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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: Catamenial epilepsy describes a worsening of 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, and may have a significant negative impact on quality of life. Women may not be receiving 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 aimed to address these issues in order 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 controlled trials of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments in women with catamenial epilepsy of any pattern. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to 10 January 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web; includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE (Ovid: 1946 to 9 January 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We used no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of blinded or openlabel 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. Types of interventions included: 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 mean 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: We identified 62 records from the databases and search strategies. 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 mean change in seizure frequency. Outcomes for the proportion seizure-free and 50% responders were not reported. For the RCTs evaluating progesterone versus placebo (168 participants), the studies reported conflicting results on 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 that the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the progesterone group was significantly higher than the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the placebo group.Results of secondary efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference in terms of treatment withdrawal for any reason in the pooled progesterone RCTs when compared to placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 3.00, P = 0.18, I2 = 0%) or for 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 from the norethisterone RCTs were reported. 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 from the included progesterone RCTs to be of low to moderate certainty due to risk of bias and from 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 highlighted 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 patients who do not have regular menses. Further clinical trials are needed in this area.

A Novel Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Paradigm for the Preoperative Assessment of Auditory Perception in a Musician Undergoing Temporal Lobe Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Presurgical evaluation for temporal lobe epilepsy routinely assesses speech and memory lateralization and anatomic localization of the motor and visual areas but not baseline musical processing. This is paramount in a musician. Although validated tools exist to assess musical ability, there are no reported functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) paradigms to assess musical processing. We examined the utility of a novel fMRI paradigm in an 18-year-old left-handed pianist who underwent surgery for a left temporal low-grade ganglioglioma. METHODS: Preoperative evaluation consisted of neuropsychological evaluation, T1-weighted and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, and fMRI. Auditory blood oxygen level-dependent fMRI was performed using a dedicated auditory scanning sequence. Three separate auditory investigations were conducted: listening to, humming, and thinking about a musical piece. RESULTS: All auditory fMRI paradigms activated the primary auditory cortex with varying degrees of auditory lateralization. Thinking about the piece additionally activated the primary visual cortices (bilaterally) and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Humming demonstrated left-sided predominance of auditory cortex activation with activity observed in close proximity to the tumor. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated an fMRI paradigm for evaluating musical processing that could form part of preoperative assessment for patients undergoing temporal lobe surgery for epilepsy.

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

BACKGROUND: 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 refractory 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); 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: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 11, 2015) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 onwards); SCOPUS (1823 onwards); PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 onwards); CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, 1937 onwards); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We used no language restrictions. The date of the last search was 12 November 2015. 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 duplicate studies by screening reports according to title, authors' names, location, and medical institute, omitting any duplicated studies. 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 582 records from the databases and search strategies. We found 10 further records by searching other resources (handsearching). We removed 211 duplicate records and screened 381 records (title and abstract) for inclusion in the review. We excluded 364 records based on the title and abstract and assessed 17 full-text articles. We excluded 15 studies: eight studies did not assess interventions to prevent SUDEP; five studies measured sensitivity of devices to detect GTCS but did not directly measure SUDEP; and two studies assessed risk factors for SUDEP but not interventions for preventing SUDEP. One listed study is awaiting classification.We included one case-control study at serious risk of bias within a qualitative analysis in this review. This study of 154 cases of SUDEP and 616 controls ascertained a protective effect for the presence of nocturnal supervision (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.53) and when a supervising person shared the same bedroom or when special precautions, for example a listening device, were used (unadjusted OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.82). This effect was independent of seizure control. Non-SUDEP deaths; changes to anxiety, depression, and quality of life; and number of hospital attendances were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-quality evidence of a preventative effect for nocturnal supervision against 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.

Antidepressants for people with epilepsy and depression.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in patients with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of life. There is concern that patients 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 aims to address these issues and inform clinical practice and future research. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to review and synthesise evidence from randomised controlled trials of antidepressants and prospective non-randomised studies of antidepressants used for treating depression in patients with epilepsy. The primary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms and the effect on seizure recurrence. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a search of the following databases: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (Ovid), SCOPUS, PsycINFO, www.clinicaltrials.gov and conference proceedings, including studies published up to 31 May 2014. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised cohort controlled and uncontrolled studies investigating children or adults with epilepsy treated with an antidepressant for depressive symptoms. The intervention group consisted of patients receiving an antidepressant drug in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen. The control group(s) consisted of patients receiving a placebo, comparative antidepressant, psychotherapy or no treatment in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on trial design factors, patient demographics and outcomes for each study. The primary outcomes were changes in depression scores (proportion with a greater than 50% improvement or mean difference) and change in seizure frequency (mean difference or proportion with a seizure recurrence or episode of status epilepticus, or both). Secondary outcomes included the number of patients withdrawing from the study and reasons for withdrawal, as well as any adverse events. Two authors undertook data extraction separately for each included study. We then cross-checked the data extraction. We assessed risk of bias using a version of the extended Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in both randomised and non-randomised studies. We presented binary outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We presented continuous outcomes as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. If possible we intended to use meta-regression techniques to investigate possible sources of heterogeneity however this was not possible due to lack of data. MAIN RESULTS: We included in the review eight studies (three RCTs and five prospective cohort studies) including 471 patients with epilepsy treated with an antidepressant. The RCTs were all single-centre studies comparing an antidepressant versus active control, placebo or no treatment. The five non-randomised prospective cohort studies reported on outcomes mainly in patients with partial epilepsy treated for depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). We rated all the RCTs and one prospective cohort study as having unclear risk of bias. We rated the four other prospective cohort studies as having high risk of bias. We were unable to perform any meta-analysis for the proportion with a greater than 50% improvement in depression scores because the studies reported on different treatment comparisons. The results are presented descriptively and show a varied responder rate of between 24% and 97%, depending on the antidepressant given. For the mean difference in depression score we were able to perform a limited meta-analysis of two prospective cohort studies of citalopram, including a total of 88 patients. This gave low quality evidence for the effect estimate of 1.17 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.38) in depression scores. Seizure frequency data were not reported in any RCTs and we were unable to perform any meta-analysis for prospective cohort studies due to the different treatment comparisons. The results are presented descriptively and show that treatment in three studies with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor did not significantly increase seizure frequency. Patients given an antidepressant were more likely to withdraw due to adverse events than inefficacy. Reported adverse events for SSRIs included nausea, dizziness, sedation, gastrointestinal disturbance and sexual dysfunction. Across three comparisons we rated the evidence as moderate quality due to the small sizes of the contributing studies and only one study each contributing to the comparisons. We rated the evidence for the final comparison as low quality as there was concern over the study methods in the two contributing studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms associated with epilepsy is very limited. Only one small RCT demonstrated a statistically significant effect of venlafaxine on depressive symptoms. We have no high quality evidence to inform the choice of antidepressant drug or class of drug in treating depression in people with epilepsy. This review provides low quality evidence of safety in terms of seizure exacerbation with SSRIs, but there are no available comparative data on antidepressant classes and safety in relation to seizures. There are currently no comparative data on antidepressants and psychotherapy in treating depression in epilepsy, although psychotherapy could be considered in patients unwilling to take antidepressants or where there are unacceptable side effects. Further comparative clinical trials of antidepressants and psychotherapy in large cohorts of patients with epilepsy and depression are required to better inform treatment policy in the future.

Vigabatrin for refractory partial epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition which affects between 0.5% and 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 partial epilepsy. Vigabatrin is an antiepileptic drug licensed for use in the treatment of refractory epilepsy. No major side effects associated with the use of vigabatrin were detected by initial randomised controlled trials of the drug. However, longer-term observational studies have subsequently identified that its use is associated with asymptomatic visual field constriction. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to synthesise evidence from short-term, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of vigabatrin. We summarised the effects of vigabatrin on seizures and short-term side effects when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. A review of longer-term observational studies and estimates of proportions of patients developing visual field constrictions is currently being undertaken and results will be cited in this review in due course. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (12 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1946 to October week 1, 2012) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted the manufacturers of vigabatrin (Hoechst Marion Roussel). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully published trials of vigabatrin in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat (ITT). Outcomes evaluated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal and side effects observable in the short term. Results are presented on the risk ratio (RR) scale with 95% or 99% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Eleven suitable trials that tested vigabatrin doses between 1000 mg and 6000 mg were identified and included in the analysis. There were 982 observations on 747 patients in the primary ITT analysis of treatment efficacy. Patients treated with vigabatrin were significantly more likely to obtain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared with those treated with placebo (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.57). Those treated with vigabatrin were also significantly more likely to have treatment withdrawn (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.05 to 5.88), and were more likely to experience a number of side effects, significantly so for fatigue or drowsiness. There was some evidence of small study effect bias, with smaller studies tending to report greater estimates of RR than larger studies. It is possible, therefore, that the actual RR of obtaining 50% reduction in seizure frequency is less than that obtained by a meta-analysis of fully published studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review of randomised controlled trials showed that vigabatrin can reduce seizure frequency in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Short-term follow-up of patients showed that some side effects were associated with its use. Further analysis of longer-term observational studies is required to evaluate how likely patients are to develop visual field defects and whether such side effects are associated with dose and duration of drug use.

Otogenic pneumocephalus as a complication of multiple myeloma.

We report a case of otogenic pneumocephalus in an 80-year-old woman with multiple myeloma. The pneumocephalus was associated with Haemophilus influenzae otitis media and reactive meningitis in the absence of an intracranial brain abscess. Myeloma causes thinning of bone trabeculae and destructive lytic bone lesions. This can predispose to a risk of pathologic fractures and, in patients with skull vault involvement, to the rare complication of pneumocephalus. Therefore, pneumocephalus should be considered in the differential diagnosis of acute headache in patients with multiple myeloma, especially those with skull vault involvement. Prompt computed tomography and liaison between the otolaryngology and neurology teams may assist in making an early diagnosis and preventing life-threatening intracranial complications.

Prevalence of visual field loss following exposure to vigabatrin therapy: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Vigabatrin is an efficacious antiepileptic drug licensed as add-on therapy in refractory epilepsy and used in infantile spasms. Eight years after licensing, there emerged a strong and possibly causative association with bilateral visual field loss. We report a systematic review ascertaining the magnitude of risk of vigabatrin associated visual field loss (VAVFL) and any clinical predictors of risk. METHODS: Electronic searches, including MEDLINE (1966-2009), EMBASE (1974-2009), and CINAHL (1982-2009), were conducted. Reports, published in full, of observational studies investigating the prevalence of visual field loss in patients with partial epilepsy treated with vigabatrin were included. Outcomes were the proportion with visual field loss, and the relative risk of VAVFL compared to similar nonexposed patients with epilepsy. KEY FINDINGS: Thirty-two studies were identified, which included 1,678 patients exposed to vigabatrin and 406 controls. Of the 1,678 exposed patients, 738 (44%) had visual field loss compared to just 30 (7%) among the 406 controls. The random-effects estimate for the proportion of adults with visual field loss was 52% [95% confidence interval (CI) 46-59]. The estimate for children was lower at 34% (95% CI 25-42). The relative risk for field loss in vigabatrin-exposed patients was 4.0 (95% CI 2.9-5.5). Larger mean cumulative dose of vigabatrin and increasing age were associated with a higher proportion of patients with visual field loss. SIGNIFICANCE: Vigabatrin should be reserved for patients with epilepsy for whom there is no other alternative or for patients who have determined the benefit of ongoing treatment to outweigh the risk of VAVFL.

Vigabatrin for refractory partial epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition which affects between 0.5% and 1% of the population. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy do not respond to treatment with currently available drugs, and the majority of these people have partial epilepsy. Vigabatrin is an antiepileptic drug licensed for use in the treatment of refractory epilepsy. No major side effects associated with the use of vigabatrin were detected by initial randomised controlled trials of the drug. However, longer term observational studies have subsequently identified that its use is associated with asymptomatic visual field constriction. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to synthesise evidence from short-term, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of vigabatrin. We summarise the effects of vigabatrin on seizures and short-term side effects when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. A review of longer term observational studies and estimates of proportions of patients developing visual field constrictions is currently being undertaken and results will be cited here in due course. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2008), MEDLINE (1950-March 2008), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted the manufacturers of vigabatrin (Hoechst Marion Roussel). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully published trials of vigabatrin, in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat (ITT). Outcomes evaluated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal and side effects observable in the short term. Results are presented on the relative risk (RR) scale with 95 or 99% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Eleven suitable trials, testing doses between 1000 mg and 6000 mg, were identified and included in the analysis. There were 982 observations on 747 patients in the primary ITT analysis of treatment efficacy. Patients treated with vigabatrin were significantly more likely to obtain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared with those treated with placebo (RR 2.58 (95% CI 1.87 to 3.57)). Those treated with vigabatrin were also significantly more likely to have treatment withdrawn (RR 2.49 (95% CI 1.05 to 5.88)), and more likely to experience a number of side effects, significantly so for fatigue or drowsiness. There was some evidence of small study effect bias, with smaller studies tending to report greater estimates of RR than larger studies. It is possible that the actual relative risk of obtaining 50% reduction in seizure frequency may therefore be less than that obtained by a meta-analysis of fully published studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review of randomised controlled trials shows that vigabatrin can reduce seizure frequency in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Short-term follow up of patients shows some side effects are associated with its use. Further analysis of longer term observational studies is required to evaluate how likely patients are to develop visual field defects, and whether such side effects are associated with dose and duration of drug use.

Open label extension studies and patient selection biases.

RATIONALE: Long-term observational studies are essential in assessing the effect of interventions for chronic diseases on long-term safety and tolerability, as well as informing on efficacy in a non-clinical trial setting. Concerns over the scientific validity of open label extension studies to randomized controlled trials have recently been raised. Patients experiencing adverse events will be withdrawn before the follow-on period of the study, and those experiencing milder side-effects will be less likely to opt to continue into the open label extension. METHODS: The usual method of analysis of the open label extension study, which ignores any patients not continuing into the follow-on period of the study, is outlined. It is shown that ignoring patients who exit the trial is equivalent to assuming the outcome data are missing completely at random. Where this assumption is not met, treatment effect estimates will be biased. An alternative method of analysis is proposed, which does not rely on the often unjustifiable assumption of outcomes being missing completely at random. RESULTS: In an example open label extension study, with reported responder rate 43%, we show how an analysis allowing for patient selection biases produces a responder rate of just 28%. CONCLUSIONS: The method of analysis proposed here, minimizes the effect of patient selection biases. Future reporting ideals for open label extension studies are recommended to minimize future biases. For studies which have not reported results in detail we suggest a sensitivity based on the worst case scenario, as a minimum treatment effect estimator.