Motor seizures confer overall survival benefit in who grade 2 glioma.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of epilepsy in World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2 glioma is high, with seizures being the presenting symptom in 60%-90%. We explore the epidemiology of seizures in this patient population in a regional neurosurgical center. METHODS: Electronic health records of patients with histologically-proven WHO grade 2 glioma (n = 228) were reviewed between 1997 and 2021, with data collected including patient demographics, epilepsy prevalence, and seizure semiology. The influence of seizure type on overall survival was calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Overall, 197 of 228 patients (86.4%) were diagnosed with epilepsy-either at presentation or during the course of their disease. Male patients were more likely than female patients to be diagnosed with epilepsy (91.1% vs 77.1%, p = .003) and, in those with epilepsy, more likely to experience at least one focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizure (69.4% vs 54.1%, p = .05). Patients with left-sided tumors were twice as likely to have experienced a focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizure (p = .02, odds ratio [OR] = .47). Predominantly experiencing seizures with motor activity appeared to confer better overall survival, with a 65% decrease in the risk of death 10 years post diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] = .35, p = .02). This is despite accounting for previously described prognostic markers including tumor histology/genetics, time from diagnosis to surgery, and the extent of tumor resection. SIGNIFICANCE: Motor seizure activity is a frequent feature in WHO grade 2 glioma and appears to confer a survival benefit regardless of histology or surgical factors. Seizures due to dominant hemisphere tumors may be more likely to propagate and cause bilateral tonic-clonic activity.

Refractory status epilepticus arrested by vagus nerve stimulation.

A 54-year-old man developed altered mental state and generalised tonic-clonic seizures after 1 week of upper respiratory tract symptoms and diarrhoea, having been previously well. His MR scan of brain showed multifocal progressive T2 cortical signal changes. He was diagnosed with new-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE), initially treated as being secondary to autoimmune/paraneoplastic limbic encephalitis, although subsequent investigations were negative. His seizures and electrographic epileptiform activity continued despite escalating doses of antiseizure medications, immunosuppression with corticosteroids, immunoglobulins, plasma exchange and rituximab, and thereafter anaesthetic agents. A vagus nerve stimulator (VNS) was implanted 6 weeks after admission and its voltage rapidly increased over 4 days; his seizure activity resolved in the third week after VNS implantation. This case highlights the role of VNS in the early management of NORSE.

Levetiracetam as a first-line antiseizure medication in WHO grade 2 glioma: Time to seizure freedom and rates of treatment failure.

OBJECTIVE: The high seizure burden seen in World Health Association (WHO) grade 2 gliomas is well documented. This study aims to identify factors that influence the probability of seizure freedom (12 months of seizure remission) and treatment failure (antiseizure medication [ASM] cessation or introduction of an alternative) in patients with WHO grade 2 glioma. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational analysis of patients from a regional UK neurosurgical center with histologically proven (n = 146) WHO grade 2 glioma and brain tumor related epilepsy. Statistical analyses using both Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were undertaken, with a particular focus on treatment outcomes when the commonly prescribed ASM levetiracetam (n = 101) is used as first line. RESULTS: Treatment with levetiracetam as a first-line ASM resulted in a significant increase in the probability of seizure freedom (p < .05) at 2 years compared with treatment with an alternative ASM. Individuals presenting with focal seizures without bilateral tonic-clonic progression were between 39% and 42% significantly less likely to reach seizure freedom within 10 years (p < .05) and 132% more likely to fail treatment by 5 years (p < .01) when compared to individuals who had seizures with progression to bilateral tonic-clonic activity. ASM choice did not significantly affect treatment failure rates. SIGNIFICANCE: More than two-thirds of patients with WHO grade 2 glioma related epilepsy treated with levetiracetam first line achieve seizure freedom within 2 years and it is a reasonable first-choice agent. Experiencing mainly focal seizures without progression infers a significant long-term reduction in the chance of seizure freedom. Further studies are needed to inform ASM selection.

Protocol for the development of an international Core Outcome Set for treatment trials in adults with epilepsy: the EPilepsy outcome Set for Effectiveness Trials Project (EPSET).

BACKGROUND: A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a standardised list of outcomes that should be reported as a minimum in all clinical trials. In epilepsy, the choice of outcomes varies widely among existing studies, particularly in clinical trials. This diminishes opportunities for informed decision-making, contributes to research waste and is a barrier to integrating findings in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Furthermore, the outcomes currently being measured may not reflect what is important to people with epilepsy. Therefore, we aim to develop a COS specific to clinical effectiveness research for adults with epilepsy using Delphi consensus methodology. METHODS: The EPSET Study will comprise of three phases and follow the core methodological principles as outlined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Phase 1 will include two focused literature reviews to identify candidate outcomes from the qualitative literature and current outcome measurement practice in phase III and phase IV clinical trials. Phase 2 aims to achieve international consensus to define which outcomes should be measured as a minimum in future trials, using a Delphi process including an online consensus meeting involving key stakeholders. Phase 3 will involve dissemination of the ratified COS to facilitate uptake in future trials and the planning of further research to identify the most appropriate measurement instruments to use to capture the COS in research practice. DISCUSSION: Harmonising outcome measurement across future clinical trials should ensure that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and health services, and allow for more meaningful results to be obtained. CORE OUTCOME SET REGISTRATION: COMET Initiative as study 118 .

Wired for sound: The effect of sound on the epileptic brain.

Sound waves are all around us resonating at audible and inaudible frequencies. Our ability to hear is crucial in providing information and enabling interaction with our environment. The human brain generates neural oscillations or brainwaves through synchronised electrical impulses. In epilepsy these brainwaves can change and form rhythmic bursts of abnormal activity outwardly appearing as seizures. When two waveforms meet, they can superimpose onto one another forming constructive, destructive or mixed interference. The effects of audible soundwaves on epileptic brainwaves has been largely explored with music. The Mozart Sonata for Two Pianos in D major, K. 448 has been examined in a number of studies where significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity exists. These studies report variable reductions in seizures and interictal epileptiform discharges. Treatment effects of Mozart Piano Sonata in C Major, K.545 and other composer interventions have been examined with some musical exposures, for example Hayden's Symphony No. 94 appearing pro-epileptic. The underlying anti-epileptic mechanism of Mozart music is currently unknown, but interesting research is moving away from dopamine reward system theories to computational analysis of specific auditory parameters. In the last decade several studies have examined inaudible low intensity focused ultrasound as a neuro-modulatory intervention in focal epilepsy. Whilst acute and chronic epilepsy rodent model studies have consistently demonstrated an anti-epileptic treatment effect this is yet to be reported within large scale human trials. Inaudible infrasound is of concern since at present there are no reported studies on the effects of exposure to infrasound on epilepsy. Understanding the impact of infrasound on epilepsy is critical in an era where sustainable energies are likely to increase exposure.

Late onset AMACR deficiency with metabolic stroke-like episodes and seizures.

Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) deficiency is a rare peroxisomal disorder causing pristanic acid accumulation. Only 16 cases have been described so far. A female in her seventh decade presented with episodes of dysphasia, headache and sensory disturbance inconsistent with migraine, epilepsy or transient ischaemic attack. An MRI demonstrated unusual changes in the pons, red nuclei, thalami and white matter. Mitochondrial disease was suspected but detailed testing was negative. After eight years of symptoms, she developed a febrile encephalopathy with hemispheric dysfunction, focal convulsive seizures and coma. Her condition stabilised after one month. Lacosamide was continued for seizure prevention. The diagnosis remained elusive until whole genome sequencing revealed AMACR deficiency. Pristanic acid levels were highly elevated and dietary modification was recommended. Genetic peroxisomal disorders can present in older age; our patient is the oldest in the AMACR deficiency literature. Novel features in our case include central apnoea, dystonia and rapid eye movement behaviour disorder.

To the emergency room and back again: Circular healthcare pathways for acute functional neurological disorders.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies of Functional Neurological Disorders (FND) are usually outpatient-based. To inform service development, we aimed to describe patient pathways through healthcare events, and factors affecting risk of emergency department (ED) reattendance, for people presenting acutely with FND. METHODS: Acute neurology/stroke teams at a UK city hospital were contacted regularly over 8 months to log FND referrals. Electronic documentation was then reviewed for hospital healthcare events over the preceding 8 years. Patient pathways through healthcare events over time were mapped, and mixed effects logistic regression was performed for risk of ED reattendance within 1 year. RESULTS: In 8 months, 212 patients presented acutely with an initial referral suggesting FND. 20% had subsequent alternative diagnoses, but 162 patients were classified from documentation review as possible (17%), probable (28%) or definite (55%) FND. In the preceding 8 years, these 162 patients had 563 ED attendances and 1693 inpatient nights with functional symptoms, but only 26% were referred for psychological therapy, only 66% had a documented diagnosis, and care pathways looped around ED. Three better practice pathway steps were each associated with lower risk of subsequent ED reattendance: documented FND diagnosis (OR = 0.32, p = 0.004), referral to clinical psychology (OR = 0.35, p = 0.04) and outpatient neurology follow-up (OR = 0.25, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: People that present acutely to a UK city hospital with FND tend to follow looping pathways through hospital healthcare events, centred around ED, with low rates of documented diagnosis and referral for psychological therapy. When better practice occurs, it is associated with lower risk of ED reattendance.

A post-approval observational study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of perampanel as an add-on therapy in adolescent, adult, and elderly patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Perampanel is a once-daily oral anti-seizure medication for focal-onset seizures, with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Study 402 (NCT02033902) collected safety information on clinically important treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) from real-world clinical practice in patients aged ≥12 years with refractory epilepsy who were receiving perampanel as an add-on therapy. METHODS: Study 402 was a multicenter, observational, 52-week cohort study conducted in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Safety data were gathered prospectively from patients at clinic visits. The primary endpoint was the incidence of clinically important TEAEs defined as dizziness; blurred vision; somnolence; aggression; balance disorders (including ataxia and falls); weight gain; suicidality; drug abuse, misuse, dependence, and withdrawal; skin photosensitivity; and unintended pregnancy while taking levonorgestrel-containing contraceptives. Off-label use of perampanel and outcomes associated with any suspected drug-drug interaction were also monitored and recorded. Secondary endpoints included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Clinical Global Impression of Change. RESULTS: Of 483 patients in the Safety Analysis Set, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 38.3 (15.1) years, 48.4% were female, mean (SD) time since diagnosis was 23 (14.8) years, 56.5% had focal impaired awareness seizures, and 48.7% had FBTCS. Overall, 243 (49.3%) patients treated with perampanel completed the study and 227 (46.0%) patients discontinued. The most common primary reason for discontinuation was adverse events (n = 130 [26.4%]). A total of 301 (62.3%) patients reported at least one TEAE, of which 45 (15.0%) patients had severe TEAEs and 256 (85.0%) patients had TEAEs judged as mild to moderate in severity. Overall, 51 (10.6%) patients had serious TEAEs, including two deaths that were judged as not related to perampanel, and 136 (28.2%) patients experienced a TEAE that led to treatment discontinuation. Clinically important TEAEs were reported by 153 (31.7%) patients, with the most common being dizziness (13.9%), balance disorders (5.6%), aggression (5.4%), and weight gain (5.4%). In general, the frequencies of clinically important TEAEs were lower in this study compared with previous interventional clinical studies, except for the incidence of suicidality (2.1% vs 1.0%) and aggression (5.4% vs 5.1%). Mean total HADS scores were similar at the end of the study compared with baseline; at the end of treatment, most (>60%) patients had no shift in HADS score category; ∼15% of patients moved to a worse category vs baseline and ∼20% of patients moved to an improved category vs baseline for both anxiety and depression. Based on investigator assessment, disease severity was improved in 185/415 (44.6%) patients. A subanalysis in elderly patients aged ≥65 years showed similar results to the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this observational study are consistent with the known safety profile of perampanel derived from previous interventional phase II and III clinical studies. No unusual or unexpected TEAEs were observed in this real-world clinical practice setting.

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy. DESIGN: Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel. SETTING: Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication. INTERVENTIONS: Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Focal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions. FUTURE WORK: SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel. CONCLUSIONS: Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The SANAD II trial was a clinical trial designed to identify the most clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for adults and children aged > 5 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. There are two main epilepsy types: focal and generalised. In focal epilepsy, seizures start at a single place in the brain (a focus), whereas in generalised epilepsy seizures start in both sides of the brain at the same time. Anti-seizure medications are the main treatment. For people with newly diagnosed epilepsy, the first anti-seizure medication should control the seizures as quickly as possible while avoiding side effects. The first-choice treatments are lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) for focal epilepsy and valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) for generalised epilepsy (however, the latter should be avoided in women who could become pregnant). A number of newer anti-seizure medications have been approved for NHS use, but it is unclear whether or not they should be used as first-line treatments. The SANAD II trial focused on the new medicines levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). We recruited 1510 people aged ≥ 5 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy: 990 with focal epilepsy and 520 with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. FINDINGS: FOCAL EPILEPSY: People starting treatment with levetiracetam or zonisamide were significantly less likely to have a 12-month remission from seizures than people starting treatment with lamotrigine, unless they were changed to another anti-seizure medication. Side effects that were thought to be caused by anti-seizure medications were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% of those starting levetiracetam and 45% of those starting zonisamide. The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that neither levetiracetam nor zonisamide is value for money for the NHS when compared with lamotrigine. The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. FINDINGS: GENERALISED AND UNCLASSIFIABLE EPILEPSY: People starting treatment with levetiracetam were significantly less likely to have a 12-month remission from seizures than people starting valproate, unless they were changed to another anti-seizure medication. Side effects that were thought to be caused by anti-seizure medications were reported by 37% of participants starting valproate and 42% of participants starting levetiracetam. The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that levetiracetam is not good value for money for the NHS when compared with valproate. The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. Importantly, our results will inform treatment decisions for women, who may choose a less effective treatment that is safer in pregnancy.

Treatments for seizures in catamenial (menstrual-related) epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Catamenial epilepsy describes worsening seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the menstrual cycle for seizures are perimenstrually (C1 pattern), at ovulation (C2 pattern), and during the luteal phase (C3 pattern). A reduction in progesterone levels premenstrually and reduced secretion during the luteal phase is implicated in catamenial C1 and C3 patterns. A reduction in progesterone has been demonstrated to reduce sensitivity to the inhibitory neurotransmitter in preclinical studies, hence increasing risk of seizures. A pre-ovulatory surge in oestrogen has been implicated in the C2 pattern of seizure exacerbation, although the exact mechanism by which this surge increases risk is uncertain. Current treatment practices include the use of pulsed hormonal (e.g. progesterone) and non-hormonal treatments (e.g. clobazam or acetazolamide) in women with regular menses, and complete cessation of menstruation using synthetic hormones (e.g. medroxyprogesterone (Depo-Provera) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (triptorelin and goserelin)) in women with irregular menses. Catamenial epilepsy and seizure exacerbation is common in women with epilepsy. Women may not receive appropriate treatment for their seizures because of uncertainty regarding which treatment works best and when in the menstrual cycle treatment should be taken, as well as the possible impact on fertility, the menstrual cycle, bone health, and cardiovascular health. This review aims to address these issues to inform clinical practice and future research. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for seizures exacerbated by the menstrual cycle in women with regular or irregular menses. We synthesised the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments in women with catamenial epilepsy of any pattern. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 20 July 2021 for the latest update: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 July 2021). CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We used no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs of blinded or open-label design that randomised participants individually (i.e. cluster-randomised trials were excluded). We included cross-over trials if each treatment period was at least 12 weeks in length and the trial had a suitable wash-out period. We included the following types of interventions: women with any pattern of catamenial epilepsy who received a hormonal or non-hormonal drug intervention in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen for a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on study design factors and participant demographics for the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were: proportion seizure-free, proportion of responders (at least 50% decrease in seizure frequency from baseline), and change in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes included: number of withdrawals, number of women experiencing adverse events of interest (seizure exacerbation, cardiac events, thromboembolic events, osteoporosis and bone health, mood disorders, sedation, menstrual cycle disorders, and fertility issues), and quality of life outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, we included eight full-text articles reporting on four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. We included two cross-over RCTs of pulsed norethisterone, and two parallel RCTs of pulsed progesterone recruiting a total of 192 women aged between 13 and 45 years with catamenial epilepsy. We found no RCTs for non-hormonal treatments of catamenial epilepsy or for women with irregular menses. Meta-analysis was not possible for the primary outcomes, therefore we undertook a narrative synthesis. For the two RCTs evaluating norethisterone versus placebo (24 participants), there were no reported treatment differences for change in seizure frequency. Outcomes for the proportion seizure-free and 50% responders were not reported. For the two RCTs evaluating progesterone versus placebo (168 participants), the studies reported conflicting results for the primary outcomes. One progesterone RCT reported no significant difference between progesterone 600 mg/day taken on day 14 to 28 and placebo with respect to 50% responders, seizure freedom rates, and change in seizure frequency for any seizure type. The other progesterone RCT reported a decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the progesterone group that was significantly higher than the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the placebo group. The results of secondary efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference between groups in the pooled progesterone RCTs in terms of treatment withdrawal for any reason (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 3.00, P = 0.18, I2 = 0%) or treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (pooled RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 16.17, P = 0.22, I2 = 0%). No treatment withdrawals were reported from the norethisterone RCTs. The RCTs reported limited information on adverse events, although one progesterone RCT reported no significant difference in the number of women experiencing adverse events (diarrhoea, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, dizziness, headache, and depression). No studies reported on quality of life. We judged the evidence for outcomes related to the included progesterone RCTs to be of low to moderate certainty due to risk of bias, and for outcomes related to the included norethisterone RCTs to be of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides very low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between norethisterone and placebo, and moderate- to low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between progesterone and placebo for catamenial epilepsy. However, as all the included studies were underpowered, important clinical effects cannot be ruled out. Our review highlights an overall deficiency in the literature base on the effectiveness of a wide range of other hormonal and non-hormonal interventions currently being used in practice, particularly for those women who do not have regular menses. Further clinical trials are needed in this area.

Acute neurological consequences of novel psychoactive substance use: a retrospective review in a large UK hospital.

BACKGROUND: Novel psychoactive substances (NPS) are a growing public health concern. We aimed to identify the acute neurological consequences of NPS. METHOD: We performed a retrospective case-note review of patients who presented to the emergency department after taking NPS. RESULTS: We identified 237 admissions from 190 patients, mostly young men. There were high rates of psychiatric comorbidity (43%), unemployment (39%), homelessness (24%) and incarceration (17%). Most reported use of synthetic cannabinoids (SC; 91%). Some took synthetic cathinones (SCath; 7%) or nitrous oxide (NOS; 2%). SC caused impaired consciousness (61%) and seizures (16%). SCath users presented with psychiatric disturbance or seizures (55%). Most patients were managed conservatively (67%) and a small proportion (14%) were referred to drug or psychology services. CONCLUSIONS: NPS users represent a vulnerable group in society. Certain clinical features may suggest the type of NPS used. Most patients require supportive management and onward referral to drug addiction services is recommended.

Antidepressants for people with epilepsy and depression.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in people with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of life. There is concern that people may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their depression because of uncertainty regarding which antidepressant or class works best, and the perceived risk of exacerbating seizures. This review aimed to address these issues, and inform clinical practice and future research. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms and the effect on seizure recurrence, in people with epilepsy and depression. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CRS Web, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2021). We searched the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry in October 2019, but were unable to update it because it was inaccessible. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), investigating children or adults with epilepsy, who were treated with an antidepressant and compared to placebo, comparative antidepressant, psychotherapy, or no treatment for depressive symptoms.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were changes in depression scores (proportion with a greater than 50% improvement, mean difference, and proportion who achieved complete remission) and change in seizure frequency (mean difference, proportion with a seizure recurrence, or episode of status epilepticus). Secondary outcomes included the number of participants who withdrew from the study and reasons for withdrawal, quality of life, cognitive functioning, and adverse events. Two review authors independently extracted data for each included study. We then cross-checked the data extraction. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs, and the ROBINS-I for NRSIs. We presented binary outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 99% CIs for specific adverse events. We presented continuous outcomes as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies in the review (four RCTs and six NRSIs), with 626 participants with epilepsy and depression, examining the effects of antidepressants. One RCT was a multi-centre study comparing an antidepressant with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). The other three RCTs were single-centre studies comparing an antidepressant with an active control, placebo, or no treatment. The NRSIs reported on outcomes mainly in participants with focal epilepsy before and after treatment for depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI); one NRSI compared SSRIs to CBT.  We rated one RCT at low risk of bias, three RCTs at unclear risk of bias, and all six NRSIs at serious risk of bias. We were unable to conduct any meta-analysis of RCT data due to heterogeneity of treatment comparisons. We judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to very low across comparisons, because single studies contributed limited outcome data, and because of risk of bias, particularly for NRSIs, which did not adjust for confounding variables. More than 50% improvement in depressive symptoms ranged from 43% to 82% in RCTs, and from 24% to 97% in NRSIs, depending on the antidepressant given. Venlafaxine improved depressive symptoms by more than 50% compared to no treatment (mean difference (MD) -7.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.52 to -3.66; 1 study, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); the results between other comparisons were inconclusive. Two studies comparing SSRIs to CBT reported inconclusive results for the proportion of participants who achieved complete remission of depressive symptoms.  Seizure frequency data did not suggest an increased risk of seizures with antidepressants compared to control treatments or baseline. Two studies measured quality of life; antidepressants did not appear to improve quality of life over control. No studies reported on cognitive functioning. Two RCTs and one NRSI reported comparative data on adverse events; antidepressants did not appear to increase the severity or number of adverse events compared to controls. The NSRIs reported higher rates of withdrawals due to adverse events than lack of efficacy. Reported adverse events for antidepressants included nausea, dizziness, sedation, headache, gastrointestinal disturbance, insomnia, and sexual dysfunction.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms associated with epilepsy is still very limited. Rates of response to antidepressants were highly variable. There is low certainty evidence from one small RCT (64 participants) that venlafaxine may improve depressive symptoms more than no treatment; this evidence is limited to treatment between 8 and 16 weeks, and does not inform longer-term effects. Moderate to low evidence suggests neither an increase nor exacerbation of seizures with SSRIs.  There are no available comparative data to inform the choice of antidepressant drug or classes of drug for efficacy or safety for treating people with epilepsy and depression. RCTs of antidepressants utilising interventions from other treatment classes besides SSRIs, in large samples of patients with epilepsy and depression, are needed to better inform treatment policy. Future studies should assess interventions across a longer treatment duration to account for delayed onset of action, sustainability of treatment responses, and to provide a better understanding of the impact on seizure control.

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.

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.

The evidence for switching dibenzazepines in people with epilepsy.

The dibenzazepines particularly carbamazepine are associated with known adverse effects (AEs) and drug to drug interactions. Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is structurally distinct from other members of the dibenzazepine family and has the advantage of once daily dosing. Observational and trial data report successful switching from older dibenzazepines to ESL. The evidence base for doing so is unclear and not standardized. This is a literature review following the PRISMA scoping guidelines identifying the evidence of switching dibenzazepines. Transition methods, ratios, tolerance to change, adverse effects and retention post-change were evaluated. Study quality was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine levels of evidence. Seven studies investigated the outcome of transition between carbamazepine and or oxcarbazepine to ESL, with specific data on the transition dose ratio and scheduling. The available data suggest that the overnight transition between oxcarbazepine and ESL in a 1:1 ratio (most common) is generally well tolerated with high retention rates. The transition showed improvement in adverse events associated with oxcarbazepine across a variety of domains. Almost 60% transitioned because of adverse events experienced no further symptoms at 12 months. There is less data on the transition from carbamazepine to ESL. The evidence available suggests an overnight transition in the ratio of 1:1.3-1.5. The retention rate following transition from carbamazepine to ESL was 69% (follow-up of 4 months) with almost half of those transitioned because of adverse events experiencing no further symptoms. There is Grade C evidence available to help guide clinicians in the transition.

Treatments for the prevention of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP).

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, published in 2016, Issue 7. Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is defined as sudden, unexpected, witnessed or unwitnessed, non-traumatic or non-drowning death of people with epilepsy, with or without evidence of a seizure, excluding documented status epilepticus and in whom postmortem examination does not reveal a structural or toxicological cause for death. SUDEP has a reported incidence of 1 to 2 per 1000 patient-years and represents the most common epilepsy-related cause of death. The presence and frequency of generalised tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS), male sex, early age of seizure onset, duration of epilepsy, and polytherapy are all predictors of risk of SUDEP. The exact pathophysiology of SUDEP is currently unknown, although GTCS-induced cardiac, respiratory, and brainstem dysfunction appears likely. Appropriately chosen antiepileptic drug treatment can render around 70% of patients free of all seizures. However, around one-third will remain drug-resistant despite polytherapy. Continuing seizures place patients at risk of SUDEP, depression, and reduced quality of life. Preventative strategies for SUDEP include reducing the occurrence of GTCS by timely referral for presurgical evaluation in people with lesional epilepsy and advice on lifestyle measures; detecting cardiorespiratory distress through clinical observation and seizure, respiratory, and heart rate monitoring devices; preventing airway obstruction through nocturnal supervision and safety pillows; reducing central hypoventilation through physical stimulation and enhancing serotonergic mechanisms of respiratory regulation using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); and reducing adenosine and endogenous opioid-induced brain and brainstem depression. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions in preventing SUDEP in people with epilepsy by synthesising evidence from randomised controlled trials of interventions and cohort and case-control non-randomised studies. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the following databases without language restrictions: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 4 February 2019); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 1 February 2019); SCOPUS (1823 to 4 February 2019); PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 to 4 January 2019); CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, 1937 to 4 February 2019); ClinicalTrials.gov (5 February 2019); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 5 February 2019). We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies and contacted lead study authors for any relevant unpublished material. We identified any grey literature studies published in the last five years by searching: Zetoc database; ISI Proceedings; International Bureau for Epilepsy (IBE) congress proceedings database; International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) congress proceedings database; abstract books of symposia and congresses, meeting abstracts, and research reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: We aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs; prospective non-randomised cohort controlled and uncontrolled studies; and case-control studies of adults and children with epilepsy receiving an intervention for the prevention of SUDEP. Types of interventions included: early versus delayed pre-surgical evaluation for lesional epilepsy; educational programmes; seizure-monitoring devices; safety pillows; nocturnal supervision; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); opiate antagonists; and adenosine antagonists. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We aimed to collect data on study design factors and participant demographics for included studies. The primary outcome of interest was the number of deaths from SUDEP. Secondary outcomes included: number of other deaths (unrelated to SUDEP); change in mean depression and anxiety scores (as defined within the study); clinically important change in quality of life, that is any change in quality of life score (average and endpoint) according to validated quality of life scales; and number of hospital attendances for seizures. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1277 records from the databases and search strategies. We found 10 further records by searching other resources (handsearching). We removed 469 duplicate records and screened 818 records (title and abstract) for inclusion in the review. We excluded 785 records based on the title and abstract and assessed 33 full-text articles. We excluded 29 studies: eight studies did not assess interventions to prevent SUDEP; eight studies were review articles, not clinical studies; five studies measured sensitivity of devices to detect GTCS but did not directly measure SUDEP; six studies assessed risk factors for SUDEP but not interventions for preventing SUDEP; and two studies did not have a control group. We included one cohort study and three case-control studies of serious to critical risk of bias. The 6-month prospective cohort study observed no significant effect of providing patients with SUDEP information on drug compliance and quality of life, anxiety and depression levels. The study was too short and with no deaths observed in either group to determine a protective effect. Two case control studies reported a protective effect for nocturnal supervision against SUDEP. However due to significant heterogeneity, the results could not be combined in meta-analysis. One study of 154 SUDEP cases and 616 controls reported an unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.34 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.53; P < 0.0001). The same study demonstrated the protective effect was independent of seizure control, suggesting that nocturnal supervision is not just a surrogate marker of seizure control. The second case-control study of 48 SUDEP cases and 220 controls reported an unadjusted OR of 0.08 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.27; P < 0.0001). The third case-control study of residential care centre patients who were already receiving physical checks more than 15 minutes apart throughout the night did not report any protective effect for additional nocturnal supervision (physical checks < 15 minutes apart; use of listening devices; dormitory setting; and use of bed sensors). However the same study did ascertain a difference between centres: the residential centre with the lowest level of supervision had the highest incidence of SUDEP. The case-control studies did not report on quality of life or depression and anxiety scores. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found limited, very low-certainty evidence that supervision at night reduces the incidence of SUDEP. Further research is required to identify the effectiveness of other current interventions - for example seizure detection devices, safety pillows, SSRIs, early surgical evaluation, educational programmes, and opiate and adenosine antagonists - in preventing SUDEP in people with epilepsy.

Lacosamide in the general population and in people with intellectual disability: Similar responses?

PURPOSE: Epilepsy prevalence is significantly higher in people with Intellectual Disability (ID) compared to people with epilepsy (PWE) from the general population. Increased psychological and behavioural problems, healthcare costs, morbidity, mortality and treatment resistance to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is associated with epilepsy in ID populations. Prescribing AEDs for PWE and ID is challenging and influenced heavily by studies conducted with the general population. Our study compares Lacosamide (LCM) response for the ID population to those from the general population; using data from an UK based epilepsy database register (EP ID/PDD AED Register). METHODS: Pooled retrospective case notes data for PWE prescribed LCM at 11 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Participants were classified as per WHO guidance into groups of moderate-profound ID, mild ID and General population. Demographics, concomitant AEDs, starting and maximum dosage, exposure length, adverse effects, dropout rates, seizure frequency were collected. Group differences were reported as odds ratios estimated from univariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 232 consented participants, 156 were from the general population and 76 had ID (24 mild, 52 moderate-profound). Twelve month withdrawal rates and reasons, efficacy, side-effects, start and maximum doses were similar between the groups. Dose titration between baseline and three months was significantly slower in the ID group (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: There were no differences for LCM outcomes between general and ID groups. Slower LCM titration in ID populations in the first 3 months was associated with higher retention and lower behavioural side effects as compared to similar European studies.