Coffee and cigarette smoking interactions with lamotrigine.

The objective of this analysis was to determine possible interactions between lamotrigine (LTG) and coffee or cigarette use. As part of the statistical analysis of factors influencing LTG pharmacokinetics (PK) in the Equigen chronic dose study, we collected prospective data from enrolled patients on their use of coffee and cigarettes. Subjects were part of a crossover replication study of generic LTG products with rigorous blood sampling and were instructed to not change their typical consumption of these products for the duration of the study. A total of 35 subjects were enrolled, with 33 subjects having sufficient data for analysis. Higher consumption of coffee was associated with a significantly lower area under the curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax) of lamotrigine (LTG). Higher cigarette use did not result in a significant change in AUC or Cmax. Coffee, but not cigarette use, either induces LTG metabolism or inhibits LTG absorption.

Suboptimal Dosing of Benzodiazepines and Levetiracetam in a Cohort of Status Epilepticus Patients and Outcomes Associated with Inadequate Dosing.

Background: Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurologic emergency that can result in serious morbidity and mortality. Recent studies have suggested underdosing of both benzodiazepines (BZDs) and antiseizure medications (ASM) which may result in poorer outcomes. Objectives: This study aims to determine the dose of BZDs and levetiracetam given in our emergency department for episodes of SE and determine the outcomes associated with this dosing. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with SE admitted to our hospital from 2017 to 2020. We collected demographic data, type of SE, dose of BZD and levetiracetam, and outcomes which included mortality and a calculated Glasgow outcome scale (GOS). We compared outcomes of patients with SE who received adequate dosing (according to practice guidelines) to those who did not. Results: 111 adult patients were included of whom 91% were seen initially in our emergency department. 75% had convulsive SE on presentation. Approximately 55% and 68% of patients did not receive an appropriate dose of BZD or levetiracetam, respectively. Inadequate dosing of BZD was associated with worse clinical outcomes based on GOS (43.6% favorable outcome vs 62.5% with adequate dosing P = .046 (95% CI, 1.01-4.60)) and inadequate dosing of both drugs was also associated with a worse GOS outcome (HR, 2.91 (95% CI, 1.05-9.67, P = .02). No difference was found in length of stay or mortality alone. Conclusion: Our study found inadequate dosing of drugs to treat SE in adults was common in our institution and was associated with worse outcomes.

Ezogabine: an evaluation of its efficacy and safety as adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in adults.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamic properties, and clinical application of ezogabine (retigabine, INN), an antiepileptic drug approved in 2011. DATA SOURCES: Published data from in vitro, animal, and clinical studies were obtained from PubMed and CINAHL searches, from January 1980 to March 31, 2012. Other relevant data regarding the safety and efficacy of ezogabine were obtained from the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medication Agency Web sites. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Selected articles were prospective in vitro, animal, and controlled clinical studies of ezogabine. Non-English-language articles were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: In vitro and animal studies show that ezogabine activates voltagegated potassium channels, leading to reduction of seizure frequency by inhibiting hyperexcitability activity in the central nervous system. Additionally, ezogabine enhances γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) activity and de novo GABA synthesis. Eight clinical studies of ezogabine have been published, 5 being Phase 1 clinical trials in healthy subjects and 3 being Phase 3 clinical trials in patients with pharmaco-resistant partial-onset seizures. Phase 3 clinical trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of ezogabine in patients with partial-onset seizures. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials have shown that ezogabine is efficacious as an adjunctive agent in patients with pharmacoresistant partial seizures. Careful monitoring of drug interactions and adverse reactions is necessary. While ezogabine is efficacious for partial seizures, its precise role in the management of patients with epilepsy is yet to be determined.

Recommendations for treatment strategies in people with epilepsy during times of shortage of antiseizure medications

In times of severe antiseizure medication (ASM) shortage due to emergency situations (e.g., disasters, conflicts, sudden disruption to international supply chains), management of people with epilepsy with available ASMs can be difficult. A group of experts was brought together by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) to formulate recommendations for such circumstances. Every effort was made to base these recommendations on direct published literature or extrapolations from basic information available about ASMs. Actual published literature in this area is, however, limited, and at times, assumptions were made by the experts to generate these recommendations. During times of shortage of ASMs, switching between different ASMs (e.g., oxcarbazepine and carbamazepine) can occasionally be considered as a mitigation procedure. However, for many ASMs, the option of an overnight switch to another drug does not exist. Switching from brand to generic or between generic products has often been shown to be safe, if required. Finally, when supplies of benzodiazepines or equipment to administer medications intravenously are not available, rectal administration of some ASMs may be an emergency alternative route for treating serial seizures and status epilepticus. Decision-making with regard to treatment and possible options should be driven by what is best for the patient.

Barriers to generic antiseizure medication use: Results of a global survey by the International League Against Epilepsy Generic Substitution Task Force.

The objective of this study was to identify and quantify barriers to generic substitution of antiseizure medications (ASM). A questionnaire on generic ASM substitution was developed by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Generic Substitution. Questions addressed understanding of bioequivalence, standards for generic products, experiences with substitution, and demographic data. The survey was web-based and distributed to ILAE chapters, their membership, and professional colleagues of task force members. Comparisons in responses were between ILAE regions and country income classification. A total of 800 individuals responded, with 44.2% being from the Asia-Oceania ILAE Region and 38.6% from European Region. The majority of respondents had little or no education in generic substitution or bioequivalence. Many respondents indicated lack of understanding aspects of generic substitution. Common barriers to generic substitution included limited access, poor or inconsistent quality, too expensive, or lack of regulatory control. Increase in seizures was the most common reported adverse outcome of substitution. Of medications on the World Health Organization Essential Medication list, problems with generic products were most frequent with carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and valproic acid. Several barriers with generic substitution of ASM revolved around mistrust of regulatory control and quality of generic ASM. Lack of education on generic substitution is also a concern. Generic ASM products may be the only option in some parts of the world and efforts should address these issues. Efforts to address these barriers should improve access to medications in all parts of the world.

Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of prospective and retrospective studies.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), evaluate the efficacy and safety of generic AED substitution, and perform pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) scheme to classify evidence. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature searches from January 1, 1980, to October 15, 2010, were performed using the search terms anticonvulsant, antiepileptic drug, carbamazepine, divalproex, ethosuximide, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, pheno-barbital, phenytoin, primidone, topiramate, valproate, valproic acid, and zonisamide; bioavailability, bioequivalence, bioequivalency, bioequivalent, and substitution; and generic. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Retrospective and prospective controlled studies of generic substitution of AEDs were included in the review. Non-English-language articles and uncontrolled clinical studies were excluded. Published articles were categorized using the AAN criteria for systematic reviews. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 156 articles. Of these, 20 met our inclusion criteria; 7 were retrospective studies, 6 were prospective studies in patients with epilepsy, and 7 were prospective studies in healthy subjects. All articles were rated Class I to Class III, using AAN criteria. The retrospective studies were categorized as Class III and showed a significant relationship between generic substitution and increased use of health care resources because of seizures or AED toxicity. Prospective studies were categorized as Class I, II, and III. Prospective studies in patients showed no differences between brand and generic drugs in PK parameters of bioequivalence. Three prospective studies in healthy subjects reported significant differences in maximum drug concentrations. Comparison of brand and generic drugs revealed no significant difference in seizure frequency; however, some prospective studies showed significant differences in PK parameters, primarily those not used for bioequivalence determinations. CONCLUSIONS: There is inconsistency between retrospective and prospective studies of generic AED substitution. The highest levels of evidence indicate that there should not be a problem with generic substitution, although some patients are more prone to problems with the generic products. Some evidence suggests that switches between multiple generic AED products in certain individuals may be problematic.

Effect of limited transportation on medication adherence in patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether limited transportation affects medication adherence in patients with epilepsy. DESIGN: Descriptive, nonexperimental, cross-sectional study. SETTING: United States and worldwide, February to April 2007. PATIENTS: 143 patients with epilepsy. INTERVENTION: A 22-item survey was developed to ask patients with epilepsy or their caregivers about the impact of limited transportation on adherence with medications. The survey was placed on Zoomerang.com. An invitation to participate in the survey was sent via e-mail to members of the Epilepsy.com website, and an invitation with a link to the survey was placed on Epilepsy.com. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether patients with epilepsy have difficulty picking up prescriptions on time because of transportation problems and whether they felt they would miss fewer doses if transportation was not an issue. RESULTS: 143 individuals with epilepsy completed part or all of the survey. Of patients who were unable to drive, 45% reported that fewer doses would be missed if transportation was not a problem. Patients who were unable to drive had an odds ratio of 4.2 (P < 0.0001) of being unable to get medications on time. No differences were observed in the number of patients missing prescription medications associated with availability of insurance, use of mail service pharmacies, or population size of patients' area of residence. Ability to drive and distance to the pharmacy were the only factors associated with nonadherence. CONCLUSION: Limited transportation may be a factor in poor medication adherence in patients with epilepsy.

Treatment of Refractory Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Comprehensive Review by the American Epilepsy Society Treatments Committee.

PURPOSE: Established tonic-clonic status epilepticus (SE) does not stop in one-third of patients when treated with an intravenous (IV) benzodiazepine bolus followed by a loading dose of a second antiseizure medication (ASM). These patients have refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and a high risk of morbidity and death. For patients with convulsive refractory status epilepticus (CRSE), we sought to determine the strength of evidence for 8 parenteral ASMs used as third-line treatment in stopping clinical CRSE. METHODS: A structured literature search (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was performed to identify original studies on the treatment of CRSE in children and adults using IV brivaracetam, ketamine, lacosamide, levetiracetam (LEV), midazolam (MDZ), pentobarbital (PTB; and thiopental), propofol (PRO), and valproic acid (VPA). Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), magnesium sulfate, and pyridoxine were added to determine the effectiveness in treating hard-to-control seizures in special circumstances. Studies were evaluated by predefined criteria and were classified by strength of evidence in stopping clinical CRSE (either as the last ASM added or compared to another ASM) according to the 2017 American Academy of Neurology process. RESULTS: No studies exist on the use of ACTH, corticosteroids, or IVIg for the treatment of CRSE. Small series and case reports exist on the use of these agents in the treatment of RSE of suspected immune etiology, severe epileptic encephalopathies, and rare epilepsy syndromes. For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of brivaracetam (level U; 4 class IV studies). For children and adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of ketamine (level U; 25 class IV studies). For children and adults with CRSE, it is possible that lacosamide is effective at stopping RSE (level C; 2 class III, 14 class IV studies). For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists that LEV and VPA are equally effective (level U, 1 class III study). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support the effectiveness of LEV (level U; 2 class IV studies). Magnesium sulfate may be effective in the treatment of eclampsia, but there are only case reports of its use for CRSE. For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support either that MDZ and diazepam infusions are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study) or that MDZ infusion and PTB are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support either that MDZ infusion and PRO are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study) or that low-dose and high-dose MDZ infusions are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For children and adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that MDZ is effective as the last drug added (level U; 29 class IV studies). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PTB and PRO are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For adults and children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PTB is effective as the last ASM added (level U; 42 class IV studies). For CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PRO is effective as the last ASM used (level U; 26 class IV studies). No pediatric-only studies exist on the use of PRO for CRSE, and many guidelines do not recommend its use in children aged <16 years. Pyridoxine-dependent and pyridoxine-responsive epilepsies should be considered in children presenting between birth and age 3 years with refractory seizures and no imaging lesion or other acquired cause of seizures. For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists that VPA and diazepam infusion are equally effective (level U, 1 class III study). No class I to III studies have been reported in adults treated with VPA for CRSE. In comparison, for children and adults with established convulsive SE (ie, not RSE), after an initial benzodiazepine, it is likely that loading doses of LEV 60 mg/kg, VPA 40 mg/kg, and fosphenytoin 20 mg PE/kg are equally effective at stopping SE (level B, 1 class I study). CONCLUSIONS: Mostly insufficient evidence exists on the efficacy of stopping clinical CRSE using brivaracetam, lacosamide, LEV, valproate, ketamine, MDZ, PTB, and PRO either as the last ASM or compared to others of these drugs. Adrenocorticotropic hormone, IVIg, corticosteroids, magnesium sulfate, and pyridoxine have been used in special situations but have not been studied for CRSE. For the treatment of established convulsive SE (ie, not RSE), LEV, VPA, and fosphenytoin are likely equally effective, but whether this is also true for CRSE is unknown. Triple-masked, randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the effectiveness of parenteral anesthetizing and nonanesthetizing ASMs in the treatment of CRSE.

Pharmacy and generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs: missing in action?

Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs is an issue that is gathering a lot of attention in the neurology community but is not receiving much attention within pharmacy. Several proposals have been drafted that restrict a pharmacist's decision-making in generic substitution. These proposals highlight concerns about the pharmacy community related to generic substitution. Careful consideration needs to be given to these issues by pharmacists and pharmacy professional organizations. Unless pharmacy as a profession takes strong positions in support of a pharmacist's ability to make decisions about pharmacotherapy and addresses many of the pharmacy-related problems of generic substitution, policies that negatively impact pharmacy will be established.

Bioequivalence Between Generic and Branded Lamotrigine in People With Epilepsy: The EQUIGEN Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Switching between generic antiepileptic drugs is a highly debated issue that affects both clinical care and overall health care costs. Objective: To evaluate the single-dose pharmacokinetic bioequivalence of 3 (1 branded and 2 generic drugs) on-market, immediate-release lamotrigine drug products. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Equivalence Among Antiepileptic Drug Generic and Brand Products in People With Epilepsy (EQUIGEN) single-dose study is a crossover, prospective, sequence-randomized, replicate pharmacokinetic study conducted at 5 US academic epilepsy centers. Fifty adults (≥18 years) with epilepsy who were taking concomitant antiepileptic drugs and not currently receiving lamotrigine were enrolled between July 18, 2013, and January 19, 2015. Every participant was randomly assigned to 1 of 3 equivalent sequences, each comprising 6 study periods, during which they had blood draws before and after medication administration. Forty-nine participants were included in intention-to-treat analyses. Interventions: Participants received a single 25-mg dose of immediate-release lamotrigine at the start of each period, with the branded and the 2 most disparate generic products each studied twice. Lamotrigine was selected as the antiepileptic drug of interest because of its wide use, publications indicating problems with generic switches, and complaints to the US Food and Drug Administration regarding generic products. Both participants and study personnel were blinded to the specific generic products selected. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was bioequivalence between products. Maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) were compared, and average bioequivalence (ABE) was established if the 90% CIs of the ratios of the 2 products were within equivalence limits (80%-125%). Results: Of the 50 randomized participants, 49 (98%) received all 3 lamotrigine products and completed at least 3 pharmacokinetic assessments and 46 (92%) completed all 6 pharmacokinetic assessments. Among the 49 participants, 28 (57%) were men and 21 (43%) were women, 42 (86%) self-identified as white, and 46 (16) years was the mean (SD) age. The 3 drug products were considered bioequivalent because the 90% CIs were within equivalence limits (lowest and highest CI limits for Cmax, 92.6% and 110.4%; for AUC0-96, 96.9% and 101.9%). Replicate testing demonstrated no significant differences in within-subject variability across the 3 products (likelihood ratios, χ22 for log-transformed variables: AUC0-96, 2.58; Cmax, 0.64; and AUC0-∞, 4.05; P ≥ .13) and that the 3 products were also bioequivalent according to scaled ABE and individual bioequivalence criteria with no subject × formulation interaction (Cmax, 0.00; AUC0-96, 0.54; and AUC0-∞, 0.36; P ≥ .76). Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides evidence that the disparate lamotrigine products studied are bioequivalent when tested in people with epilepsy taking concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01733394.

Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management.

Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) is a common epilepsy syndrome that begins most frequently in the early teenage years. It is officially classified as a type of idiopathic generalized epilepsy and is often under-recognized or misdiagnosed. This syndrome has a strong genetic component with multiple gene mutations being associated with the clinical presentation. Based upon genetic associations, there may be multiple pathophysiologic mechanisms for the disorder; the pathophysiology has not been clearly defined. A diagnosis of JME is made using the clinical history and EEG findings. Valproic acid is the primary antiepileptic drug (AED) used for JME, but some newer AEDs may be effective alternatives. Selection of an appropriate AED is essential to the proper management of JME, because of the possibility of exacerbation of seizures by some AEDs and the adverse effect profiles of effective drugs. It is important for clinicians to understand JME to correctly diagnose and manage patients with this syndrome.

Generic-to-generic lamotrigine switches in people with epilepsy: the randomised controlled EQUIGEN trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians share concerns that generic drug substitution might lead to loss of efficacy or emergence of adverse events. In this trial, we assessed US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bioequivalence standards by studying the effects of switching between two disparate generic immediate-release lamotrigine products in patients with epilepsy. METHODS: The Equivalence among Generic Antiepileptic Drugs (EQUIGEN) chronic-dose study was a randomised, double-blind, crossover study that enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with epilepsy from six epilepsy centres at academic institutions across the USA who were receiving immediate-release lamotrigine dosed at 100 mg, 200 mg, 300 mg, or 400 mg twice daily. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to one of two treatment sequences (sequence 1 or sequence 2), comprising four study periods of 14 days each. During each 14-day treatment period, patients received balanced doses of an oral generic lamotrigine product every 12 h (200-800 mg total, identical to lamotrigine dose prior to study enrolment); after each 14-day period, patients were crossed over to receive the other generic product. Computer-based randomisation was done using random permuted blocks of size two or four for each site to prevent sequence predictability. Both patients and study personnel were masked to the generic products selected, their predicted exposure (ie, "high" vs "low"), and their group allocation. The primary outcome of this trial was bioequivalence between the generic products, which was assessed at the end of the study through a comparison of maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for each product in the analysis population (all patients who completed all four treatment periods). Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CIs of the ratios of these two parameters for the two products were within equivalence limits (80-125%) in the analysis population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov\, number NCT01713777. FINDINGS: Between April 25, 2013, and Aug 12, 2014, 35 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment sequence 1 (n=15) or treatment sequence 2 (n=20). 33 patients completed all four treatment periods and were included in the primary outcome analysis. The 90% CIs of the ratios of both Cmax and AUC were within equivalence limits (AUC 90% CI 98-103, Cmax 90% CI 99-105), showing that lamotrigine exposures were equivalent between the generic products. No significant changes in seizure frequency or adverse events were recorded. No deaths, study-related serious adverse events, or changes in clinical laboratory values or vital signs occurred during this study. INTERPRETATION: Disparate generic lamotrigine products in patients with epilepsy showed bioequivalence with no detectable difference in clinical effects, confirming that US Food and Drug Administration bioequivalence standards are appropriate. FUNDING: American Epilepsy Society, Epilepsy Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration.

Cannabidiol: promise and pitfalls.

Over the past few years, increasing public and political pressure has supported legalization of medical marijuana. One of the main thrusts in this effort has related to the treatment of refractory epilepsy-especially in children with Dravet syndrome-using cannabidiol (CBD). Despite initiatives in numerous states to at least legalize possession of CBD oil for treating epilepsy, little published evidence is available to prove or disprove the efficacy and safety of CBD in patients with epilepsy. This review highlights some of the basic science theory behind the use of CBD, summarizes published data on clinical use of CBD for epilepsy, and highlights issues related to the use of currently available CBD products. Cannabidiol is the major nonpsychoactive component of Cannabis sativa. Over the centuries, a number of medicinal preparations derived from C. sativa have been employed for a variety of disorders, including gout, rheumatism, malaria, pain, and fever. These preparations were widely employed as analgesics by Western medical practitioners in the 19(th) century (1). More recently, there is clinical evidence suggesting efficacy in HIV-associated neuropathic pain, as well as spasms associated with multiple sclerosis (1).

Be sure to read the fine print: the agency for healthcare research and quality comparative effectiveness report on antiepileptic drugs.

For many questions related to the pharmacotherapy of epilepsy, there are few or no published data. This lack of data presents dilemmas to practitioners who must make informed, rational decisions about therapy on a daily basis and to policymakers dealing with drug formulary management and reimbursement. Reliance on randomized, clinical trial data is inefficient because of the extensive time and expense involved in conducting a study and the inability to answer every question encountered in practice. In addition, results from randomized, clinical studies are not fully applicable in the clinical setting because of short trial duration and the frequent use of surrogate controls that are rarely seen in routine practice.