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.

Efficacy and tolerability of Brivaracetam in people with intellectual disability compared to those without intellectual disability.

INTRODUCTION: In England, nearly a quarter of people with intellectual disability (PwID) have epilepsy. Though 70 % of PwID have pharmaco-resistant seizures only 10 % are prescribed anti-seizure medication (ASMs) licenced for pharmaco-resistance. Brivaracetam (BRV) licenced in 2016 has had nine post-marketing studies involving PwID. These studies are limited either by lack of controls or not looking at outcomes based on differing levels of ID severity. This study looks at evidence comparing effectiveness and side-effects in PwID to those without ID prescribed Brivaracetam (BRV). METHODS: Pooled case note data for patients prescribed BRV (2016-2022) at 12 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Demographics, starting and maximum dose, side-effects, dropouts and seizure frequency between ID (mild vs. moderate-profound (M/P)) and general population for a 12-month period were compared. Descriptive analysis, Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact and logistic regression methods were employed. RESULTS: 37 PwID (mild 17 M/P 20) were compared to 102 without ID. Mean start and maximum dose was lower for PwID than non-ID. Mean maximum dose reduced slightly with ID severity. No difference was found between ID and non-ID or between ID groups (Mild vs M/P) in BRV's efficacy i.e. >50 % seizure reduction or tolerability. Mental and behavioural side-effects were more prevalent for PwID (27.0 % ID, 17.6 % no ID) but not significantly higher (P = 0.441) or associated with ID severity (p = 0.255). CONCLUSION: This is the first study on BRV, which compares ID cohorts with differing severity and non-ID. Efficacy, tolerability and side-effects reported are similar across differing ID severity to those with no ID.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Adjunctive brivaracetam in focal and generalized epilepsies: A single-center open-label prospective study in patients with psychiatric comorbidities and intellectual disability.

Clinical studies suggest that the antiepileptic drug (AED) brivaracetam (BRV) is associated with fewer behavioral and psychiatric adverse events (AEs) compared with levetiracetam (LEV) in treating epilepsy. There are, however, few comparative studies of treatment-emergent AEs between patients on BRV with preexisting psychiatric or behavioral comorbidities to those without. Our study compared longer-term tolerability over a 26-month period between these patient groups and assessed the overall efficacy of BRV as add-on therapy. Patients with intellectual disabilities in whom the prevalence of epilepsy is higher, are often excluded from randomized controlled trials, and our study further assessed comparative effectiveness between this patient group and those with normal range intellect. We collected prospective data on 134 patients prescribed add-on BRV for epilepsy at a tertiary UK center over a 26-month period. All patients had previously received LEV. Sixty-three patients were on LEV at the start of the data collection period. Levetiracetam was withdrawn and switched to BRV in 39 patients because of inefficacy and 24 patients because of behavioral or psychiatric side effects. Seventy-three patients (54%) had a preexisting psychiatric or behavioral disorder compared with 64 patients (46%) without. The retention rate at last follow-up [mean: 11 months (0.5-26 months)] was 60% in the psychiatric/behavioral disorders group versus 67% in those without (p = 0.68). Forty-one patients had diagnosed intellectual disabilities. The retention rate was 66% in this group versus 62% in patients without intellectual disabilities (p = 0.36). The commonest treatment-emergent AEs were somnolence (26%), aggression (23%), and depression (9%). There were similar frequencies reported for these specific events across the groups. The proportion with a 50% responder rate was 29% in patients with focal epilepsy and 47% in patients with generalized and combined focal and generalized epilepsies. However, fifteen patients (11%) reported increased seizure activity leading to withdrawal of treatment. This study showed evidence that BRV may be an effective adjunctive therapy in patients with drug-resistant focal or generalized epilepsies whose seizures have previously not responded or tolerated LEV therapy. We demonstrated a higher incidence of treatment-emergent AEs leading to lower retention rates compared with previous studies across all patient groups. There were, however, no significant differences in tolerability between patients with preexisting psychiatric or behavioral comorbidities, or intellectual disability to those without.

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.

Epilepsy and psychosis: a practical approach.

The psychoses of epilepsy can be classified according to their temporal relationship with seizures, namely as ictal, postictal and interictal psychosis. Interictal psychosis is the most common and may resemble schizophrenia. They can be challenging to diagnose and to manage, especially given the perception that some antipsychotic drugs may exacerbate seizures, while some antiepileptic medications may worsen psychosis. The current uncertainty around their best management means that some patients may not receive appropriate care. We propose a practical stepwise approach to managing psychosis in patients with epilepsy, summarising the key clinical features. We provide a framework for diagnosis, investigation and management of psychosis in the acute and long term. We also summarise the available evidence on the risk of psychosis with current antiepileptic drugs and the risk of seizures with antipsychotic drugs.

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.

Predicting Pressure Ulcer Development in Clinical Practice: Evaluation of Braden Scale Scores and Nutrition Parameters.

PURPOSE: Accurate patient assessment and screening for pressure ulcer (PU) is difficult in the clinical setting, and evaluation of nutritional status is especially problematic. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the extent to which Braden Scale scores and other nutrition screening parameters (body mass index, poor intake, and weight loss) predict PU development in general and heel and sacral ulcers specifically. METHODS: Records of 230 hospitalized patients who developed PU were compared to a matched control group without PU. Logistic regression was used to determine the association of total Braden scores, Braden nutrition subscale scores, and nutrition factors with PU development at any time, within week 1, or within week 2 of hospitalization; and development of sacral and heel ulcers at these same periods. RESULTS: Braden Scale scores on hospital admission were predictive of hospital-acquired pressure ulcer development at some point during the hospital stay; and more specifically Braden scores on day 7 were predictive of PU development within week 2 of hospitalization. Among nutrition screening factors and PU development, a low body mass index showed a statistically significant relationship with sacral ulcer development. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that the overall Braden score is a valid predictor of PU development. Implications for clinical practice to decrease the risk for PU development include appropriate use of reliable and valid scales by nurses along with careful evaluation of nutrition parameters.

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.