Psychiatric side effects and antiepileptic drugs: Observations from prospective audits.

Psychiatric comorbidities are common in people with epilepsy. A retrospective study of characteristics associated with withdrawal due to psychiatric side effects was undertaken in patients with treated epilepsy participating in prospective audits with new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). A total of 1058 treated patients with uncontrolled seizures (942 focal-onset seizures, 116 generalized genetic epilepsies [GGEs]) participated in eight prospective, observational audits from 1996 to 2014. These patients were prescribed adjunctive topiramate (n=170), levetiracetam (n=220), pregabalin (n=135), zonisamide (n=203), lacosamide (n=160), eslicarbazepine acetate (n=52), retigabine (n=64), or perampanel (n=54). Doses were titrated according to efficacy and tolerability to optimize zeizure outcomes and reduce side effects. Psychiatric comorbidities were recorded prior to and after the addition of each AED. At baseline, patients with focal-onset seizures (189 of 942; 20.1%) were statistically more likely to have psychiatric diagnoses compared to patients with GGEs (14 of 116, 12.1%; p=0.039). Following adjunctive AED treatment, neuropsychiatric adverse effects led to AED withdrawal in 1.9-16.7% of patients. Patients with a pre-treatment psychiatric history (22 of 209; 10.5%) were statistically more likely to discontinue their new AED due to psychiatric issues compared to patients with no previous psychiatric diagnosis (50 of 849; 5.9%; p=0.017). Patients receiving sodium channel blocking AEDs (4 of 212, 1.9%) were statistically less likely to develop intolerable psychiatric problems, compared to those on AEDs possessing other mechanisms of action (68 of 846, 8.0%; p=0.012). Depression was the commonest problem, leading to discontinuation of AEDs in 2.8% (n=30) patients. Aggression was statistically more common in men (11 of 527, 2.1%) compared to women (1 of 531, 0.2%; p=0.004). Patients with learning disability (12 of 122, 9.8%; p=0.0015) were statistically less likely to have psychiatric issues prior to adjunctive AED treatment compared to other patients (208 of 936, 22.2%), but there were no statistically significant differences once the new AEDs were added (8 of 122 patients with learning disability, 6.6%; 64 of 936 other patients, 6.8%). Awareness of these issues may assist clinicians in avoiding, identifying and treating psychiatric comorbidities in people with epilepsy.

Prospective audit with adjunctive perampanel: Preliminary observations in focal epilepsy.

PURPOSE: Perampanel (PER) was first licensed in the United Kingdom in 2012 for the adjunctive treatment of focal seizures with or without secondary generalization in adults and children over 12years of age. It has recently also been approved for use as add-on therapy for patients with primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures. This prospective audit reports preliminary outcomes with adjunctive PER in patients with focal-onset seizures in everyday clinical practice using a standard design. METHODS: To date, 54 patients (38 males, 16 females; 21-65years, median: 48years) have completed the study. The median monthly seizure frequency was 4 (range: 1-60). At baseline, patients were taking a median of 2 other antiepileptic drugs (range: 1-4 drugs), with their seizures having previously failed to improve on a median of 3 schedules (range: 1-15 schedules). After 12weeks of stable dosing, PER was added, aiming at a target range of 6-12mg/daily. Review took place every 6-8weeks until one of 4 endpoints was reached: seizure freedom for ≥6months on a given PER dose, ≥50% (responder) or <50% (marginal effect) seizure reduction over 6months, compared with the prospective baseline, on the highest tolerated PER dose, or withdrawal of PER due to a lack of efficacy or side effects. RESULTS: Three (5.6%) patients have remained seizure-free, with 8 (14.8%) demonstrating a ≥50% response and a further 17 (31.5%) reporting a marginal effect. Of the 26 (48.1%) dropping out of PER treatment, 21 (38.9%) did so because of side effects. The commonest problems were nausea, vomiting, ataxia, dizziness, and sedation. Overall, 6 (11%) patients developed neuropsychiatric problems, with 3 reporting irritability and/or aggression. Two patients had substantial weight gain, and another patient suffered recurrent falls. Treatment with enzyme-inducing AEDs had no effect on PER dosing in patients responding to PER or withdrawing due to side effects. SIGNIFICANCE: These data support the value of adjunctive PER in some patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy in everyday clinical practice.

Prospective audits with newer antiepileptic drugs in focal epilepsy: insights into population responses?

Despite the availability of a wide range of new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), there is little evidence that their introduction has substantially altered outcomes. This paper reviews data from 5 consecutive prospective audits with new AEDs using similar methodology. Prospective audits with topiramate (TPM; n=135), levetiracetam (LEV; n=136), zonisamide (ZNS; n=141), pregabalin (PGB; n=135), and lacosamide (LCM; n=160) were undertaken in treated patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures. Follow-up continued until one of four endpoints was reached: seizure freedom for ≥6months on unchanged dosing; ≥50% reduction (responder) in seizure frequency on the highest tolerated dose compared with baseline; <50% seizure frequency reduction (marginal response) compared with baseline in patients wishing to continue treatment with the new AED; or withdrawal due to lack of efficacy, side effects, or both. A greater proportion of seizure-free patients occurred with LEV (23.5%), LCM (21.9%), and TPM (20.7%) than with ZNS (12.8%) and PGB (10.4%). A higher percentage discontinued treatment with ZNS (41.8%) and PGB (50.4%) than with LEV (32.4%), TPM (31.1%), and LCM (22.5%). Most seizure-free patients responded to the new agent as first or second add-on (TPM 96%; LEV 97%; ZNS 89%; PGB 86%; LCM 97%) often at modest or moderate dosing (TPM 68%, ≤200mg/day; LEV 63%, ≤1000mg/day; ZNS 61%, ≤100mg/day; PGB 86%, ≤300mg/day; LCM 74%, ≤200mg/day). With <10% of patients discontinuing all AEDs due to lack of efficacy, tolerability was the major factor influencing the number of patients remaining on treatment. Lacosamide was the best (77% patients continued treatment), while PGB was the worst (50% continued treatment) tolerated AED. Overall, seizure freedom was achieved in <25% of patients in each audit, mainly as a first or second add-on, with best tolerated AEDs producing a higher number of good outcomes. Seizures in very few patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, as defined by the International League Against Epilepsy task force, responded to any of the 5 newer AEDs. These data support the suggestion that the introduction of modern agents has not importantly impacted the outcomes in refractory epilepsy.

Perampanel for the treatment of epilepsy with genetic aetiology: Real-world evidence from the PERMIT Extension study.

Genetic factors contribute to the aetiology of epilepsy in >50% of cases, and information on the use of antiseizure medications in people with specific aetiologies will help guide treatment decisions. The PERMIT Extension study pooled data from two real-world studies (PERMIT and PROVE) to investigate the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used to treat people with focal and generalised epilepsy in everyday clinical practice. This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT Extension explored the use of PER when used to treat individuals presumed to have epilepsy with a genetic aetiology. Assessments included retention rate (evaluated at 3, 6 and 12 months), effectiveness (responder and seizure freedom rates; evaluated at 3, 6, 12 months and the last visit [last observation carried forward) and tolerability (adverse events [AEs]). Of the 6822 people with epilepsy included in PERMIT Extension, 1012 were presumed to have a genetic aetiology. The most common genetic aetiologies were idiopathic generalised epilepsy (IGE; 58.2%), tuberous sclerosis (1.1%), Dravet syndrome (0.8%) and genetic epilepsy with febrile seizures plus (GEFS+; 0.5%). Retention rates at 3, 6 and 12 months in the total genetic aetiology population were 89.3%, 79.7% and 65.9%, respectively. In the total genetic aetiology population, responder rates at 12 months and the last visit were 74.8% and 68.3%, respectively, and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 48.9% and 46.5%, respectively. For the specific aetiology subgroups, responder rates at 12 months and the last visit were, respectively: 90.4% and 84.4% (IGE), 100% and 57.1% (tuberous sclerosis), 100% and 71.4% (Dravet syndrome), and 33.3% and 20.0% (GEFS+). Corresponding seizure freedom rates were, respectively: 73.1% and 64.6% (IGE), 33.3% and 22.2% (tuberous sclerosis), 20.0% and 28.6% (Dravet syndrome), and 0% and 0% (GEFS+). The incidence of AEs was 46.5% for the total genetic aetiology population, 48.8% for IGE, 27.3% for tuberous sclerosis, 62.5% for Dravet syndrome, and 20% for GEFS+. Tolerability findings were consistent with PER's known safety profile. PER was effective and generally well tolerated when used in individuals with a presumed genetic epilepsy aetiology in clinical practice. PER was effective across a wide range of genetic aetiologies.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy versus polytherapy: pursuing seizure freedom and tolerability in adults.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite the availability of many new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), only around 50% of people with epilepsy will become seizure free on their first drug. This article explores treatment options and issues influencing whether AEDs should be substituted or combined in the remainder of the patient population. RECENT FINDINGS: Prior to the introduction of novel AEDs, it was generally opined that combining traditional agents did not necessarily lead to an improvement in seizure control and might increase the propensity for side effects. Newer AEDs, many with different mechanisms of action, have increased the potential for polytherapy regimens, although robust data to support or refute this therapeutic strategy are sparse. It seems sensible to substitute rather than combine when the first AED produces an idiosyncratic reaction, is poorly tolerated at a low/moderate dose or shows no efficacy. Polytherapy may be preferred if the patient tolerates their first or second AED well, but with a suboptimal response, particularly when there is an identifiable anatomical substrate for the seizures. AED selection requires consideration of many factors some of which are discussed in this study. SUMMARY: There are no definitive answers on whether to combine or substitute AEDs. Different strategies are required for different scenarios in different patients.

Individualised prediction of drug resistance and seizure recurrence after medication withdrawal in people with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

Background: A third of people with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) are drug-resistant. Three-quarters have a seizure relapse when attempting to withdraw anti-seizure medication (ASM) after achieving seizure-freedom. It is currently impossible to predict who is likely to become drug-resistant and safely withdraw treatment. We aimed to identify predictors of drug resistance and seizure recurrence to allow for individualised prediction of treatment outcomes in people with JME. Methods: We performed an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis based on a systematic search in EMBASE and PubMed - last updated on March 11, 2021 - including prospective and retrospective observational studies reporting on treatment outcomes of people diagnosed with JME and available seizure outcome data after a minimum one-year follow-up. We invited authors to share standardised IPD to identify predictors of drug resistance using multivariable logistic regression. We excluded pseudo-resistant individuals. A subset who attempted to withdraw ASM was included in a multivariable proportional hazards analysis on seizure recurrence after ASM withdrawal. The study was registered at the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/b9zjc/). Findings: Our search yielded 1641 articles; 53 were eligible, of which the authors of 24 studies agreed to collaborate by sharing IPD. Using data from 2518 people with JME, we found nine independent predictors of drug resistance: three seizure types, psychiatric comorbidities, catamenial epilepsy, epileptiform focality, ethnicity, history of CAE, family history of epilepsy, status epilepticus, and febrile seizures. Internal-external cross-validation of our multivariable model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0·70 (95%CI 0·68-0·72). Recurrence of seizures after ASM withdrawal (n = 368) was predicted by an earlier age at the start of withdrawal, shorter seizure-free interval and more currently used ASMs, resulting in an average internal-external cross-validation concordance-statistic of 0·70 (95%CI 0·68-0·73). Interpretation: We were able to predict and validate clinically relevant personalised treatment outcomes for people with JME. Individualised predictions are accessible as nomograms and web-based tools. Funding: MING fonds.

Adjunctive lacosamide in clinical practice: sodium blockade with a difference?

Lacosamide (LCM) was licensed in the United Kingdom in 2008 for the adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures. It exerts its effect by enhancing sodium channel slow inactivation. This article reports preliminary outcomes with adjunctive LCM in the everyday clinical setting. To date, 113 patients (57 males, 56 females; aged range=18-74 years, median=39 years) with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures (monthly frequency range=1-300, median=4) have been included in the audit. Patients were taking 1-4 (median=1) antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), having previously tried 1-12 (median 3) drug schedules. After 12 weeks on stable AED dosing, LCM was added, aiming at an initial target range of 200-400mg/day. Review took place every 6-8 weeks until one of four endpoints was reached: seizure freedom for ≥6 months on a given LCM dose; ≥50% (responder) or <50% (marginal benefit) seizure reduction over 6 months compared with baseline on the highest tolerated LCM dose; withdrawal of LCM because of lack of efficacy, side effects, or both. An endpoint has been reached by 65 (57.5%) patients so far. Seventeen (26.2%) have remained seizure free on a median daily LCM dose of 100mg (range=50-300 mg). Patients were more likely to become seizure free when LCM was used as a first add-on (15/36, 41.7%), compared with a later treatment schedule (1/27, 3.7%, P=0.001). With appropriate dose manipulation, patients taking traditional sodium blockers (5/26, 19.2%) were as likely to become seizure free as those taking AEDs with other mechanisms of action only (11/37, 29.7%). Fifty percent or greater seizure reduction was achieved in an additional 16 (24.6%) patients (1 monotherapy); 18 (27.7%) reported marginal benefit. Two patients were established on LCM monotherapy (one seizure free, one responder). Patients remaining on LCM were as likely to also be taking sodium blockers only (23/27, 85.1%) as AEDs with other mechanisms (26/36, 72.2%). LCM was withdrawn in 14 patients (12.3% of ongoing patients, 21.5% of those at an endpoint; 10 for side effects, 4 for lack of efficacy). The most common side effects leading to withdrawal were sedation, ataxia, and dizziness. Of the 10 with side effects, only 2 patients took concomitant sodium blockers. Patients on sodium valproate were more likely to discontinue LCM (8/21, P=0.018) than those also taking other AEDs; 5 of the 8 did so because of side effects and 3 because of lack of efficacy. In patients with partial-onset seizures, LCM is an effective and well-tolerated adjunctive AED when combined with appropriate doses of traditional sodium blockers, as well as agents with other mechanisms of action. Seizure freedom was more likely when LCM was used as a first add-on compared with a later treatment schedule. Patients also taking sodium valproate were significantly more likely to discontinue LCM compared with those taking other AEDs. These data suggest that the pharmacological effect of LCM differs importantly from that of AEDs that influence fast inactivation of the sodium channel.

A prospective audit of adjunctive zonisamide in an everyday clinical setting.

This audit examined outcomes for 203 patients prescribed zonisamide (ZNS) for various uncontrolled seizure types at a specialist outpatient service. Forty-two (20.7%) patients achieved 6 months of seizure freedom, and an additional 37 (18.2%) had a 50% seizure reduction for 6 months on a stable ZNS dose. Seizure freedom was more likely in patients with primary generalized (24/61, 39%) than in those with partial-onset (18/141, 12.7%) seizures (P<0.001). Eight patients (5 seizure free) were maintained on ZNS monotherapy. More patients became seizure free with ZNS as monotherapy or first add-on, compared with those in whom ZNS was the second, third, or fourth adjunctive drug (P=0.001). Seizure freedom was less likely in patients treated with hepatic enzyme-inducing agents (13/113, 11.5%) than in those receiving noninducing AEDs (24/82, 29.3%) (P=0.002). ZNS was discontinued in 72 (35.5%) patients largely because of side effects (n=58, 28.6%). Commonest complaints leading to withdrawal were sedation (n=14), nausea and vomiting (n=13), neuropsychiatric symptoms (n=12), rash (n=6), and weight loss (n=6). Around 80% of patients who became seizure free on ZNS or had the drug withdrawn did so on a dose 200mg. ZNS is an effective broad-spectrum AED that can also produce a range of dose-dependent and idiosyncratic side effects.

Pharmacological Management of the Genetic Generalised Epilepsies in Adolescents and Adults.

Common genetic generalised epilepsy syndromes encountered by clinicians include childhood and juvenile absence epilepsies, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy and generalised tonic-clonic seizures on awakening. Treatment of these syndromes involves largely the use of broad-spectrum antiseizure drugs. Those effective for the generalised epilepsies include sodium valproate, phenobarbital, ethosuximide, clobazam, clonazepam, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, topiramate, zonisamide and, more recently, perampanel and brivaracetam. Results from the few rigorous studies comparing outcomes with drugs for genetic generalised epilepsies show valproate to be the most effective. The majority of patients with genetic generalised epilepsy syndromes will become seizure free on antiseizure monotherapy; those for whom control proves elusive may benefit from combination regimens. Early counselling regarding management may assist the patient to come to terms with their diagnosis and improve long-term outcomes. Treatment can be lifelong in some individuals, although others may remain seizure free without medication. Choice of antiseizure medication depends on the efficacy for specific seizure types, as well as tolerability. For patients prescribed comedication, drug interactions should be considered. In particular, for young women taking oral hormonal contraceptives, ≥ 200 mg/day of topiramate can decrease the circulating concentration of ethinylestradiol and ≥ 12 mg/day of perampanel can induce levonorgestrel metabolism. The use of valproate in women of childbearing potential is limited by associated teratogenic and neurodevelopmental effects in offspring. Given that valproate is often the antiseizure drug of choice for genetic generalised epilepsies, this creates a dilemma for patients and clinicians. Decision making can be aided by comprehensive assessment and discussion of treatment options. Psychiatric comorbidities are common in adolescents and adults with genetic generalised epilepsies. These worsen the prognosis, both in terms of seizure control and quality of life. Attendant lifestyle issues can impact significantly on the individual and society. Frontal lobe dysfunction, which can present in patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, can adversely affect the long-term outlook, regardless of the nature of seizure control. Ongoing management requires consideration of psychosocial and behavioural factors that can complicate diagnosis and treatment. An assured supportive attitude by the neurologist can be an important contributor to a positive outcome. The mechanisms underlying genetic generalised epilepsies, including genetic abnormalities, are unclear at present. As the pathophysiology is unravelled, this may lead to the development of novel therapies and improved outcomes for patients with these syndromes.

Binasal visual field defects are not specific to vigabatrin.

This study investigated the visual defects associated with the antiepileptic drug vigabatrin (VGB). Two hundred four people with epilepsy were grouped on the basis of antiepileptic drug therapy (current, previous, or no exposure to VGB). Groups were matched with respect to age, gender, and seizure frequency. All patients underwent objective assessment of electrophysiological function (wide-field multifocal electroretinography) and conventional visual field testing (static perimetry). Bilateral visual field constriction was observed in 59% of patients currently taking VGB, 43% of patients who previously took VGB, and 24% of patients with no exposure to VGB. Assessment of retinal function revealed abnormal responses in 48% of current VGB users and 22% of prior VGB users, but in none of the patients without previous exposure to VGB. Bilateral visual field abnormalities are common in the treated epilepsy population, irrespective of drug history. Assessment by conventional static perimetry may neither be sufficiently sensitive nor specific to reliably identify retinal toxicity associated with VGB.

Management of epilepsy in women.

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in women worldwide. Hormonal changes occurring throughout a woman's life can influence and be influenced by seizure mechanisms and antiepileptic drugs, presenting unique management challenges. Effective contraception is particularly important for women with epilepsy of childbearing potential because of antiepileptic drug-related teratogenicity and hormonal interactions; although studies reveal many women do not receive contraceptive and preconceptual counselling. Management challenges in this population include the higher risk of pregnancy complications and peripartum psychiatric problems than in women without epilepsy. Research is needed to clarify the precise role of folic acid supplementation in prevention of congenital malformations in children born to women with epilepsy. To optimise treatment of low bone density in women with epilepsy, studies investigating bone densitometry frequency and calcium and vitamin D supplements are required. Understanding of the mechanisms linking seizures and the menopause will help to develop effective therapeutic strategies, and advances in managing epilepsy could improve quality of life for women with this condition.

Brivaracetam: a novel antiepileptic drug for focal-onset seizures.

Brivaracetam (BRV), the n-propyl analogue of levetiracetam (LEV), is the latest antiepileptic drug (AED) to be licensed in Europe and the USA for the adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization in patients aged 16 years or older. Like LEV, BRV binds to synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A), but BRV has more selective binding and a 15- to 30-fold higher binding affinity than LEV. BRV is more effective than LEV in slowing synaptic vesicle mobilization and the two AEDs may act at different binding sites or interact with different conformational states of the SV2A protein. In animal models, BRV provides protection against focal and secondary generalized seizures and has significant anticonvulsant effects in genetic models of epilepsy. The drug undergoes first-order pharmacokinetics with an elimination half-life of 7-8 h. Although BRV is metabolized extensively, the main circulating compound is unchanged BRV. Around 95% of metabolites undergo renal elimination. No dose reduction is required in renal impairment, but it is recommended that the daily dose is reduced by one-third in hepatic dysfunction that may prolong half-life. BRV has a low potential for drug interactions. The efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive BRV in adults with focal-onset seizures have been explored in six randomized, placebo-controlled studies. These showed significant efficacy outcomes for doses of 50-200 mg/day. The most common adverse events reported were headache, somnolence, dizziness, fatigue and nausea. Patients who develop psychiatric symptoms with LEV appear to be at risk of similar side effects with BRV, although preliminary data suggest that these issues are likely to be less frequent and perhaps less severe. As with all AEDs, a low starting dose and slow titration schedule help to minimize side effects and optimize seizure control and thereby quality of life.

Sodium valproate versus lamotrigine: a randomised comparison of efficacy, tolerability and effects on circulating androgenic hormones in newly diagnosed epilepsy.

We have performed a randomised, prospective study to compare the efficacy and tolerability of sodium valproate (VPA) and lamotrigine (LTG) monotherapy, and their effects on circulating androgenic hormones, in newly diagnosed epilepsy. A total of 225 patients (116 male; median age 35 years, range 13-80 years) were followed-up at 6-weekly intervals until they reached an end-point (12 months' seizure freedom; withdrawal due to intolerable side-effects; lack of efficacy despite adequate dosing). Twelve month seizure-free rates were identical (47%) in the VPA (n=111) and LTG (n=114) treatment arms. More patients taking VPA withdrew from the study due to adverse events (26 VPA versus 15 LTG; p=0.046). Eight patients, all taking VPA, dropped out during the first 6 months due to weight gain. There were no changes in mean serum concentrations of testosterone, sex-hormone binding globulin and androstenedione or in the free androgen index after 6 or 12 months' treatment with either drug in 112 patients who fulfilled the criteria for hormone analysis. No difference in efficacy was found between VPA and LTG in our patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. LTG appeared to be better tolerated. Neither drug appeared to alter the circulating levels of androgenic hormones.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: a search for risk factors.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the commonest cause of seizure-related mortality in people with refractory epilepsy. Of the 6140 patients registered with the Epilepsy Unit at the Western Infirmary in Glasgow between 1982 and 2005, 529 had died, 62 (11.7%) of whom succumbed to SUDEP. All but 2 deaths occurred at home; 3 were witnessed. Two living controls were matched with each SUDEP case for year of birth, gender, and syndromic classification. Mean duration of epilepsy was significantly longer in cases compared with controls (P=0.001). More people succumbing to SUDEP had had a seizure within the previous year (P=0.007). There were no significant associations between SUDEP and a history of generalized tonic-clonic seizures, drug polytherapy, and current use of carbamazepine. There is an urgent need for a large-scale, prospective, international, community-based study of SUDEP to explore more closely the risk factors to plan preventive strategies.

Mortality in adults with newly diagnosed and chronic epilepsy: a retrospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND: People with epilepsy are at increased risk of premature death compared with the general population. Many clinicians are unsure whether and when this issue should be broached with their patients. We analysed mortality in patients with newly diagnosed and chronic epilepsy over a 20-year period. METHODS: Patients who attended the epilepsy service at the Western Infirmary in Glasgow, UK between 1981 and 2001, with newly diagnosed epilepsy (n=890) or referred after receiving unsuccessful treatment elsewhere (n=2689) were included in the study. Mortality data were obtained from the General Registrar Office for Scotland. Causes of death were ascertained from death certificates and primary care and health authority records. The two patient cohorts were compared with age-matched and sex-matched Scottish comparison groups. Standardised mortality ratios (SMR) were calculated for each epilepsy type, 10-year age band, and cause of death category. FINDINGS: Newly diagnosed patients had a 42% increase in mortality (SMR 1.42, 95% CI 1.16-1.72) compared with the comparison group. Increased mortality was recorded in those who had not responded to treatment, with no increase in risk observed in patients who were seizure free. In the chronic epilepsy cohort, there was more than double the expected number of deaths (2.05, 1.83-2.26). The incidence of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy was 1.08 and 2.46 per 1000 patient-years in patients with newly diagnosed and chronic epilepsy, respectively. The greatest excess in mortality was reported in patients younger than 30 years. INTERPRETATION: Mortality risks and preventive strategies should be discussed with patients with epilepsy when treatment fails or is refused despite recurrent seizures.

Levetiracetam in refractory epilepsy: a prospective observational study.

This prospective open-label study used flexible dosing schedules of levetiracetam (LEV) in patients with refractory epilepsy attending a single centre to explore its effectiveness in everyday clinical practice. One hundred and fifty-six patients with uncontrolled localisation-related or idiopathic-generalised epilepsy were prescribed adjunctive LEV following a 3-month baseline. The primary end points were seizure freedom for at least 6 months, > or = 50% reduction (responder) or <50% reduction for 6 months, or discontinuation of LEV due to lack of efficacy, adverse effects or both. Overall, 40 (26%) patients became seizure free on adjunctive LEV, including 8 (40%) with idiopathic-generalised epilepsy. Twenty-five (63%) of the seizure-free patients took 1000 mg LEV per day or less. A further 33 (21%) patients were classified as responders. LEV was withdrawn in 46 (29%) patients (27 adverse effects, 8 lack of efficacy, 11 both). Intolerable sedation, reported by 20 (13%) patients, was the commonest complaint leading to treatment failure. Behavioural side effects led to LEV withdrawal in 7 (5%) patients. LEV is an effective adjunctive treatment for refractory idiopathic and localisation-related epilepsies. Many patients who responded optimally to LEV did so at 1000 mg per day or less.

Drug treatment of epilepsy in elderly people: focus on valproic Acid.

Despite old age being the commonest time of life to develop epilepsy, relatively little is known about the condition in later years. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of treatment and valproic acid (VPA) has been prescribed for older patients with seizures for over 35 years. VPA is available in a variety of formulations. The drug is generally rapidly absorbed, although there are no data on the extent of oral absorption in the elderly. The volume of distribution (Vd) and elimination half-life have been compared in older and younger patients. One study reported no change in either parameter between elderly and younger patients (Vd: 0.16 vs 0.14 L/kg; elimination half-life: 15.3 vs 13.0h), the other found an increase in both for older patients (Vd: 0.19 vs 0.13 L/kg; elimination half-life 14.9 vs 7.2h). Total VPA clearance is similar in young and elderly subjects. The drug does not induce the metabolism of hepatic enzymes, but can act as a metabolic inhibitor, raising plasma concentrations of lamotrigine, phenobarbital (phenobarbitone), carbamazepine-10-11-epoxide, lorazepam, nimodipine and zidovudine. Concomitant use of VPA may also lead to an elevation in phenytoin, diazepam, warfarin, amitriptyline and chlorpromazine concentrations. A number of enzyme-inducing AEDs such as phenytoin, phenobarbital, primidone and carbamazepine can increase the clearance of VPA. Plasma concentrations of VPA may also rise when the drug is administered with felbamate, stiripentol, aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), naproxen, phenylbutazone, isoniazid, fluoxetine and chlorpromazine. The majority of elderly patients present with partial and/or secondary generalised seizures, although a few have long-standing primary generalised seizures. Results from meta-analyses and randomised studies of patients comparing VPA with other AED monotherapies suggest that the drug is as effective as carbamazepine, phenytoin and phenobarbital in treating these seizure types. Although some of these studies recruited older patients, there have been no randomised double-blind trials examining the efficacy of VPA with other AEDs in an exclusively elderly cohort. There is no direct correlation between efficacy and plasma VPA concentrations. The majority of older patients require lower doses of AEDs than younger adults. Higher VPA doses may be needed in patients taking drugs which induce hepatic microsomal enzymes. Once-daily dosing of the controlled-release preparation can help to improve compliance and may render some frail elderly people seizure free. There is a perception that the elderly are generally more susceptible to the adverse effects of AEDs than younger adults, although there are few data to validate this claim. Dose-dependent and idiosyncratic reactions may be more frequent. Common adverse effects of VPA include gastrointestinal symptoms and tremor. Slow-dose escalation and controlled-release preparations may minimise these. In summary, VPA is a long established AED. Its broad spectrum of action and dosing schedule are favourable properties for its use in older people. To accurately establish the place of this and other AEDs in treating elderly patients with epilepsy, well designed clinical trials are urgently required in this vulnerable population.

Seizure freedom with more than one antiepileptic drug.

Many people with epilepsy take antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy, although supportive evidence for the success of this strategy is sparse. Of 2881 treated patients registered in our database, 1617 (56%) have been seizure-free for at least the previous year, with 21% taking more than one AED (287 on two, 86%; 42 on three, 13%; 3 on four, 1%). There were 40 effective duotherapies and 28 triple therapies. Treatment with two or three but not four AEDs may be a useful therapeutic option for patients not responding to monotherapy. Further explorations of the best regimens for individual seizure types and epilepsy syndromes is required.

Outcomes from a nurse-led clinic for adolescents with epilepsy.

PURPOSE: Epilepsy is the commonest serious neurological condition to affect adolescents. We established a nurse-led clinic for young people with suspected or diagnosed epilepsy. Outcomes in all patients referred during the first 4 years after its inception are reported. METHODS: A total of 301 adolescents were seen at the clinic during 1996-1999. Epilepsy was excluded in 135 (45%), including 5 receiving antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy. A single seizure occurred in 22 (7%) others. Seventy-six patients (25%) had treated epilepsy and 68 (23%) were newly diagnosed. RESULTS: More than 1 year's seizure freedom was achieved by 53% of patients, 76% with one AED, 16% with two and 3% with three. Four (5%) patients remained seizure free off medication. Sixteen (11%) were lost to follow-up. Outcome was better (P<0.05) for newly diagnosed (59% seizure free) than for treated (47% seizure free) epilepsy and for idiopathic generalised (60% seizure free) than for partial (46% seizure free) seizures (P<0.02). Magnetic resonance imaging of brain was obtained in 63 (85%) patients with localisation-related epilepsy. Findings were abnormal in 43%, including nine with cortical dysplasia, eight with mesial temporal sclerosis and two with gliomas. CONCLUSIONS: Epilepsy can be difficult to diagnose in adolescents. Outcomes were surprisingly poor suggesting the need for improved services for this patient population.

Adjunctive lacosamide--5 years' clinical experience.

PURPOSE: In 2008, lacosamide (LCM) was licensed in Europe for the adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures. At that time a prospective audit was initiated at the Western Infirmary to assess outcomes with this antiepileptic drug (AED) in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 160 patients (74 M; 86 F, aged 14-74 years [median 42 years]) with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures (median monthly frequency 1; range 1-300) were started on LCM. After 12 weeks on stable AED doses (median 1 AED; range 1-4), LCM was added and the dose titrated as appropriate with a target range of 200-400 mg/day. Review took place every 6-8 weeks until 1 of 4 end-points was reached: seizure freedom for 6 months on a given LCM dose; ≥50% (responder) or <50% (marginal benefit) seizure reduction over 6 months compared with baseline on the highest tolerated LCM dose; withdrawal of LCM due to lack of efficacy, side effects, or both. RESULTS: Of the 160 patients, 35 (21.9%) remained seizure-free for at least 6 months on a stable LCM dose, while 35 (21.9%) had a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency and 54 (33.7%) reported a marginal benefit. Five patients became seizure-free on LCM monotherapy following withdrawal of their initial treatment. Outcomes were similar for patients taking LCM with traditional sodium blocking agents (n=56; 43 [76%] continued LCM) compared to those who also received AEDs with other mechanisms (n=84; 64 [76%] continued LCM). LCM was discontinued in 36 (22.5%) patients because of lack of efficacy (n=24, 15%) or side effects (n=12; 7.5%). Commonest side effects leading to withdrawal were nausea and vomiting, dizziness, sedation, headaches, tremor, and ataxia, particularly for patients also taking sodium valproate. CONCLUSION: LCM is a well-tolerated and effective AED for focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalisation, regardless of concomitant treatment. Commonest dose-related side effects were neurotoxic in nature.