, given as pooled HR adjusted for seizure type were: time to failure for any reason related to treatment 1.16 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.38); time to failure due to adverse events 1.02 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.27); and time to failure due to lack of efficacy 1.46 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.98). Overall results for secondary outcomes were time to first seizure 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.29); and time to six-month remission 0.88 (0.76 to 1.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs. A statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to 12-month remission: 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.99).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 81% of individuals included within the analysis experienced seizures of this type at baseline. For individuals with focal onset seizures, a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to failure for any reason related to treatment (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.46), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.02), and time to 12-month remission (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99). There was no statistically significant difference between topiramate and carbamazepine for 'time to first seizure' and 'time to six-month remission'.Evidence for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (9% of participants contributing to the analysis), and unclassified seizure types (10% of participants contributing to the analysis) was very limited; no statistically significant differences were found but CIs were wide; therefore we cannot exclude an advantage to either drug, or a difference between drugs.The most commonly reported adverse events with both drugs were drowsiness or fatigue, "pins and needles" (tingling sensation), headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and anxiety or depression. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.We judged the methodological quality of the included trials generally to be good; however, there was some evidence that the open-label design of the larger of the two trials may have influenced the treatment failure rate within the trial. Hence, we judged the certainty of the evidence for treatment failure to be moderate for individuals with focal onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the certainty of evidence from this review to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset or unclassified seizures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with focal onset seizures, there is moderate-certainty evidence that carbamazepine is less likely to be withdrawn and high-certainty evidence that 12-month remission will be achieved earlier than with topiramate. We did not find any differences between the drugs in terms of the other outcomes measured in the review and for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures or unclassified epilepsy; however, we encourage caution in the interpretation of results including small numbers of participants with these seizure types.Future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible and take into consideration masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Carbamazepine versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2017. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly-used broad spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for focal onset seizures in the USA and Europe. Phenytoin is no longer considered a first-line treatment, due to concerns over adverse events associated with its use, but the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these trials are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with carbamazepine compared with phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 13 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset (tonic-clonic) seizures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1102 eligible individuals, from four out of 11 trials (i.e. 54% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, a HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, a HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. Most participants included in analysis (78%) were classified as experiencing focal onset seizures at baseline and only 22% were classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures; the results of this review are therefore mainly applicable to individuals with focal onset seizures.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.26, moderate-certainty evidence); time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41, moderate-certainty evidence); both showing no clear difference between the drugs and time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.86, moderate-certainty evidence), showing that treatment failure due to adverse events may occur earlier on carbamazepine than phenytoin, but we cannot rule out a slight advantage to carbamazepine or no difference between the drugs.For our secondary outcomes (pooled HRs adjusted for seizure type), we did not find any clear differences between carbamazepine and phenytoin: time to first seizure post-randomisation (582 participants): 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.40, moderate-certainty evidence); time to 12-month remission (551 participants): 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26, moderate-certainty evidence); and time to six-month remission (551 participants): 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12, moderate-certainty evidence).For all outcomes, results for individuals with focal onset seizures were similar to overall results (moderate-certainty evidence), and results for the small subgroup of individuals with generalised onset seizures were imprecise, so we cannot rule out an advantage to either drug, or no difference between drugs (low-certainty evidence). There was also evidence that misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review, particularly for the outcome 'time to treatment failure'. Heterogeneity was present in analysis of 'time to first seizure' for individuals with generalised onset seizures, which could not be explained by subgroup analysis or sensitivity analyses.Limited information was available about adverse events in the trials and we could not compare the rates of adverse events between carbamazepine and phenytoin. Some adverse events reported on both drugs were abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, drowsiness, motor and cognitive disturbances, dysmorphic side effects (such as rash). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence provided by this systematic review does not show any differences between carbamazepine and phenytoin in terms of effectiveness (retention) or efficacy (seizure recurrence and seizure remission) for individuals with focal onset or generalised onset seizures.However, some of the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and inconsistencies, which may have had an impact on the results of this review. We therefore do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a person with newly-onset seizures. We did not find any evidence to support or refute current treatment policies. We implore that future trials be designed to the highest quality possible, with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Phenobarbitone versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and last updated in 2013. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, particularly in the developing world, phenytoin and phenobarbitone are commonly used antiepileptic drugs, primarily because they are inexpensive. The aim of this review is to summarise data from existing trials comparing phenytoin and phenobarbitone. OBJECTIVES: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with phenobarbitone compared with phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 21 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either phenobarbitone or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission and time to 12-month remission. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: Individual participant data were obtained for five studies, which recruited a total of 635 participants, representing 80% of 798 individuals from all seven identified eligible trials. For remission outcomes, an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.61, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.87, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.66, moderate-certainty evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for phenytoin compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between phenytoin and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 624 participants: 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06, moderate-certainty evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.19, moderate-certainty evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.15, moderate-certainty evidence).For individuals with focal onset seizures (73% of individuals contributing to analysis), numerical results were similar and conclusions the same as for analyses of all individuals and for individuals with generalised onset seizures (27% of individuals contributing to analysis), results were imprecise and no clear differences between the drugs were observed.Several confounding factors, most notably the differences in design of the trials with respect to blinding, were likely to have impacted on the results of the primary outcome 'time to treatment failure', and in turn, the treatment failure rates may have impacted on the secondary efficacy outcomes of time to first seizure and time to 12-month and six-month remission. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence from this review suggests that phenytoin may be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate-certainty evidence from this review also indicates no differences between the drugs in terms of time to seizure recurrence and seizure remission.However, the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and methodological design differences that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Pharmacological management of post-traumatic seizures in adults: current practice patterns in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Patient selection for seizure prophylaxis after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and duration of anti-epileptic drug treatment for patients with early post-traumatic seizures (PTS), remain plagued with uncertainty. In early 2017, a collaborative group of neurosurgeons, neurologists, neurointensive care and rehabilitation medicine physicians was formed in the UK with the aim of assessing variability in current practice and gauging the degree of uncertainty to inform the design of future studies. Here we present the results of a survey of clinicians managing patients with TBI in the UK and Ireland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was developed and piloted. Following approval by the Academic Committee of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons, it was distributed via appropriate electronic mailing lists. RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen respondents answered the questionnaire, predominantly neurosurgeons (76%) from 30 (of 32) trauma-receiving hospitals in the UK and Ireland. Fifty-three percent of respondents do not routinely use seizure prophylaxis, but 38% prescribe prophylaxis for one week. Sixty percent feel there is uncertainty regarding the use of seizure prophylaxis, and 71% would participate in further research to address this question. Sixty-two percent of respondents use levetiracetam for treatment of seizures during the acute phase, and 42% continued for a total of 3 months. Overall, 90% were uncertain about the duration of treatment for seizures, and 78% would participate in further research to address this question. CONCLUSION: The survey results demonstrate the variation in practice and uncertainty in both described aspects of management of patients who have suffered a TBI. The majority of respondents would want to participate in future research to help try and address this critical issue, and this shows the importance and relevance of these two clinical questions.

The Modified Ketogenic Diet in Adults with Glioblastoma: An Evaluation of Feasibility and Deliverability within the National Health Service.

There is an increasing interest in the use of the ketogenic diet (KD) as an adjuvant therapy for glioma patients. We assessed the tolerability and feasibility of a modified ketogenic diet (MKD) in patients with glioma, along with willingness of patients to participate in future randomized controlled trials. The study was undertaken in two parts; a patient questionnaire and evaluation of the diet. One hundred and seventy-two questionnaires were completed; 69% (n = 119) of the population reported MKD should be offered to patients with glioma and 73% (n = 125) would be willing to try MKD for 3 months. Six male patients with high grade gliomas tried the diet; 4 completed the 3-month feasibility period. Ketosis was achieved in all patients. The only gastrointestinal side effect was constipation (n = 2). Minimal changes were observed in weight, body mass index, fat mass and cholesterol profiles. MKD was well tolerated, with few side effects and is deliverable within a financially viable, NHS service. There is a high level of interest in the diet within the glioma patient community to ensure adequate recruitment for a clinical trial. Further studies are required to demonstrate efficacy and patient benefit before implementing a service.

Investigation of 2-stage meta-analysis methods for joint longitudinal and time-to-event data through simulation and real data application.

BACKGROUND: Joint modelling of longitudinal and time-to-event data is often preferred over separate longitudinal or time-to-event analyses as it can account for study dropout, error in longitudinally measured covariates, and correlation between longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes. The joint modelling literature focuses mainly on the analysis of single studies with no methods currently available for the meta-analysis of joint model estimates from multiple studies. METHODS: We propose a 2-stage method for meta-analysis of joint model estimates. These methods are applied to the INDANA dataset to combine joint model estimates of systolic blood pressure with time to death, time to myocardial infarction, and time to stroke. Results are compared to meta-analyses of separate longitudinal or time-to-event models. A simulation study is conducted to contrast separate versus joint analyses over a range of scenarios. RESULTS: Using the real dataset, similar results were obtained by using the separate and joint analyses. However, the simulation study indicated a benefit of use of joint rather than separate methods in a meta-analytic setting where association exists between the longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Where evidence of association between longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes exists, results from joint models over standalone analyses should be pooled in 2-stage meta-analyses.

Correction to: joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data: a review of reporting quality with a view to meta-analysis.

Following publication of the original article [1] the authors reported that reference 15 (Cella et al.) had been incorrectly replaced with a duplicate of Brombin et al. during publication.