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

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review first published in 2014 and last updated in 2020. For nearly 30% of people with epilepsy, current treatments do not control seizures. Stiripentol is an antiepileptic drug (AED) that was developed in France and was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2007 as an adjunctive therapy with valproate and clobazam for the treatment of Dravet syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of stiripentol as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy who are taking AEDs. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE on 28 March 2022. We contacted the manufacturer of stiripentol and epilepsy experts to identify published, unpublished and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of add-on stiripentol in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We investigated outcomes including 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, seizure freedom, adverse effects, treatment withdrawal and changes in quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: On the basis of our selection criteria, we included no new studies in the present review update. We included only one study from the original review (32 children with focal epilepsy). This study adopted a responder-enriched design and found no clear evidence of a reduction of 50% or more in seizure frequency (risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 2.82; low-certainty evidence) and no clear evidence of seizure freedom (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.43; low-certainty evidence) when comparing add-on stiripentol with placebo. Stiripentol led to a greater risk of adverse effects considered as a whole (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.08 to 6.47; low-certainty evidence). When we considered specific adverse effects, CIs were very wide and showed the possibility of substantial increases and small reductions in risks of neurological adverse effects (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.88 to 8.01; low-certainty evidence). Researchers noted no clear reduction in the risk of study withdrawal (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.47; low-certainty evidence), which was high in both groups (53.3% in placebo group and 35.3% in stiripentol group; low-certainty evidence). The external validity of this study was limited because only responders to stiripentol (i.e. participants experiencing a decrease in seizure frequency of 50% or greater during an open prerandomisation phase compared with baseline) were included in the randomised, add-on, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase. Furthermore, carry-over and withdrawal effects probably influenced outcomes related to seizure frequency. Very limited information derived from the only included study shows that adverse effects considered as a whole may occur more often with add-on stiripentol than with add-on placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have found no new studies since the last version of this review was published. Hence, we have made no changes to the conclusions as presented in previous versions. We can draw no conclusions to support the use of stiripentol as add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Additional large, randomised, well-conducted trials are needed.

Clonazepam monotherapy for treating people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders worldwide, with an age-adjusted prevalence of 4 to 8 per 1000 population and an age-adjusted incidence of 44 per 100,000 person-years in developed countries. Monotherapy represents the best therapeutic option in people with newly diagnosed epilepsy. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2019, Issue 11. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of oral clonazepam used as monotherapy for newly diagnosed epilepsy, compared with placebo or a different anti-seizure medication. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update of this review we searched the following databases on 14 September 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to 13 September 2021). CRS Web includes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs or quasi-RCTs comparing oral clonazepam used as monotherapy treatment versus placebo or a different anti-seizure medication (active comparator) in people of any age with newly diagnosed epilepsy, defined according to the clinical practical definition proposed by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The following outcomes were considered: proportion of participants seizure-free at one, three, six, 12, and 24 months after randomization; proportion of responders (those with at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline to end of treatment); proportion of participants with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during the treatment period or leading to discontinuation during the treatment period; proportion of dropouts/withdrawals due to side effects, lack of efficacy or other reasons; and improvement in quality of life, as assessed by validated and reliable rating scales. Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts to assess the eligibility of publications identified by the searches. We independently extracted data from trial reports and cross-checked them for accuracy. Any disagreements between the two authors regarding data extraction were resolved by discussion and consensus. We scrutinized trials and evaluated the methodological quality of all included studies. We used GRADE assessment criteria to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials had already been included in the previous version of the review, with a total of 115 participants. One study compared clonazepam to carbamazepine as monotherapy for participants with newly diagnosed psychomotor epilepsy (a condition corresponding to what is now termed mesial temporal lobe epilepsy). One study (published as an abstract) compared clonazepam to ethosuximide as monotherapy for children with absence seizures. Based on the available data and the details on methodology provided, we judged both studies as being at unclear or high risk of bias for the domains assessed (apart from the selective reporting (reporting bias) domain - we judged one study as being at low risk of bias and the other study at high risk of bias). In the study comparing clonazepam to carbamazepine, no difference was found between the groups regarding the proportion of participants who were seizure-free at one month after randomization (risk ratio (RR) 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 3.94; 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence), three months after randomization (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.29; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and six months after randomization (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73; 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No statistical difference was found between clonazepam and carbamazepine in terms of proportion of participants with TEAEs leading to discontinuation (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.80 to 8.52; 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in terms of dropouts/withdrawals due to side effects, lack of efficacy or other reasons (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.02; 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide any information on our other prespecified outcomes of interest. The study comparing clonazepam to ethosuximide did not provide any data on efficacy. The proportion of dropouts/withdrawal was higher in the group receiving clonazepam compared to the group receiving ethosuximide (RR 3.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 11.74; 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No information on other outcomes of interest was provided in this study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any new studies since the last version of this review. There is only limited and very low-certainty evidence from randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of clonazepam used in monotherapy for the treatment of epilepsy. No difference in efficacy and tolerability was found in a small trial comparing clonazepam to carbamazepine for the treatment of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Clonazepam was less well tolerated than ethosuximide in a trial of children with absence seizures, however no comparative data on efficacy were provided. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of clonazepam as monotherapy treatment for epilepsy.

Epidemiology of Epilepsy in Nigeria: A Community-Based Study From 3 Sites.

BACKGROUND: We determined the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors for epilepsy in Nigeria. METHODS: We conducted a door-to-door survey to identify cases of epilepsy in 3 regions. We estimated age-standardized prevalence adjusted for nonresponse and sensitivity and the 1-year retrospective incidence for active epilepsy. To assess potential risk factors, we conducted a case-control study by collecting sociodemographic and risk factor data. We estimated odds ratios using logistic regression analysis and corresponding population attributable fractions (PAFs). RESULTS: We screened 42,427 persons (age ≥6 years), of whom 254 had confirmed active epilepsy. The pooled prevalence of active epilepsy per 1,000 was 9.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.6-11.1), 17.7 (14.2-20.6) in Gwandu, 4.8 (3.4-6.6) in Afikpo, and 3.3 (2.0-5.1) in Ijebu-Jesa. The pooled incidence per 100,000 was 101.3 (95% CI 57.9-167.6), 201.2 (105.0-358.9) in Gwandu, 27.6 (3.3-128.0) in Afikpo, and 23.9 (3.2-157.0) in Ijebu-Jesa. Children's significant risk factors included febrile seizures, meningitis, poor perinatal care, open defecation, measles, and family history in first-degree relatives. In adults, head injury, poor perinatal care, febrile seizures, family history in second-degree relatives, and consanguinity were significant. Gwandu had more significant risk factors. The PAF for the important factors in children was 74.0% (71.0%-76.0%) and in adults was 79.0% (75.0%-81.0%). CONCLUSION: This work suggests varied epidemiologic numbers, which may be explained by differences in risk factors and population structure in the different regions. These variations should differentially determine and drive prevention and health care responses.

Complementary and alternative medicine in epilepsy: A global survey of physicians' opinions.

PURPOSE: To investigate the opinions of physicians on the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients with epilepsy (PWE) worldwide. METHODS: Online survey addressed to neurologists and psychiatrists from different countries. RESULTS: Totally, 1112 physicians from 25 countries (different world region: Europe, North America, South America, Middle-East, Africa, Former Soviet Union Republics) participated; 804 (72.3%) believed that CAM might be helpful in PWE. The most commonly endorsed CAM included meditation (41%) and yoga (39%). Female sex, psychiatry specialization, and working in North and South America were associated with the belief that CAM is helpful in PWE. Two-hundred and forty five out of 1098 participants (22.3%) used/prescribed CAM to PWE; among them, 174 (71%) people perceived CAM to be less effective and 114 (46.5%) people found CAM to be safer than conventional antiseizure medications (ASMs). The most common reasons to prescribe CAM for PWE were: to satisfy the patient (49.9%), dissatisfaction with the efficacy (35.6%), and dissatisfaction with the adverse effects (31.2%) of conventional therapies. CONCLUSION: Although the evidence supporting the use of CAM for the treatment of epilepsy is extremely sparse, most physicians worldwide believe that it could be integrated with the use of conventional ASMs, at least in some patients. High-quality controlled trials are warranted to provide robust evidence on the usefulness of CAM options in PWE.

Ethosuximide, sodium valproate or lamotrigine for absence seizures in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Absence seizures (AS) are brief epileptic seizures which present in childhood and adolescence. Depending on clinical features and electroencephalogram (EEG) findings they are divided into typical, atypical absences, and absences with special features. Typical absences are characterised by sudden loss of awareness and an EEG typically shows generalised spike wave discharges at three cycles per second. Ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine are currently used to treat absence seizures. This review aims to determine the best choice of antiepileptic drug for children and adolescents with AS. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence for the effects of ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine as treatments for children and adolescents with absence seizures (AS), when compared with placebo or each other. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 22 September 2020) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to September 21, 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. No language restrictions were imposed. In addition, we contacted Sanofi Winthrop, Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) and Parke Davis (now Pfizer), manufacturers of sodium valproate, lamotrigine and ethosuximide respectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised parallel group monotherapy or add-on trials which include a comparison of any of the following in children or adolescents with AS: ethosuximide, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Outcome measures were: 1. proportion of individuals seizure free at one, three, six, 12 and 18 months post randomisation; 2. individuals with a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; 3. normalisation of EEG and/or negative hyperventilation test; and 4. adverse effects. Data were independently extracted by two review authors. Results are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We used GRADE quality assessment criteria to evaluate the certainty of evidence for the outcomes derived from all included studies. MAIN RESULTS: On the basis of our selection criteria, we included no new studies in the present review. Eight small trials (total number of participants: 691) were included from the earlier review. Six of them were of poor methodological quality (unclear or high risk of bias) and seven recruited less than 50 participants. There are no placebo-controlled trials for ethosuximide or valproate, and hence, no evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support a specific effect on AS for either of these two drugs. Due to the differing methodologies used in the trials comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and valproate, we thought it inappropriate to undertake a meta-analysis. One large randomised, parallel double-blind controlled trial comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and sodium valproate in 453 children with newly diagnosed childhood absence epilepsy found that at 12 months, seizure freedom was higher in patients taking ethosuximide (70/154, 45%) than in patients taking lamotrigine (31/146, 21%; P < 0.001), with no difference between valproate (64/146, 44%) and ethosuximide (70/154, 45%; P > 0.05). In this study, the frequency of treatment failures due to intolerable adverse events was significantly different among the treatment groups, with the largest proportion of adverse events in the valproic acid group (48/146, 33%) compared to the ethosuximide (38/154, 25%) and the lamotrigine (29/146, 20%) groups (P < 0.037). Overall, this large study demonstrates the superior effectiveness of ethosuximide and valproic acid compared to lamotrigine as initial monotherapy aimed to control seizures without intolerable adverse effects in children with childhood absence epilepsy. This study provided high certainty of the evidence for outcomes for which data were available. However, the certainty of the evidence provided by the other included studies was low, primarily due to risk of bias and imprecise results because of the small sample sizes. Hence, conclusions regarding the efficacy of ethosuximide, valproic acid and lamotrigine derive mostly from this single study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review was published, we have found no new studies. Hence, the conclusions remain the same as the previous update. With regards to both efficacy and tolerability, ethosuximide represents the optimal initial empirical monotherapy for children and adolescents with AS. However, if absence and generalised tonic-clonic seizures coexist, valproate should be preferred, as ethosuximide is probably inefficacious on tonic-clonic seizures.

Translation and validation of an epilepsy-screening questionnaire in three Nigerian languages.

OBJECTIVE: We describe the development, translation and validation of epilepsy-screening questionnaires in the three most popular Nigerian languages: Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba. METHODS: A 9-item epilepsy-screening questionnaire was developed by modifying previously validated English language questionnaires. Separate multilingual experts forward- and back-translated them to the three target languages. Translations were discussed with fieldworkers and community members for ethnolinguistic acceptability and comprehension. We used an unmatched affected-case versus unaffected-control design for the pilot study. Cases were people with epilepsy attending the tertiary hospitals where these languages are spoken. The controls were relatives of cases or people attending for other medical conditions. An affirmative response to any of the nine questions amounted to a positive screen for epilepsy. RESULTS: We recruited 153 (75 cases and 78 controls) people for the Hausa version, 106 (45 cases and 61 controls) for Igbo and 153 (66 cases and 87 controls) for the Yoruba. The sensitivity and specificity of the questionnaire were: Hausa (97.3% and 88.5%), Igbo (91.1% and 88.5%) and Yoruba (93.9% and 86.7%). The three versions reliably indicated epilepsy with positive predictive values of 85.9% (Hausa), 85.4% (Igbo) and 87.3% (Yoruba) and reliably excluded epilepsy with negative predictive values of 97.1% (Hausa), 93.1% (Igbo) and 95.1% (Yoruba). Positive likelihood ratios were all greater than one. CONCLUSIONS: Validated epilepsy screening questionnaires are now available for the three languages to be used for community-based epilepsy survey in Nigeria. The translation and validation process are discussed to facilitate usage and development for other languages in sub-Saharan Africa.

Zonisamide add-on therapy for focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis, and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic agent, but up to 30% develop dug-resistant epilepsy, especially those with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) of zonisamide, used as an add-on treatment for focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drug. This is an updated version of the Cochrane review previously published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide, when used as an add-on treatment for people with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (September 2019). In addition, we contacted Eisai Limited (makers and licensees of zonisamide) and experts in the field, to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, in which add-on zonisamide was compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug in people with focal epilepsy, uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the certainty of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. The primary outcome was at least a 50% reduction in total seizure frequency; the secondary outcomes were (1) tolerability; and (2) adverse effects. We used an intention-to-treat approach for our primary analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) for each outcome. We displayed a summary of the estimates of effects and certainty of the evidence for each outcome in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any new studies since the last version of this review. We included eight studies (1636 participants) from previous versions of this review. The overall RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency for 300 mg to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.90 (95% CI 1.63 to 2.22; 7 trials, 1371 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The RR for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for any dose of zonisamide (100 mg to 500 mg/day) was 1.86 (95% CI 1.60 to 2.17; 7 trials, 1429 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was six (95% CI 4.1 to 6.8). Two trials provided evidence of a dose-response relationship for this outcome. The RR for treatment withdrawal for 300 mg to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.59 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.13; 6 trials, 1099 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and for 100 mg to 500 mg/day was 1.44 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.93; 6 trials, 1156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 15 (95% CI 9.3 to 36.7). The following adverse effects were more likely to be associated with zonisamide than with placebo: ataxia (RR 3.85, 99% CI 1.36 to 10.93; 4 trials, 734 participants; low-certainty evidence); somnolence (RR 1.52, 99% CI 1.00 to 2.31; 8 trials, 1636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); agitation (RR 2.35, 99% CI 1.05 to 5.27; 4 trials, 598 participants; low-certainty evidence); and anorexia (RR 2.74, 99% CI 1.64 to 4.60; 6 trials, 1181 participants; low-certainty evidence). Across the eight studies, we rated risk of bias domains at low or unclear risk of bias, apart from two studies, which we rated at high risk of attrition bias. Five of the eight studies were sponsored by the drug companies that produced zonisamide. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When used as an add-on treatment in people with focal epilepsy, uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs, moderate-certainty evidence found that zonisamide was more successful than placebo at reducing the frequency of seizures by at least 50%. We were unable to identify minimum effective and maximum tolerated doses. The included trials evaluated a maximum stable-dose phase of 18 weeks, so results cannot be used to confirm longer periods of efficacy in seizure control. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy, or to people with other seizure types or epilepsy syndromes.

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

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review first published in 2014, and last updated in 2018. For nearly 30% of people with epilepsy, seizures are not controlled by current treatments. Stiripentol is an antiepileptic drug (AED) that was developed in France and was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2007 for the treatment of Dravet syndrome as an adjunctive therapy with valproate and clobazam. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of stiripentol as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy who are taking AEDs. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 27 February 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web); and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 26 February 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We contacted Biocodex (the manufacturer of stiripentol) and epilepsy experts to identify published, unpublished and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, controlled, add-on trials of stiripentol in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We investigated outcomes including 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, seizure freedom, adverse effects, treatment withdrawal and changes in quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: On the basis of our selection criteria, we included no new studies in the present review update. We included only one study from the earlier review (32 children with focal epilepsy). This study adopted a responder-enriched design and found no clear evidence of a reduction in seizure frequency (≥ 50% seizure reduction) (risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 2.82; low-certainty evidence) or evidence of seizure freedom (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.43; low-certainty evidence) when add-on stiripentol was compared with placebo. Stiripentol led to a greater risk of adverse effects considered as a whole (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.08 to 6.47; low-certainty evidence). When we considered specific adverse events, confidence intervals were very wide and showed the possibility of substantial increases and small reductions in risks of neurological adverse effects (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.88 to 8.01; low-certainty evidence) and gastrointestinal adverse effects (RR 11.56, 95% CI 0.71 to 189.36; low-certainty evidence). Researchers noted no clear reduction in the risk of study withdrawal (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.47; low-certainty evidence), which was high in both groups (35.0% in add-on placebo and 53.3% in stiripentol group; low-certainty evidence). The external validity of this study was limited because only responders to stiripentol (i.e. patients experiencing a ≥ 50% decrease in seizure frequency compared with baseline) were included in the randomised, add-on, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase. Furthermore, carry-over and withdrawal effects probably influenced outcomes related to seizure frequency. Very limited information derived from the only included study shows that adverse effects considered as a whole seemed to occur significantly more often with add-on stiripentol than with add-on placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have found no new studies since the last version of this review was published. Hence, we have made no changes to the conclusions of this update as presented in the initial review. We can draw no conclusions to support the use of stiripentol as add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Additional large, randomised, well-conducted trials are needed.

Clonazepam monotherapy for treating people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders worldwide, with an age-adjusted prevalence of 4 to 8 per 1000 population and an age-adjusted incidence of 44 per 100,000 person-years in developed countries. Monotherapy represents the best therapeutic option in people with newly diagnosed epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of oral clonazepam used as monotherapy for newly diagnosed epilepsy, when compared with placebo or a different anti-seizure medication. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched on 24 July 2018: 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) 1946 to 24 July 2018, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing oral clonazepam used as monotherapy treatment (where participants were randomized to treatment with a single drug throughout the study period) versus placebo or a different anti-seizure medication (active comparator) in people of any age with newly diagnosed epilepsy, defined according to the clinical practical definition proposed by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The following outcomes were considered: proportion of participants seizure-free at one, three, six, 12 and 24 months after randomization; proportion of responders (those with at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline to end of treatment); proportion of participants with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during the treatment period or leading to discontinuation during the treatment period; proportion of dropouts/withdrawals due to side effects, lack of efficacy or other reasons; and improvement in quality of life, as assessed by validated and reliable rating scales. Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts to assess the eligibility of publications identified by the searches. They independently extracted data from trial reports and cross-checked them for accuracy. Any disagreements between the two authors regarding data extraction were resolved by discussion and consensus. We scrutinized trials and evaluated the methodological quality of all included studies. We used GRADE assessment criteria to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 115 participants. One study compared clonazepam to carbamazepine as monotherapy for participants with newly diagnosed psychomotor epilepsy (a condition corresponding to what is now termed mesial temporal lobe epilepsy). One study (published as abstract) compared clonazepam to ethosuximide as monotherapy for children with absence seizures. Based on the available data and the details on methodology provided, we judged both studies as being at unclear or high risk of bias for the domains assessed. In the study comparing clonazepam to carbamazepine, no difference was found between the groups regarding the proportion of participants who were seizure-free at one month after randomization (risk ratio (RR) 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 3.94; 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence), three months after randomization (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.29; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and six months after randomization (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73; 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No statistical difference was found between clonazepam and carbamazepine in terms of proportion of participants with TEAEs leading to discontinuation (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.80 to 8.52; 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in terms of dropouts/withdrawals due to side effects, lack of efficacy or other reasons (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.02; 36 participants; very low certainty evidence). The study did not provide any information on our other prespecified outcomes of interest. The study comparing clonazepam to ethosuximide did not provide any data on efficacy. The proportion of dropouts/withdrawal was higher in the group receiving clonazepam compared to the group receiving ethosuximide (RR 3.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 11.74; 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No information on other outcomes of interest was provided in this study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is only limited and very low-certainty evidence from randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of clonazepam used in monotherapy for the treatment of epilepsy. No difference in efficacy and tolerability was found in a small trial comparing clonazepam to carbamazepine for the treatment of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Clonazepam was less well tolerated than ethosuximide in a trial of children with absence seizures, however no comparative data on efficacy were provided. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of clonazepam as monotherapy treatment for epilepsy.

Ethosuximide, sodium valproate or lamotrigine for absence seizures in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2017.Absence seizures (AS) are brief epileptic seizures which present in childhood and adolescence. Depending on clinical features and electroencephalogram (EEG) findings they are divided into typical, atypical absences, and absences with special features. Typical absences are characterised by sudden loss of awareness and an EEG typically shows generalised spike wave discharges at three cycles per second. Ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine are currently used to treat absence seizures. This review aims to determine the best choice of antiepileptic drug for children and adolescents with AS. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence for the effects of ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine as treatments for children and adolescents with absence seizures (AS), when compared with placebo or each other. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 29 May 2018), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 29 May 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (29 May 2018) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 29 May 2018). Previously we searched Embase (1988 to March 2005) and SCOPUS (1823 to 31 March 2014), but this is no longer necessary because randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in Embase and SCOPUS are now included in CENTRAL. No language restrictions were imposed. In addition, we contacted Sanofi Winthrop, Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) and Parke Davis (now Pfizer), manufacturers of sodium valproate, lamotrigine and ethosuximide respectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised parallel group monotherapy or add-on trials which include a comparison of any of the following in children or adolescents with AS: ethosuximide, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Outcome measures were: (1) proportion of individuals seizure free at one, three, six, 12 and 18 months post randomisation; (2) people with a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (3) normalisation of EEG and/or negative hyperventilation test; and (4) adverse effects. Data were independently extracted by two review authors. Results are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We used GRADE quality assessment criteria to evaluate the certainty of evidence derived from all included studies. MAIN RESULTS: On the basis of our selection criteria, we included no new studies in the present review. Eight small trials (total number of participants: 691) were included from the earlier review. Six of them were of poor methodological quality (unclear or high risk of bias) and seven recruited less than 50 participants. There are no placebo-controlled trials for ethosuximide or valproate, and hence, no evidence from RCTs to support a specific effect on AS for either of these two drugs. Due to the differing methodologies used in the trials comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and valproate, we thought it inappropriate to undertake a meta-analysis. One large randomised, parallel double-blind controlled trial comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and sodium valproate in 453 children with newly diagnosed childhood absence epilepsy found that at 12 months, the freedom-from-failure rates for ethosuximide and valproic acid were similar and were higher than the rate for lamotrigine. The frequency of treatment failures due to lack of seizure control (P < 0.001) and intolerable adverse events (P < 0.037) was significantly different among the treatment groups, with the largest proportion of lack of seizure control in the lamotrigine cohort, and the largest proportion of adverse events in the valproic acid group. Overall, this large study demonstrates the superior effectiveness of ethosuximide and valproic acid compared to lamotrigine as initial monotherapy aimed to control seizures without intolerable adverse effects in children with childhood absence epilepsy. The risk of bias for this study was low. We rated the overall certainty of the evidence available from the included studies to be moderate or high. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review was published, we have found no new studies. Hence, the conclusions remain the same as the previous update. With regards to both efficacy and tolerability, ethosuximide represents the optimal initial empirical monotherapy for children and adolescents with AS. However, if absence and generalised tonic-clonic seizures coexist, valproate should be preferred, as ethosuximide is probably inefficacious on tonic-clonic seizures.

Zonisamide add-on therapy for focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis, and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic agent, but up to 30% develop refractory epilepsy, especially those with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) of zonisamide, used as an add-on treatment for focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drug. This is an updated version of the Cochrane review previously published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide, when used as an add-on treatment for people with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, on 4 September 2017, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE Ovid, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP. We searched SCOPUS on 13 February 2013, but this is no longer necessary, because RCTs and quasi-RCTs in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. In addition, we contacted Eisai Limited (makers and licensees of zonisamide) and experts in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, in which add-on zonisamide was compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug in people with focal epilepsy, uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the quality of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. The primary outcome was at least a 50% reduction in total seizure frequency; the secondary outcomes were (1) tolerability; and (2) adverse effects. We used an intention-to-treat approach for our primary analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) for each outcome. We displayed a summary of the estimates of effects and quality of the evidence for each outcome in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (1636 participants). The overall RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for 300 mg to 500 mg/day of zonisamide was 1.90 (95% CI 1.63 to 2.22; 7 trials, 1371 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The RR for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for any dose of zonisamide (100 mg to 500 mg/day) was 1.86 (95% CI 1.60 to 2.17; 7 trials, 1429 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was six (95% CI 4.1 to 6.8) for this outcome. Two trials provided evidence of a dose-response relationship for this outcome. The RR for treatment withdrawal for 300 mg to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.59 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.13; 6 trials, 1099 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and for 100 mg to 500 mg/day was 1.44 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.93; 6 trials, 1156 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 15 (95% CI 9.3 to 36.7). The CIs of the following adverse effects indicated that they were significantly associated with zonisamide: ataxia RR 3.85 (99% CI 1.36 to 10.93; 4 trials, 734 participants; low-quality evidence); somnolence RR 1.52 (99% CI 1.00 to 2.31; 8 trials, 1636 participants; moderate-quality evidence); agitation RR 2.35 (99% CI 1.05 to 5.27; 4 trials, 598 participants; low-quality evidence); and anorexia RR 2.74 (99% CI 1.64 to 4.60; 6 trials, 1181 participants; low-quality evidence).Across the eight studies, we rated risk of bias domains at low or unclear risk of bias apart from two studies which we rated at high risk of attrition bias. Five of the eight studies were sponsored by the drug companies that produced zonisamide. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When used as an add-on treatment in people with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs, moderate-quality evidence found that zonisamide was more successful than placebo at reducing the frequency of seizures by at least 50%. We were unable to identify minimum effective and maximum tolerated doses. The included trials evaluated a maximum stable-dose phase of 18 weeks, so results cannot be used to confirm longer periods of efficacy in seizure control. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other seizure types or epilepsy syndromes.

Does Melatonin and Melatonin Agonists Improve the Metabolic Side Effects of Atypical Antipsychotics?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) are increasingly used for the treatment of psychotic disorders but are known to be associated with metabolic abnormalities. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effectiveness of melatonin for the amelioration of AAP-induced metabolic syndrome. The MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials, PsycINFO, LILACS, CINAHL, and OpenGrey databases were searched for RCTs without language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were randomized, double-blind clinical trials comparing melatonin or melatonin agonists with placebo for the amelioration of AAP-induced effects at any age with selected components of metabolic syndrome as outcome measures. Two reviewers independently selected articles and assessed quality using Cochrane risk of bias and concealment tools. Of 53 records, five RCTs were eligible for the systematic review and three for the meta-analysis. The meta-analyses showed no statistically significant difference in any anthropometric or metabolic variable considered. Analysis according to psychiatric diagnosis from one RCT showed significant decreases in diastolic blood pressure (5.5 vs. -5.7 mmHg for the placebo and melatonin groups, respectively; p =0.001), fat mass (2.7 vs. 0.2 kg, respectively; p =0.032), and triglycerides (D) (50.1 vs. -20 mg/dl, respectively; p =0.08) in the bipolar group but not the schizophrenia group. Although limited to five RCTs with small sample sizes, evidence from RCT indicates that melatonin improves AAP-induced metabolic syndrome. This beneficial effect seems more significant in patients with bipolar disorder than those with schizophrenia. Further RCTs are needed to definitively establish the potential ameliorative effect of melatonin and to justify its efficacy as an add-on therapy to curtail AAP-induced metabolic syndrome.

Stiripentol add-on therapy for focal refractory epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane review last published in 2015 (Issue 10). For nearly 30% of people with epilepsy, seizures are not controlled by current treatments. Stiripentol is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) that was developed in France and was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2007 for the treatment of Dravet syndrome as an adjunctive therapy with valproate and clobazam, with promising effects. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of stiripentol as add-on treatment for people with focal refractory epilepsy who are taking AEDs. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 21 August 2017: Cochrane Epilepsy Specialized Register, CENTRAL , MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We contacted Biocodex (the manufacturer of stiripentol) and epilepsy experts to identify published, unpublished and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, controlled, add-on trials of stiripentol in people with focal refractory epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, seizure freedom, adverse effects, treatment withdrawal and changes in quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: On the basis of our selection criteria, we included no new studies in the present review. Only one study was included from the earlier review (32 children with focal epilepsy). This study adopted a 'responder enriched' design and found no clear evidence of a reduction in seizure frequency (≥ 50% seizure reduction) (risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 2.82, low-quality evidence) nor evidence of seizure freedom (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.43, low-quality evidence) when add-on stiripentol was compared with placebo. Stiripentol led to a greater risk of adverse effects considered as a whole (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.08 to 6.47, low-quality evidence). When specific adverse events were considered, confidence intervals were very wide and showed the possibility of substantial increases and small reductions in risks of neurological (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.88 to 8.01, low-quality evidence) or gastrointestinal adverse effects (RR 11.56, 95% CI 0.71 to 189.36, low-quality evidence). Researchers noted no clear reduction in the risk of study withdrawal (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.47, low-quality evidence), which was high in both groups (35.0% in add-on placebo and 53.3% in stiripentol group, low-quality evidence). The external validity of this study was limited because only responders to stiripentol (i.e. patients experiencing a ≥ 50% decrease in seizure frequency compared with baseline) were included in the randomised, add-on, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase. Furthermore, carry-over and withdrawal effects probably influenced outcomes related to seizure frequency. Very limited information derived from the only included study shows that adverse effects considered as a whole seemed to occur significantly more often with add-on stiripentol than with add-on placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review was published, we have found no new studies. Hence, we have made no changes to the conclusions of this update as presented in the initial review. We can draw no conclusions to support the use of stiripentol as add-on treatment for focal refractory epilepsy. Additional large, randomised, well-conducted trials are needed.

A reliability and readability analysis of silicosis-related Italian websites: implications for occupational health.

BACKGROUND: Silicosis represents a "classical" occupational disease characterized by a renewed interest. New risk factors are emerging, such as sandblasting in the jeans industry or hydrofracking, leading to clusters of acute or massive cases. OBJECTIVES: Given that the Internet could represent a worker education and empowerment tool, and considering the increase in popularity of silicosis-related information, we aimed at systematically analyzing the reliability and readability of online silicosis-relevant information. METHODS: The search term "silicosi" was used to query 5 top search engines. The first 3 pages of results were screened using two validated readability tools: namely, the Gulpease and the ReadIt DyLanLab grade level scores. RESULTS: Seventy sites were analyzed. The Gulpease score differed among the types of websites: academic websites differed from institutional websites, as well as encyclopedia/dictionary pages from institutional sites. The Lexical Model - ReadIt DyLanLab grade level differed among the types of websites. Encyclopedia/dictionary pages differed from academic, commercial, health-related, institutional and news sites. Approximately, half of the websites were intended/designed for workers. Only the Global Model - Read-It DyLanLab grade level differed according to the intended/designed target. Only 1.4% of websites adhered to Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings may have important practical implications for occupational physicians and health agencies/authorities. They should make efforts in strengthening their online presence, and producing appropriate material. This could lead to positive outcomes in term of occupational health promotion, potentially enabling workers to increase and to improve their work-related health and its determinants.

Antiepileptic drugs for the treatment of infants with severe myoclonic epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2015, Issue 10.Severe myoclonic epilepsy in infants (SMEI), also known as Dravet syndrome, is a rare, refractory form of epilepsy, for which stiripentol (STP) has been recently licensed as add-on therapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of STP and other antiepileptic drug treatments (including ketogenic diet) for patients with SMEI. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (20 December 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 20 December 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 December 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (20 December 2016). Previously we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP, but this was not usable at the time of this update. We also searched the bibliographies of identified studies for additional references. We handsearched selected journals and conference proceedings and imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials; double- or single-blinded or unblinded trials; and parallel-group studies. Administration of at least one antiepileptic drug therapy given singly (monotherapy) or in combination (add-on therapy) compared with add-on placebo or no add-on treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion according to predefined criteria, extracted relevant data and evaluated the methodological quality of trials. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater seizure reduction, seizure freedom, adverse effects, proportion of dropouts and quality of life. We assessed outcomes by using a Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Since the last version of this review no new studies have been found. Specifically, we found no RCTs assessing drugs other than STP. The review includes two RCTs evaluating use of STP (total of 64 children). Both studies were generally at unclear risk of bias. A significantly higher proportion of participants had 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency in the STP group compared with the placebo group (22/33 versus 2/31; RR 10.40, 95% CI 2.64 to 40.87). A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved seizure freedom in the STP group compared with the placebo group (12/33 versus 1/31; RR 7.93, 95% CI 1.52 to 41.21). Investigators found no significant differences in proportions of dropouts from the STP group compared with the placebo group (2/33 versus 8/31; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.03). Only one study explicitly reported the occurrence of side effects, noting that higher proportions of participants in the STP group experienced side effects than in the placebo group (100% versus 25%; RR 3.73, 95% CI 1.81 to 7.67). We rated the quality of the evidence as low to moderate according to GRADE criteria, as most information is from studies judged to be at an unclear risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data derived from two small RCTs indicate that STP is significantly better than placebo with regards to 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and seizure freedom. Adverse effects occurred more frequently with STP. Additional adequately powered studies with long-term follow-up should be conducted to unequivocally establish the long-term efficacy and tolerability of STP in the treatment of patients with SMEI.

Ethosuximide, sodium valproate or lamotrigine for absence seizures in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review originally published in 2003, Issue 3, and updated in 2005, Issue 4.Absence seizures are brief epileptic seizures which present in childhood and adolescence. Depending on clinical features and electroencephalogram (EEG) findings they are divided into typical, atypical absences, and absences with special features. Typical absences are characterised by sudden loss of awareness and an EEG typically shows generalised spike wave discharges at three cycles per second. Ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine are currently used to treat absence seizures. This review aims to determine the best choice of antiepileptic drug for children and adolescents with typical absence seizures. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence for the effects of ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine as treatments for children and adolescents with absence seizures, when compared with placebo or each other. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (1 September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 1 September 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 1 September 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (1 September 2016) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (1 September 2016). Previously we searched Embase (1988 to March 2005) and SCOPUS (1823 to 31 March 2014). No language restrictions were imposed. In addition, we contacted Sanofi Winthrop, Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) and Parke Davis (now Pfizer), manufacturers of sodium valproate, lamotrigine and ethosuximide respectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised parallel group monotherapy or add-on trials which include a comparison of any of the following in children or adolescents with absence seizures: ethosuximide; sodium valproate; lamotrigine; or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Outcome measures were: (1) proportion of individuals seizure free at one, three, six, 12 and 18 months post randomisation; (2) people with a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (3) normalisation of EEG and/or negative hyperventilation test; and (4) adverse effects. Data were independently extracted by two review authors. Results are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Eight small trials were found (three of them not included in the previous version of the review). Six of them were of poor methodological quality and seven recruited less than 50 participants. There are no placebo-controlled trials for ethosuximide or valproate, and hence, no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support a specific effect on absence seizures for either of these two drugs. Due to the differing methodologies used in the trials comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and valproate, we thought it inappropriate to undertake a meta-analysis. One large randomised, parallel double-blind controlled trial comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and sodium valproate in children with newly diagnosed childhood absence epilepsy found that at 12 months, the freedom-from-failure rates for ethosuximide and valproic acid (VPA) were similar and were higher than the rate for lamotrigine. The frequency of treatment failures due to lack of seizure control (P < 0.001) and intolerable adverse events (P < 0.037) was significantly different among the treatment groups, with the largest proportion of lack of seizure control in the lamotrigine cohort, and the largest proportion of adverse events in the VPA group. Overall, this large study demonstrates the superior effectiveness of ethosuximide and VPA compared to lamotrigine as initial monotherapy aimed to control seizures without intolerable adverse effects in children with childhood absence epilepsy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With regards to both efficacy and tolerability, ethosuximide represents the optimal initial empirical monotherapy for children and adolescents with absence seizures. However, if absence and generalised tonic-clonic seizures coexist, valproate should be preferred, as ethosuximide is probably inefficacious on tonic-clonic seizures.

Topiramate in the Treatment of Generalized Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Adults: A Systematic Review with Individual Patient Data Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) is a medical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality that requires prompt medical intervention. Topiramate (TPM) is an antiepileptic drug effective against a broad spectrum of seizure types, and has been proposed as a possible therapeutic option for super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE), the most severe form of GCSE. AIM: This review aimed to evaluate the role of TPM in GCSE, including SRSE. METHODS: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, LILACS, Google Scholar, and Opengrey.eu were systematically searched. We compared: (1) patients who did and who did not receive TPM as their last drug; (2) patients receiving TPM as the last drug and achieving SE control and patients receiving TPM as the last drug but without termination of SE. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1164 results, with individual data available for 35 patients (six with SRSE) from four studies. SE was controlled in 68.6% of patients receiving TPM either as the last drug (20) or not (15), and in 14 of the 20 patients receiving TPM as the last drug (70%). Only six patients received TPM for SRSE; in five of them, TPM was administered as the last drug with resolution of SE in four. When comparing patients who did and did not receive TPM as the last drug, no statistically significant difference was found for any of the variables considered; similarly, no difference was found comparing patients receiving TPM as the last drug and achieving SE control with those receiving TPM as the last drug but without termination of SE. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a statistically significant difference is likely to be due to the small sample size. In only a few patients was TPM used for SRSE. There is an unmet need for high-quality studies to evaluate the role of TPM in GCSE.

Melatonin as add-on treatment for epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 6, 2012.Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders. Despite the plethora of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) currently available, 30% of people continue having seizures. This group of people requires a more aggressive treatment, since monotherapy, the first choice scheme, fails to control seizures. Nevertheless, polytherapy often results in a number of unwanted effects, including neurological disturbances (somnolence, ataxia, dizziness), psychiatric and behavioural symptoms, and metabolic alteration (osteoporosis, inducement or inhibition of hepatic enzymes, etc.). The need for better tolerated AEDs is even more urgent in this group of people. Reports have suggested an antiepileptic role of melatonin with a good safety profile. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of melatonin as add-on treatment for epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (12 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 12 January 2016), and MEDLINE (Ovid, 11 January 2016). We searched the bibliographies of any identified study for further references. We handsearched selected journals and conference proceedings. We applied no language restrictions. In addition, we contacted melatonin manufacturers (i.e. Nathura) and original investigators to identify any unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials; double, single, or unblinded trials; parallel group or cross-over studies. People with epilepsy regardless of age and gender, including children and adults with disabilities. Administration of melatonin as add-on treatment to any AED(s) compared to add-on placebo or no add-on treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion according to pre-defined criteria, extracted relevant data, and evaluated the methodological quality of trials. We assessed the following outcomes: at least 50% seizure reduction, seizure freedom, adverse events, and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included six publications, with 125 participants (106 aged under 18 years). Two different comparisons were available: melatonin versus placebo and melatonin 5 mg versus melatonin 10 mg. Despite our primary intention, due to insufficient information on outcomes, we were unable to perform any meta-analyses, but summarized data narratively. Four studies were randomized, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled trials and two were randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled trials. Only two studies provided the exact number of seizures during the trial compared to the baseline: none of the participants with seizures during the trial had a change in seizure frequency compared with the baseline. Two studies systematically evaluated adverse effects (worsening of headache was reported in a child with migraine under melatonin treatment). Only one study systematically evaluated quality of life, showing no statistically significant improvement in quality of life in the add-on melatonin group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Included studies were of poor methodological quality, and did not systematically evaluate seizure frequency and adverse events, so that it was impossible to summarize data in a meta-analysis. It is not possible to draw any conclusion about the role of melatonin in reducing seizure frequency or improving quality of life in people with epilepsy.

Melatonin as add-on treatment for epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 6, 2012.Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders. Despite the plethora of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) currently available, 30% of people continue having seizures. This group of people requires a more aggressive treatment, since monotherapy, the first choice scheme, fails to control seizures. Nevertheless, polytherapy often results in a number of unwanted effects, including neurological disturbances (somnolence, ataxia, dizziness), psychiatric and behavioural symptoms, and metabolic alteration (osteoporosis, inducement or inhibition of hepatic enzymes, etc.). The need for better tolerated AEDs is even more urgent in this group of people. Reports have suggested an antiepileptic role of melatonin with a good safety profile. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of melatonin as add-on treatment for epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (12 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 12 January 2016), and MEDLINE (Ovid, 11 January 2016). We searched the bibliographies of any identified study for further references. We handsearched selected journals and conference proceedings. We applied no language restrictions. In addition, we contacted melatonin manufacturers (i.e. Nathura) and original investigators to identify any unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials; double, single, or unblinded trials; parallel group or cross-over studies. People with epilepsy regardless of age and gender, including children and adults with disabilities. Administration of melatonin as add-on treatment to any AED(s) compared to add-on placebo or no add-on treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion according to pre-defined criteria, extracted relevant data, and evaluated the methodological quality of trials. We assessed the following outcomes: at least 50% seizure reduction, seizure freedom, adverse events, and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included six publications, with 125 participants (106 aged under 18 years). Two different comparisons were available: melatonin versus placebo and melatonin 5 mg versus melatonin 10 mg. Despite our primary intention, due to insufficient information on outcomes, we were unable to perform any meta-analyses, but summarized data narratively. Four studies were randomized, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled trials and two were randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled trials. Only two studies provided the exact number of seizures during the trial compared to the baseline: none of the participants with seizures during the trial had a change in seizure frequency compared with the baseline. Two studies systematically evaluated adverse effects (worsening of headache was reported in a child with migraine under melatonin treatment). Only one study systematically evaluated quality of life, showing no statistically significant improvement in quality of life in the add-on melatonin group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Included studies were of poor methodological quality, and did not systematically evaluate seizure frequency and adverse events, so that it was impossible to summarize data in a meta-analysis. It is not possible to draw any conclusion about the role of melatonin in reducing seizure frequency or improving quality of life in people with epilepsy.

Effect of health education on trainee teachers' knowledge, attitudes, and first aid management of epilepsy: An interventional study.

PURPOSE: High rates of poor knowledge of, and negative attitudes towards people with epilepsy (PWE) are generally found among school teachers. Their first aid epilepsy management skills are poor. It remains unknown if this is different among trainee teachers and whether educational intervention might reduce these rates. We examined the effect of health education on the knowledge, attitudes, and first aid management of epilepsy on trainee teachers in Nigeria. METHODS: Baseline data and socio-demographic determinants were collected from 226 randomly selected trainee teachers, at the Federal College of Education, Lagos, Nigeria, with self-administered questionnaires. They received a health intervention comprising an hour and half epilepsy lecture followed by a discussion. Baseline knowledge of, and attitudes towards PWE and their first aid epilepsy management skills were compared to post-interventional follow-up data collected twelve weeks later with similar questionnaires. RESULTS: At baseline the majority (61.9%) and largest proportion (44.2%) of respondents had negative attitudes and poor knowledge of epilepsy, respectively. The knowledge of, and attitudes towards epilepsy, and the first aid management skill increased in most respondents, post-intervention. The proportion of respondents with poor knowledge and negative attitudes dropped by 15.5% (p<0.0001) and 16.4% (p<0.0001) respectively. Correct knowledge concomitantly increased by 29.6% (p<0.0001) and good first aid management skills increased by 25.0% (p<0.0001) from baseline. CONCLUSION: Epilepsy health education could increase trainee teachers' knowledge of, and attitudes towards epilepsy and facilitate correct first aid management. This emphasizes the potential benefit of incorporating an epilepsy tailored intervention programme into teachers' training curricula.