Search

Background: Idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) is a collection of generalized nonlesional epileptic network disorders. Around 20-40% of patients with IGE are refractory to antiseizure medication, and mechanisms underlying refractoriness are poorly understood. Here, we characterize structural brain network alterations and determine whether network alterations differ between patients with refractory and nonrefractory IGE. Methods: Thirty-three patients with IGE (10 nonrefractory and 23 refractory) and 39 age- and sex-matched healthy controls were studied. Network nodes were segmented from T1-weighted images, while connections between these nodes (edges) were reconstructed from diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Diffusion networks of fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), radial diffusivity (RD), and streamline count (Count) were studied. Differences between all patients, refractory, nonrefractory, and control groups were computed using network-based statistics. Nodal volume differences between groups were computed using Cohen's d effect size calculation. Results: Patients had significantly decreased bihemispheric FA and Count networks and increased MD and RD networks compared with controls. Alterations in network architecture, with respect to controls, differed depending on treatment outcome, including predominant FA network alterations in refractory IGE and increased nodal volume in nonrefractory IGE. Diffusion MRI networks were not influenced by nodal volume. Discussion: Although a nonlesional disorder, patients with IGE have bihemispheric structural network alterations that may differ between patients with refractory and nonrefractory IGE. Given that distinct nodal volume and FA network alterations were observed between treatment outcome groups, a multifaceted network analysis may be useful for identifying imaging biomarkers of refractory IGE.

It is well established that abnormal thalamocortical systems play an important role in the generation and maintenance of primary generalised seizures. However, it is currently unknown which thalamic nuclei and how nuclear‐specific thalamocortical functional connectivity are differentially impacted in patients with medically refractory and non‐refractory idiopathic generalised epilepsy (IGE). In the present study, we performed structural and resting‐state functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with refractory and non‐refractory IGE, segmented the thalamus into constituent nuclear regions using a probabilistic MRI segmentation method and determined thalamocortical functional connectivity using seed‐to‐voxel connectivity analyses. We report significant volume reduction of the left and right anterior thalamic nuclei only in patients with refractory IGE. Compared to healthy controls, patients with refractory and non‐refractory IGE had significant alterations of functional connectivity between the centromedian nucleus and cortex, but only patients with refractory IGE had altered cortical connectivity with the ventral lateral nuclear group. Patients with refractory IGE had significantly increased functional connectivity between the left and right ventral lateral posterior nuclei and cortical regions compared to patients with non‐refractory IGE. Cortical effects were predominantly located in the frontal lobe. Atrophy of the anterior thalamic nuclei and resting‐state functional hyperconnectivity between ventral lateral nuclei and cerebral cortex may be imaging markers of pharmacoresistance in patients with IGE. These structural and functional abnormalities fit well with the known importance of thalamocortical systems in the generation and maintenance of primary generalised seizures, and the increasing recognition of the importance of limbic pathways in IGE., We report that patients with idiopathic generalised epilepsy have different patterns of thalamic structural and functional connectivity alterations depending on whether they are refractory or not to anti‐seizure medication. Only refractory patients showed evidence of atrophy of the anterior (limbic) thalamic nuclei and increased functional connectivity between the ventral lateral posterior nuclei and cortex bilaterally.

Epileptic seizures are increasingly recognized as part of the clinical phenotype of patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, the evidence base on which to make treatment decisions for such patients is slim, there being no clear recommendation based on systematic review of the few existing studies of anti-seizure drugs in AD patients. Here the authors examine the potential implications for the treatment of seizures in AD of the results of the recently published SANAD II pragmatic study, which examined the effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, and of valproate and levetiracetam in generalized and unclassifiable epilepsy.

The Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) is an authoritative document that all people with epilepsy in the EU receive when prescribed antiseizure medication (ASM). We undertook the first independent, comprehensive assessment to determine how understandable they are. Regulators state that when patients are asked comprehension questions about them, ≥80% should answer correctly. Also, recommended is that PILs have a maximum reading requirement of US grade 8.Study 1: We obtained 140 current ASM PILs written in English. "Readability" was assessed using four tests, with and without adjustment for influence of familiar, polysyllabic words. A total of 179 online materials on epilepsy were also assessed. Study 2: Two PILs from Study 1 were randomly selected (Pregabalin Focus; Inovelon) and shown to 35 people from the UK epilepsy population. Their comprehension was assessed. Study 3: To understand whether the student population provides an accessible alternative population for future examination of ASM PILs, Study 3 was completed, using the same methods as Study 2, except that participants were 262 UK university students.Study 1: No PIL had a reading level of grade 8. Median was grade 11. Adjusting for context, the PILs were still at grade 10.5. PILs for branded ASMs were most readable. PILs were no more readable than (unregulated) online materials. Study 2: Users struggled to comprehend the PILs' key messages. The eight questions asked about pregabalin were typically answered correctly by 54%. For Inovelon, it was 62%. Study 3: Most student participants comprehended the PILs' key messages. The questions about Inovelon were answered correctly by 90%; for pregabalin it was 86%.This is the first independent and comprehensive examination of ASM PILs. It found that PILs being used fail to meet recommendations and regulatory requirements and risk not being understandable to a substantial proportion of users. In finding that people from the epilepsy population differ markedly in comprehension of PILs compared to students, this study highlights the importance of completing user testing with the target population.

Highlights • Model predicts risk of seizure recurrence after single fit or epilepsy diagnosis. • Model performs well in independent data. • Future work required to ensure the model is adopted in clinical practice. • Model can improve the lives of people with single seizures and early epilepsy., Purpose Following a single seizure, or recent epilepsy diagnosis, it is difficult to balance risk of medication side effects with the potential to prevent seizure recurrence. A prediction model was developed and validated enabling risk stratification which in turn informs treatment decisions and individualises counselling. Methods Data from a randomised controlled trial was used to develop a prediction model for risk of seizure recurrence following a first seizure or diagnosis of epilepsy. Time-to-event data was modelled via Cox's proportional hazards regression. Model validity was assessed via discrimination and calibration using the original dataset and also using three external datasets – National General Practice Survey of Epilepsy (NGPSE), Western Australian first seizure database (WA) and FIRST (Italian dataset of people with first tonic-clonic seizures). Results People with neurological deficit, focal seizures, abnormal EEG, not indicated for CT/MRI scan, or not immediately treated have a significantly higher risk of seizure recurrence. Discrimination was fair and consistent across the datasets (c-statistics: 0.555 (NGPSE); 0.558 (WA); 0.597 (FIRST)). Calibration plots showed good agreement between observed and predicted probabilities in NGPSE at one and three years. Plots for WA and FIRST showed poorer agreement with the model underpredicting risk in WA, and over-predicting in FIRST. This was resolved following model recalibration. Conclusion The model performs well in independent data especially when recalibrated. It should now be used in clinical practice as it can improve the lives of people with single seizures and early epilepsy by enabling targeted treatment choices and more informed patient counselling.

Aims Carbamazepine can cause hypersensitivity reactions in ~10% of patients. An immunogenic effect can be produced by the electrophilic 10,11-epoxide metabolite but not by carbamazepine. Hypothetically, certain single nucleotide polymorphisms might increase the formation of immunogenic metabolites, leading ultimately to hypersensitivity reactions. This study explores the role of clinical and genetic factors in the pharmacokinetics (PK) of carbamazepine and 3 metabolites known to be chemically reactive or formed through reactive intermediates. Methods A combination of rich and sparse PK samples were collected from healthy volunteers and epilepsy patients. All subjects were genotyped for 20 single nucleotide polymorphisms in 11 genes known to be involved in the metabolism or transport of carbamazepine and carbamazepine 10,11-epoxide. Nonlinear mixed effects modelling was used to build a population-PK model. Results In total, 248 observations were collected from 80 subjects. A 1-compartment PK model with first-order absorption and elimination best described the parent carbamazepine data, with a total clearance of 1.96 L/h, central distribution volume of 164 L and absorption rate constant of 0.45 h-1 . Total daily dose and coadministration of phenytoin were significant covariates for total clearance of carbamazepine. EPHX1-416G/G genotype was a significant covariate for the clearance of carbamazepine 10,11-epoxide. Conclusion Our data indicate that carbamazepine clearance was affected by total dose and phenytoin coadministration, but not by genetic factors, while carbamazepine 10,11-epoxide clearance was affected by a variant in the microsomal epoxide hydrolase gene. A much larger sample size would be required to fully evaluate the role of genetic variation in carbamazepine pharmacokinetics, and thereby predisposition to carbamazepine hypersensitivity.

Purpose Epilepsy is associated with costly unplanned health service use. The UK’s National Audits of Seizure Management in Hospital found use was often clinically unnecessary, avoidable and typically led to little benefit for epilepsy management. We systematically identified how services have responded to reduce such use. Methods We invited England’s ambulance services, neuroscience and neurology centres and a random sample of Emergency Departments (EDs) to complete a survey. It asked what innovations they (or services they worked with) had made in the past 5 years or were making, the priority afforded to them, user involvement, what comprised usual practice, and barriers to change. Results 72/87 of invited (82.8 %) services responded. EDs ascribed less priority to reducing emergency hospital use for epilepsy and convulsions, than other service types. Overall, 60 % of services reported a change(s) and/or were planning one. Neurology/neuroscience sites (93.8 %) were most likely to report change; EDs (15.4 %) least likely. Eleven types of change were identified; 5 sought to promote proactive epilepsy care and avert the need for emergency care; 3 focused on the care received from emergency services; and 3 focused on follow-up care ED attendees received. Most were for those with established, rather than new epilepsy and targeted known limitations to current care provision. Conclusion Reducing emergency hospital use by PWE is a high priority for most health services in England and a number of new services have been developed. However, they have not been consistently implemented and innovation is lacking in some areas of care.

Objective:\ud \ud Genetic variants in STXBP1 , which encodes the conserved exocytosis protein Munc18‐1, are associated with a variety of infantile epilepsy syndromes. We aimed to develop an in vivo Caenorhabditis elegans model that could be used to test the pathogenicity of such variants in a cost‐effective manner.\ud \ud Methods:\ud \ud The CRISPR/Cas9 method was used to introduce a null mutation into the unc‐18 gene (the C. elegans orthologue of STXBP1 ), thereby creating a paralyzed worm strain. We subsequently rescued this strain with transgenes encoding the human STXBP1/Munc18‐1 protein (wild‐type and eight different epilepsy‐associated missense variants). The resulting humanized worm strains were then analyzed via behavioral, electrophysiological, and biochemical approaches.\ud \ud Results:\ud \ud Transgenic expression of wild‐type human STXBP1 protein fully rescued locomotion in both solid and liquid media to the same level as the standard wild‐type worm strain, Bristol N2. Six variant strains (E59K, V84D, C180Y, R292H, L341P, R551C) exhibited impaired locomotion, whereas two (P335L, R406H) were no different from worms expressing wild‐type STXBP1. Electrophysiological recordings revealed that all eight variant strains displayed less frequent and more irregular pharyngeal pumping in comparison to wild‐type STXBP1‐expressing strains. Four strains (V84D, C180Y, R292H, P335L) exhibited pentylenetetrazol‐induced convulsions in an acute assay of seizure‐like activity, in contrast to worms expressing wild‐type STXBP1. No differences were seen between wild‐type and variant STXBP1 strains in terms of mRNA abundance. However, STXBP1 protein levels were reduced to 20%‐30% of wild‐type in all variants, suggesting that the mutations result in STXBP1 protein instability.\ud \ud Significance:\ud \ud The approach described here is a cost‐effective in vivo method for establishing the pathogenicity of genetic variants in STXBP1 and potentially other conserved neuronal proteins. Furthermore, the humanized strains we created could potentially be used in the future for high‐throughput drug screens to identify novel therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review last published in Issue 7, 2019; it includes two additional studies. Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one‐third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs that has been developed to improve outcomes. In this review we summarised the current evidence regarding pregabalin when used as an add‐on treatment for drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add‐on treatment for drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the following databases on 16 November 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 16 November 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi‐randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of pregabalin and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add‐on for people of any age with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. Double‐blind and single‐blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. Primary analyses were intention‐to‐treat (ITT). We presented summary risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 randomised controlled trials (3949 participants). Nine trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.72, 9 trials, 2663 participants, low‐certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose‐response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate‐certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.60; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.64; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Three trials compared pregabalin to three active‐control drugs: lamotrigine, levetiracetam and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12; 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to levetiracetam (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine for seizure freedom (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83). However, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add‐on pregabalin compared to levetiracetam (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We detected no significant differences in treatment withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse effects, specifically, during either pooled analysis or subgroup analysis. Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, headache and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin than in active control. We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We assessed all the studies to be at a high risk of funding bias as they were all sponsored by Pfizer. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy, pregabalin when used as an add‐on treatment was significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, although there were issues with tolerability at higher doses. However, the trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer‐term trials are needed to inform clinical decision‐making. This review focused on the use of pregabalin in drug‐resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add‐on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of pregabalin when used as monotherapy.

Genetic epilepsy with febrile seizures plus (GEFS+) is an autosomal dominant familial epilepsy syndrome characterized by distinctive phenotypic heterogeneity within families. The SCN1B c.363C>G (p.Cys121Trp) variant has been identified in independent, multi-generational families with GEFS+. Although the variant is present in population databases (at very low frequency), there is strong clinical, genetic, and functional evidence to support pathogenicity. Recurrent variants may be due to a founder event in which the variant has been inherited from a common ancestor. Here, we report evidence of a single founder event giving rise to the SCN1B c.363C>G variant in 14 independent families with epilepsy. A common haplotype was observed in all families, and the age of the most recent common ancestor was estimated to be approximately 800 years ago. Analysis of UK Biobank whole-exome-sequencing data identified 74 individuals with the same variant. All individuals carried haplotypes matching the epilepsy-affected families, suggesting all instances of the variant derive from a single mutational event. This unusual finding of a variant causing an autosomal dominant, early-onset disease in an outbred population that has persisted over many generations can be attributed to the relatively mild phenotype in most carriers and incomplete penetrance. Founder events are well established in autosomal recessive and late-onset disorders but are rarely observed in early-onset, autosomal dominant diseases. These findings suggest variants present in the population at low frequencies should be considered potentially pathogenic in mild phenotypes with incomplete penetrance and may be more important contributors to the genetic landscape than previously thought.

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

Currently no sensitive and specific biomarkers exist to predict drug-resistant epilepsy. We determined whether blood levels of high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), a mediator of neuroinflammation implicated in drug-resistant epilepsies, identifies patients with drug-resistant seizures. Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy express significantly higher levels of blood HMGB1 than those with drug-responsive, well-controlled seizures and healthy controls. No correlation existed between blood HMGB1 levels and total pretreatment seizure count or days since last seizure at new epilepsy diagnosis, indicating that blood HMGB1 does not solely reflect ongoing seizures. HMGB1 distinguishes with high specificity and selectivity drug-resistant versus drug-responsive patients. This protein therefore has potential clinical utility to act as a biomarker for predicting response to therapy, which should be addressed in prospective clinical studies.

Background This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2014. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition characterised by recurrent seizures. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Sulthiame (STM) is widely used as an antiepileptic drug in Europe and Israel. In this review, we have presented a summary of evidence for the use of STM as monotherapy in epilepsy. Objectives To assess the efficacy and side effect profile of STM as monotherapy when compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug for people with epilepsy. Search methods We searched the following databases on 13 April 2020: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 10 April 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials 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 imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of STM and researchers in the field to ask about ongoing and unpublished studies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled monotherapy trials of STM in people of any age with epilepsy of any aetiology. Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: treatment withdrawal; seizure-free at six months; adverse effects; and quality of life scoring. We conducted the primary analyses by intention-to-treat where possible, and presented a narrative analysis of the data. Main results We included four studies involving a total of 355 participants: three studies (209 participants) with a diagnosis of benign epilepsy of childhood with centrotemporal spikes (BECTS), and one study (146 participants) with a diagnosis of generalised tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). STM was given as monotherapy compared with placebo and with levetiracetam in the BECTS studies, and compared with phenytoin in the GTCS study. An English translation of the full text of one of the BECTS studies could not be found, and analysis of this study was based solely on the English translation of the abstract. For the primary outcome, the total number of dropouts caused either by seizure recurrence or adverse reaction was significantly higher in the levetiracetam treatment arm compared to the STM treatment arm (RR 0.32, 95% Cl 0.10 to 1.03; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes for this comparison, results for seizure freedom were inconclusive (RR 1.12, 95% Cl 0.88 to 1.44; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Reporting of adverse effects was incomplete. Participants receiving STM were significantly less likely to develop gingival hyperplasia than participants receiving phenytoin in the GTCS study (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.58; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence). No further statistically significant adverse events were noted when STM was compared with phenytoin or placebo. The most common adverse events were related to behavioural disturbances when STM was compared with levetiracetam (RR 0.95, 95% Cl 0.59 to 1.55; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence), with the same incidence in both groups. No data were reported for quality of life. Overall, we assessed one study at high risk of bias and one study at unclear bias across the seven domains, mainly due to lack of information regarding study design. Only one trial reported effective methods for blinding. The risk of bias assessments for the other two studies ranged from low to high. We rated the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes as low using the GRADE approach. Authors' conclusions This review provides insufficient information to inform clinical practice. Small sample sizes, poor methodological quality, and lack of data on important outcome measures precluded any meaningful conclusions regarding the efficacy and tolerability of sulthiame as monotherapy in epilepsy. More trials, recruiting larger populations, over longer periods, are needed to determine whether sulthiame has a clinical use.

ObjectiveNeuroimaging research is providing insights into epilepsy as a disorder of brain connectivity linked to functional impairments which may have an identifiable genetic component. This case-control study aims to identify imbalances in a functional connectome dimension spanning from unimodal to transmodal networks and explore the potential genetic basis of such alterations in patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy (NDfE).MethodsWe used gradient-based analysis of resting-sate fMRI data comparing cortical gradient maps in patients with NDfE (n = 27) to age and sex-matched controls (n = 36). Using a brain-wide gene expression dataset, gene combinations associated with altered brain regions were then entered into an enrichment analysis.ResultsWe found an increased differentiation of connectivity profiles between unimodal and transmodal networks in NDfE, which was particularly pronounced in the patients with persistent seizures at 12-months follow-up (n=10). Differences corresponded to gradient score reductions in a visual network and increases in limbic and default mode systems which subserve higher-level cognition. Cortical difference maps were spatially correlated with regional expression of a weighted gene combination. These genes were enriched for disease and ontology terms and pathways previously associated with epilepsy and seizure susceptibility.InterpretationsLarge-scale functional hierarchy may be altered from in focal epilepsy from diagnosis and correlate with response to treatment. Combining functional neuroimaging and transcriptional data analysis may provide a framework for understanding the wide-ranging impairments associated with the disorder and mechanistic insight into how gene processes may drive alterations in brain function mediating the genetic risk of epilepsy.

Background Routinely recorded data held in electronic health records can be used to inform the conduct of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, limitations with access and accuracy have been identified. Objective: Using epilepsy as an exemplar condition, we assessed the attributes and agreement of routinely recorded data compared to data collected using case report forms in a UK RCT assessing antiepileptic drug treatments for individuals newly diagnosed with epilepsy. Methods The case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK multicentre RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drugs as treatments for epilepsy. Ninety-eight of 470 eligible participants provided consent for access to routinely recorded secondary care data that were retrieved from NHS Digital Hospital Episode Statistics (N=71) and primary and secondary care data from The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (N=27). We assessed data items relevant to the identification of individuals eligible for inclusion in SANAD II, baseline and follow-up visits. The attributes of routinely recorded data were assessed including the degree of missing data. The agreement between routinely recorded data and data collected on case report forms in SANAD II was assessed using calculation of Cohen’s kappa for categorical data and construction of Bland-Altman plots for continuous data. Results There was a significant degree of missing data in the routine record for 15 of the 20 variables assessed, including all clinical variables. Agreement was poor for the majority of comparisons, including the assessments of seizure occurrence and adverse events. For example, only 23/62 (37%) participants had a date of first-ever seizure identified in routine datasets. Agreement was satisfactory for the date of prescription of antiepileptic drugs and episodes of healthcare resource use. Conclusions There are currently significant limitations preventing the use of routinely recorded data for participant identification and assessment of clinical outcomes in epilepsy, and potentially other chronic conditions. Further research is urgently required to assess the attributes, agreement, additional benefits, cost-effectiveness and ‘optimal mix’ of routinely recorded data compared to data collected using standard methods such as case report forms at clinic visits for people with epilepsy. Trial registration Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II (EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64, registered 05/09/2012; ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN30294119, registered 03/07/2012))

Better drugs are needed for common epilepsies. Drug repurposing offers the potential of significant savings in the time and cost of developing new treatments. In order to select the best candidate drug(s) to repurpose for a disease, it is desirable to predict the relative clinical efficacy that drugs will have against the disease. Common epilepsy can be divided into different types and syndromes. Different antiseizure medications are most effective for different types and syndromes of common epilepsy. For predictions of antiepileptic efficacy to be clinically translatable, it is essential that the predictions are specific to each form of common epilepsy, and reflect the patterns of drug efficacy observed in clinical studies and practice. These requirements are not fulfilled by previously published drug predictions for epilepsy. We developed a novel method for predicting the relative efficacy of drugs against any common epilepsy, by using its Genome-Wide Association Study summary statistics and drugs’ activity data. The methodological advancement in our technique is that the drug predictions for a disease are based upon drugs’ effects on the function and abundance of proteins, and the magnitude and direction of those effects, relative to the importance, degree and direction of the proteins’ dysregulation in the disease. We used this method to predict the relative efficacy of all drugs, licensed for any condition, against each of the major types and syndromes of common epilepsy. Our predictions are concordant with findings from real-world experience and randomized clinical trials. Our method predicts the efficacy of existing antiseizure medications against common epilepsies; in this prediction, our method outperforms the best alternative existing method: area under receiver operating characteristic curve (mean ± standard deviation) 0.83 ± 0.03 and 0.63 ± 0.04, respectively. Importantly, our method predicts which antiseizure medications are amongst the more efficacious in clinical practice, and which antiseizure medications are amongst the less efficacious in clinical practice, for each of the main syndromes of common epilepsy, and it predicts the distinct order of efficacy of individual antiseizure medications in clinical trials of different common epilepsies. We identify promising candidate drugs for each of the major syndromes of common epilepsy. We screen five promising predicted drugs in an animal model: each exerts a significant dose-dependent effect upon seizures. Our predictions are a novel resource for selecting suitable candidate drugs that could potentially be repurposed for each of the major syndromes of common epilepsy. Our method is potentially generalizable to other complex diseases., Mirza et al. develop and use a novel genomic method to predict the relative efficacy of drugs for each of the major types and syndromes of common epilepsy. This dataset is a novel and valuable resource for selecting the best candidate drug(s) to repurpose for these epilepsies., Graphical Abstract Graphical Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Classification of epilepsy into types and subtypes is important for both clinical care and research into underlying disease mechanisms. A quantitative, data-driven approach may augment traditional electroclinical classification and shed new light on existing classification frameworks. METHODS: We used latent class analysis, a statistical method that assigns subjects into groups called latent classes based on phenotypic elements, to classify individuals with common familial epilepsies from the Epi4K Multiplex Families study. Phenotypic elements included seizure types, seizure symptoms, and other elements of the medical history. We compared class assignments to traditional electroclinical classifications and assessed familial aggregation of latent classes. RESULTS: A total of 1120 subjects with epilepsy were assigned to five latent classes. Classes 1 and 2 contained subjects with generalized epilepsy, largely reflecting the distinction between absence epilepsies and younger onset (class 1) versus myoclonic epilepsies and older onset (class 2). Classes 3 and 4 contained subjects with focal epilepsies, and in contrast to classes 1 and 2, these did not adhere as closely to clinically defined focal epilepsy subtypes. Class 5 contained nearly all subjects with febrile seizures plus or unknown epilepsy type, as well as a few subjects with generalized epilepsy and a few with focal epilepsy. Family concordance of latent classes was similar to or greater than concordance of clinically defined epilepsy types. SIGNIFICANCE: Quantitative classification of epilepsy has the potential to augment traditional electroclinical classification by (1) combining some syndromes into a single class, (2) splitting some syndromes into different classes, (3) helping to classify subjects who could not be classified clinically, and (4) defining the boundaries of clinically defined classifications. This approach can guide future research, including molecular genetic studies, by identifying homogeneous sets of individuals that may share underlying disease mechanisms.

Introduction Psychological interventions hold promise for the epilepsy population and continue to be trialed to determine their efficacy. Such interventions present opportunities for variance in delivery. Therefore, to accurately interpret a trial's estimate of effect, information on implementation fidelity (IF) is required. We present a novel 3-part study. Part 1 systematically rated trials for the extent to which they reported assessing whether the intervention was delivered as intended (adherence) and with what sort of skill (competence). Part 2 identified barriers to reporting and assessing on fidelity perceived by trialists. Part 3 determined what journals publishing epilepsy trials are doing to support IFs reporting. Methods Articles for 50 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)/quasi-RCTs of psychological interventions identified by Cochrane searches were rated using the Psychotherapy Outcome Study Methodology Rating Form's fidelity items. The 45 corresponding authors for the 50 trials were invited to complete the ‘Barriers to Treatment Integrity Implementation Survey’. ‘Instructions to Authors’ for the 17 journals publishing the trials were reviewed for endorsement of popular reporting guidelines which refer to fidelity (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement or Journal Article Reporting Standards [JARS]) and asked how they enforced compliance. Results Part 1: 15 (30%) trials reported assessing for adherence, but only 2 (4.3%) gave the result. Four (8.5%) reported assessing for competence, 1 (2.1%) gave the result. Part 2: 22 trialists – mostly chief investigators – responded. They identified ‘lack of theory and specific guidelines on treatment integrity procedures’, ‘time, cost, and labor demands’, and ‘lack of editorial requirement’ as “strong barriers”. Part 3: Most (15, 88.2%) journals endorsed CONSORT or JARS, but only 5 enforced compliance. Conclusions Most trials of psychological interventions for epilepsy are not reported in a transparent way when it comes to IF. The barriers' trialists identify for this do not appear insurmountable. Addressing them could ultimately help the field to better understand how best to support the population with epilepsy.

The widening range of treatment options for epilepsy, and their potential outcomes, mean decisions about treatment for people with epilepsy (PWE) are often complex. While antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) represent the mainstay of treatment, other potential nondrug interventions are gaining in importance. These treatments all have the potential for harming those using them, as well as bringing benefits. This study examined the views and experiences of PWE about a range of treatment options. We used both qualitative and quantitative approaches - a series of depth-narrative interviews, followed by a large-scale survey. Treatment options and healthcare priorities deemed important by at least 10% of interview participants were then addressed as a series of statements in the follow-on survey questionnaire. Quantitative responses supported healthcare priorities identified through the qualitative interviews. The key goal of treatment among study participants was to be able to live 'a normal life'. Important physical, psychological, and life benefits of treatment were identified - most being the direct consequence of improved seizure control. One psychological benefit, reduced worry, was also identified as an important treatment goal. All participants viewed AEDs as appropriate first-line treatment; and since adverse effects of AEDs had implications for individual levels of daily function and wellbeing, their appropriate management was considered important. In contrast, surgery was almost always regarded as the treatment of last resort. Despite lack of research evidence supporting their use, participants were interested in complementary therapies as adjunctive treatment and a means of coping with having epilepsy, with yoga and meditation of particular interest. An important finding was the desire for targeted services to help with memory problems, as was the call to increase availability of psychological/counseling services. Our findings emphasize the importance of providing treatment responsive to the life context of individual patients. They highlight not only the level of demand for specific treatment options, but also the need for high-quality evidence to support future investment in their provision.

Introduction The National Audit of Seizure Management in Hospitals (NASH) identified low referral rates to neurology and epilepsy services after an emergency department attendance or admission with a seizure. Methods National Health Service Secondary Users Service (SUS) data were used to assess the impact of a seizure pathway at seven hospitals in Cheshire & Merseyside, which was implemented in 2014. Three of these hospitals also had a nurse employed part-time to support the pathway. Patients admitted with a seizure between 2011 and 2018 inclusive were identified using an algorithm based on ICD-10 codes, and the primary outcome was a neurology referral within 3 months of admission. Regression models were used to assess the impact of age, deprivation and comorbidity on post admission clinic referral rates. Results 13,285 admissions with seizure were included in the analysis. 5,677 had not attended a neurology clinic appointment in the 12 months before the admission. The percentage of whom that were offered an appointment following the admission was: 16.0% before the pathway and 35.9% with the nurse-supported pathway, which was significant in the regression model. 4,700 admissions had attended a neurology clinic appointment in the 12 months before the admission. Of this group, the percentage of whom that were offered an appointment following the admission was: 55.2% before the pathway and 62.4% with the nurse-supported pathway, an increase that was not significant in the regression model. The regression models identified significant health inequalities whereby older patients, those with comorbidities and those living in deprived areas were significantly less likely to be referred. Conclusion Neurology out-patient appointment rates following an admission with seizures are low, worryingly so for those with no neurology appointment in the previous 12 months. A nurse-supported pathway can improve appointment rates, but the effect is modest. Further service redesign is required; the impact of which should be rigorously evaluated.

Multicompartment diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) approaches are increasingly being applied to estimate intra‐axonal and extra‐axonal diffusion characteristics in the human brain. Fiber ball imaging (FBI) and its extension fiber ball white matter modeling (FBWM) are such recently described multicompartment approaches. However, these particular approaches have yet to be applied in clinical cohorts. The modeling of several diffusion parameters with interpretable biological meaning may offer the development of new, noninvasive biomarkers of pharmacoresistance in epilepsy. In the present study, we used FBI and FBWM to evaluate intra‐axonal and extra‐axonal diffusion properties of white matter tracts in patients with longstanding focal epilepsy. FBI/FBWM diffusion parameters were calculated along the length of 50 white matter tract bundles and statistically compared between patients with refractory epilepsy, nonrefractory epilepsy and controls. We report that patients with chronic epilepsy had a widespread distribution of extra‐axonal diffusivity relative to controls, particularly in circumscribed regions along white matter tracts projecting to cerebral cortex from thalamic, striatal, brainstem, and peduncular regions. Patients with refractory epilepsy had significantly greater markers of extra‐axonal diffusivity compared to those with nonrefractory epilepsy. The extra‐axonal diffusivity alterations in patients with epilepsy observed in the present study could be markers of neuroinflammatory processes or a reflection of reduced axonal density, both of which have been histologically demonstrated in focal epilepsy. FBI is a clinically feasible MRI approach that provides the basis for more interpretive conclusions about the microstructural environment of the brain and may represent a unique biomarker of pharmacoresistance in epilepsy., Bryant et al. used fiber ball imaging to measure intra‐axonal and extra‐axonal white matter diffusion in patients with longstanding focal epilepsy. It is reported that extra‐axonal diffusion is different between patients with refractory and nonrefractory epilepsy and may represent a novel imaging biomarker of pharmacoresistance.

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.

Purpose Most techniques used for automatic segmentation of subcortical brain regions are developed for three-dimensional (3D) MR images. MRIs obtained in non-specialist hospitals may be non-isotropic and two-dimensional (2D). Automatic segmentation of 2D images may be challenging and represents a lost opportunity to perform quantitative image analysis. We determine the performance of a modified subcortical segmentation technique applied to 2D images in patients with idiopathic generalised epilepsy (IGE). Methods Volume estimates were derived from 2D (0.4 × 0.4 × 3 mm) and 3D (1 × 1x1mm) T1-weighted acquisitions in 31 patients with IGE and 39 healthy controls. 2D image segmentation was performed using a modified FSL FIRST (FMRIB Integrated Registration and Segmentation Tool) pipeline requiring additional image reorientation, cropping, interpolation and brain extraction prior to conventional FIRST segmentation. Consistency between segmentations was assessed using Dice coefficients and volumes across both approaches were compared between patients and controls. The influence of slice thickness on consistency was further assessed using 2D images with slice thickness increased to 6 mm. Results All average Dice coefficients showed excellent agreement between 2 and 3D images across subcortical structures (0.86–0.96). Most 2D volumes were consistently slightly lower compared to 3D volumes. 2D images with increased slice thickness showed lower agreement with 3D images with lower Dice coefficients (0.55–0.83). Significant volume reduction of the left and right thalamus and putamen was observed in patients relative to controls across 2D and 3D images. Conclusion Automated subcortical volume estimation of 2D images with a resolution of 0.4 × 0.4x3mm using a modified FIRST pipeline is consistent with volumes derived from 3D images, although this consistency decreases with an increased slice thickness. Thalamic and putamen atrophy has previously been reported in patients with IGE. Automated subcortical volume estimation from 2D images is feasible and most reliable at using in-plane acquisitions greater than 1 mm x 1 mm and provides an opportunity to perform quantitative image analysis studies in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Absence seizures (AS) are brief epileptic seizures which present in childhood and adolescence. Depending on clinical features and electroencephalogram (EEG) findings they are divided into typical, atypical absences, and absences with special features. Typical absences are characterised by sudden loss of awareness and an EEG typically shows generalised spike wave discharges at three cycles per second. Ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine are currently used to treat absence seizures. This review aims to determine the best choice of antiepileptic drug for children and adolescents with AS. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence for the effects of ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine as treatments for children and adolescents with absence seizures (AS), when compared with placebo or each other. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 22 September 2020) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to September 21, 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi‐randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. No language restrictions were imposed. In addition, we contacted Sanofi Winthrop, Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) and Parke Davis (now Pfizer), manufacturers of sodium valproate, lamotrigine and ethosuximide respectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised parallel group monotherapy or add‐on trials which include a comparison of any of the following in children or adolescents with AS: ethosuximide, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Outcome measures were: 1. proportion of individuals seizure free at one, three, six, 12 and 18 months post randomisation; 2. individuals with a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; 3. normalisation of EEG and/or negative hyperventilation test; and 4. adverse effects. Data were independently extracted by two review authors. Results are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We used GRADE quality assessment criteria to evaluate the certainty of evidence for the outcomes derived from all included studies. MAIN RESULTS: On the basis of our selection criteria, we included no new studies in the present review. Eight small trials (total number of participants: 691) were included from the earlier review. Six of them were of poor methodological quality (unclear or high risk of bias) and seven recruited less than 50 participants. There are no placebo‐controlled trials for ethosuximide or valproate, and hence, no evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support a specific effect on AS for either of these two drugs. Due to the differing methodologies used in the trials comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and valproate, we thought it inappropriate to undertake a meta‐analysis. One large randomised, parallel double‐blind controlled trial comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and sodium valproate in 453 children with newly diagnosed childhood absence epilepsy found that at 12 months, seizure freedom was higher in patients taking ethosuximide (70/154, 45%) than in patients taking lamotrigine (31/146, 21%; P < 0.001), with no difference between valproate (64/146, 44%) and ethosuximide (70/154, 45%; P > 0.05). In this study, the frequency of treatment failures due to intolerable adverse events was significantly different among the treatment groups, with the largest proportion of adverse events in the valproic acid group (48/146, 33%) compared to the ethosuximide (38/154, 25%) and the lamotrigine (29/146, 20%) groups (P < 0.037). Overall, this large study demonstrates the superior effectiveness of ethosuximide and valproic acid compared to lamotrigine as initial monotherapy aimed to control seizures without intolerable adverse effects in children with childhood absence epilepsy. This study provided high certainty of the evidence for outcomes for which data were available. However, the certainty of the evidence provided by the other included studies was low, primarily due to risk of bias and imprecise results because of the small sample sizes. Hence, conclusions regarding the efficacy of ethosuximide, valproic acid and lamotrigine derive mostly from this single study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review was published, we have found no new studies. Hence, the conclusions remain the same as the previous update. With regards to both efficacy and tolerability, ethosuximide represents the optimal initial empirical monotherapy for children and adolescents with AS. However, if absence and generalised tonic‐clonic seizures coexist, valproate should be preferred, as ethosuximide is probably inefficacious on tonic‐clonic seizures.

Highlights • Patients showed showed widespread connectome alterations relative to controls. • Relative to controls, patients /w seizure-freedom (SF) had increased diffusivity. • Patients /w persistent seizures (PS) had increased diffusivity relative to controls. • Subgroup-specific connectomes were found for both patient groups (SF vs PS). • Patients with generalized seizures and those without had altered connectomes., Despite an expanding literature on brain alterations in patients with longstanding epilepsy, few neuroimaging studies investigate patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy (NDfE). Understanding brain network impairments at diagnosis is necessary to elucidate whether or not brain abnormalities are principally due to the chronicity of the disorder and to develop prognostic markers of treatment outcome. Most adults with NDfE do not have MRI-identifiable lesions and the reasons for seizure onset and refractoriness are unknown. We applied structural connectomics to T1-weighted and multi-shell diffusion MRI data with generalized q-sampling image reconstruction using Network Based Statistics (NBS). We scanned 27 patients within an average of 3.7 (SD = 2.9) months of diagnosis and anti-epileptic drug treatment outcomes were collected 24 months after diagnosis. Seven patients were excluded due to lesional NDfE and outcome data was available in 17 patients. Compared to 29 healthy controls, patients with non-lesional NDfE had connectomes with significantly decreased quantitative anisotropy in edges connecting right temporal, frontal and thalamic nodes and increased diffusivity in edges between bilateral temporal, frontal, occipital and parietal nodes. Compared to controls, patients with persistent seizures showed the largest effect size (|d|>=1) for decreased anisotropy in right parietal edges and increased diffusivity in edges between left thalamus and left parietal nodes. Compared to controls, patients who were rendered seizure-free showed the largest effect size for decreased anisotropy in the edge connecting the left thalamus and right temporal nodes and increased diffusivity in edges connecting right frontal nodes. As demonstrated by large effect sizes, connectomes with decreased anisotropy (edge between right frontal and left insular nodes) and increased diffusivity (edge between right thalamus and left parietal nodes) were found in patients with persistent seizures compared to patients who became seizure-free. Patients who had persistent seizures showed larger effect sizes in all network metrics than patients who became seizure-free when compared to each other and compared to controls. Furthermore, patients with focal-to-bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS, N = 11) had decreased quantitative anisotropy in a bilateral network involving edges between temporal, parietal and frontal nodes with greater effect sizes than those of patients without FBTCS (N = 9). NBS findings between patients and controls indicated that structural network changes are not necessarily a consequence of longstanding refractory epilepsy and instead are present at the time of diagnosis. Computed effect sizes suggest that there may be structural network MRI-markers of future pharmacoresistance and seizure severity in patients with a new diagnosis of focal epilepsy.

EBioMedicine 72, 103588 (2021). doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103588, Published by Elsevier, Amsterdam [u.a.]

Despite an increasing number of drug treatment options for people with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE), drug resistance remains a significant issue and the mechanisms underlying it remain poorly understood. Previous studies have largely focused on potential cellular or genetic explanations for drug resistance. However, epilepsy is understood to be a network disorder and there is a growing body of literature suggesting altered topology of large-scale resting networks in people with epilepsy compared with controls. We hypothesize that network alterations may also play a role in seizure control. The aim of this study was to compare resting state functional network structure between well-controlled IGE (WC-IGE), drug resistant IGE (DR-IGE) and healthy controls. Thirty-three participants with IGE (10 with WC-IGE and 23 with DR-IGE) and 34 controls were included. Resting state functional MRI networks were constructed using the Functional Connectivity Toolbox (CONN). Global graph theoretic network measures of average node strength (an equivalent measure to mean degree in a network that is fully connected), node strength distribution variance, characteristic path length, average clustering coefficient, small-world index and average betweenness centrality were computed. Graphs were constructed separately for positively weighted connections and for absolute values. Individual nodal values of strength and betweenness centrality were also measured and ‘hub nodes’ were compared between groups. Outcome measures were assessed across the three groups and between both groups with IGE and controls. The IGE group as a whole had a higher average node strength, characteristic path length and average betweenness centrality. There were no clear differences between groups according to seizure control. Outcome metrics were sensitive to whether negatively correlated connections were included in network construction. There were no clear differences in the location of ‘hub nodes’ between groups. The results suggest that, irrespective of seizure control, IGE interictal network topology is more regular and has a higher global connectivity compared to controls, with no alteration in hub node locations. These alterations may produce a resting state network that is more vulnerable to transitioning to the seizure state. It is possible that the lack of apparent influence of seizure control on network topology is limited by challenges in classifying drug response. It is also demonstrated that network topological features are influenced by the sign of connectivity weights and therefore future methodological work is warranted to account for anticorrelations in graph theoretic studies., Pegg et al. report that, irrespective of seizure control, network topology in idiopathic generalized epilepsy is more regular and has higher global connectivity, compared with controls., Graphical Abstract Graphical Abstract

Summary Both mild and severe epilepsies are influenced by variants in the same genes, yet an explanation for the resulting phenotypic variation is unknown. As part of the ongoing Epi25 Collaboration, we performed a whole-exome sequencing analysis of 13,487 epilepsy-affected individuals and 15,678 control individuals. While prior Epi25 studies focused on gene-based collapsing analyses, we asked how the pattern of variation within genes differs by epilepsy type. Specifically, we compared the genetic architectures of severe developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs) and two generally less severe epilepsies, genetic generalized epilepsy and non-acquired focal epilepsy (NAFE). Our gene-based rare variant collapsing analysis used geographic ancestry-based clustering that included broader ancestries than previously possible and revealed novel associations. Using the missense intolerance ratio (MTR), we found that variants in DEE-affected individuals are in significantly more intolerant genic sub-regions than those in NAFE-affected individuals. Only previously reported pathogenic variants absent in available genomic datasets showed a significant burden in epilepsy-affected individuals compared with control individuals, and the ultra-rare pathogenic variants associated with DEE were located in more intolerant genic sub-regions than variants associated with non-DEE epilepsies. MTR filtering improved the yield of ultra-rare pathogenic variants in affected individuals compared with control individuals. Finally, analysis of variants in genes without a disease association revealed a significant burden of loss-of-function variants in the genes most intolerant to such variation, indicating additional epilepsy-risk genes yet to be discovered. Taken together, our study suggests that genic and sub-genic intolerance are critical characteristics for interpreting the effects of variation in genes that influence epilepsy.

Background Epilepsy is a central nervous system disorder (neurological disorder). Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical nerve cell electrical activity in the brain. Despite the development of more than 10 new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) since the early 2000s, approximately a third of people with epilepsy remain resistant to pharmacotherapy, often requiring treatment with a combination of AEDs. In this review, we summarised the current evidence regarding rufinamide, a novel anticonvulsant medication, which, as a triazole derivative, is structurally unrelated to any other currently used anticonvulsant medication when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy. In January 2009, rufinamide was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of children four years of age and older with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. It is also approved as an add-on treatment for adults and adolescents with focal seizures. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2018. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. Search methods We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of rufinamide and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies. Selection criteria Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on trials of rufinamide, recruiting people (of any age or gender) with drug-resistant epilepsy. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome); seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; and adverse effects (secondary outcomes). Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT) and we presented summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results The review included six trials, representing 1759 participants. Four trials (1563 participants) included people with uncontrolled focal seizures. Two trials (196 participants) included individuals with established Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Overall, the age of adults ranged from 18 to 80 years and the age of children ranged from 4 to 16 years. Baseline phases ranged from 28 to 56 days and double-blind phases from 84 to 96 days. Five of the six included trials described adequate methods of concealment of randomisation, and only three described adequate blinding. All analyses were by ITT. Overall, five studies were at low risk of bias and one had unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturer of rufinamide and therefore were at high risk of funding bias. The overall RR for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.79 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.22; 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), indicating that rufinamide (plus conventional AED) was significantly more effective than placebo (plus conventional AED) in reducing seizure frequency by at least 50% when added to conventionally used AEDs in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Data from only one study (73 participants) reported seizure freedom: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.36 to 4.86; 1 RCT, 73 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The overall RR for treatment withdrawal (for any reason and due to AED) was 1.83 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.31; 6 RCTs, 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that rufinamide was significantly more likely to be withdrawn than placebo. Most adverse effects were significantly more likely to occur in the rufinamide-treated group. Adverse events significantly associated with rufinamide were headache, dizziness, somnolence, vomiting, nausea, fatigue, and diplopia. The RRs for these adverse effects were as follows: headache 1.36 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.69; 3 RCTs, 1228 participants; high-certainty evidence); dizziness 2.52 (95% Cl 1.90 to 3.34; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); somnolence 1.94 (95% Cl 1.44 to 2.61; 6 RCTs, 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); vomiting 2.95 (95% Cl 1.80 to 4.82; 4 RCTs, 777 participants; low-certainty evidence); nausea 1.87 (95% Cl 1.33 to 2.64; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); fatigue 1.46 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.97; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and diplopia 4.60 (95% Cl 2.53 to 8.38; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no important heterogeneity between studies for any outcomes. Overall, we assessed the evidence as moderate to low certainty due to wide CIs and potential risk of bias from some studies contributing to the analysis. Authors' conclusions For people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment was effective in reducing seizure frequency. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for long-term use of rufinamide. In the short term, rufinamide as an add-on was associated with several adverse events. This review focused on the use of rufinamide in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of rufinamide when used as monotherapy.

IntroductionAntiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Over the past 20 years, a number of new drugs have been approved for National Health Service (NHS) use on the basis of information from short-term trials that demonstrate efficacy. These trials do not provide information about the longer term outcomes, which inform treatment policy. This trial will assess the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the newer treatment levetiracetam and zonisamide.Methods and analysisThis is a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing new and standard treatments for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Arm A of the trial randomised 990 patients with focal epilepsy to standard AED lamotrigine or new AED levetiracetam or zonisamide. Arm B randomised 520 patients with generalised epilepsy to standard AED sodium valproate or new AED levetiracetam. Patients are recruited from UK NHS outpatient epilepsy, general neurology and paediatric clinics. Included patients are aged 5 years or older with two or more spontaneous seizures requiring AED monotherapy, who are not previously treated with AEDs. Patients are followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is time to 12-month remission from seizures. Secondary outcomes include time to treatment failure (including due to inadequate seizure control or unacceptable adverse reactions); time to first seizure; time to 24-month remission; adverse reactions and quality of life. All primary analyses will be on an intention to treat basis. Separate analyses will be undertaken for each arm. Health economic analysis will be conducted from the perspective of the NHS to assess the cost-effectiveness of each AED.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by the North West-Liverpool East REC (Ref. 12/NW/0361). The trial team will disseminate the results through scientific meetings, peer-reviewed publications and patient and public involvement.Trial registration numbersEudraCT 2012-001884-64; ISRCTN30294119.

Because hyper-excitability has been shown to be a shared pathophysiological mechanism, we used the latest and largest genome-wide studies in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (n = 36,052) and epilepsy (n = 38,349) to determine genetic overlap between these conditions. First, we showed no significant genetic correlation, also when binned on minor allele frequency. Second, we confirmed the absence of polygenic overlap using genomic risk score analysis. Finally, we did not identify pleiotropic variants in meta-analyses of the 2 diseases. Our findings indicate that amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and epilepsy do not share common genetic risk, showing that hyper-excitability in both disorders has distinct origins. ispartof: NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING vol:92 ispartof: location:United States status: published

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.

BackgroundPatients with chronic focal epilepsy may have atrophy of brain structures important for the generation and maintenance of seizures. However, little research has been conducted in patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy (NDfE), despite it being a crucial point in time for understanding the underlying biology of the disorder. We aimed to determine whether patients with NDfE show evidence of volumetric abnormalities of subcortical structures.MethodsEighty-two patients with NDfE and 40 healthy controls underwent MRI scanning using a standard clinical protocol. Volume estimation of the left and right hippocampus, thalamus, caudate nucleus, putamen and cerebral hemisphere was performed for all participants and normalised to whole brain volume. Volumes lower than two standard deviations below the control mean were considered abnormal. Volumes were analysed with respect to patient clinical characteristics, including treatment outcome 12 months after diagnosis.ResultsVolume of the left hippocampus (P(FDR-corr) = 0.04) and left (P(FDR-corr) = 0.002) and right (P(FDR-corr) = 0.04) thalamus were significantly smaller in patients relative to controls. Relative to the normal volume limits in controls, 11% individual patients had left hippocampal atrophy, 17% had left thalamic atrophy and 9% had right thalamic atrophy. We did not find evidence of a relationship between volumes and future seizure control or with other clinical characteristics of epilepsy.ConclusionsVolumetric abnormalities of structures known to be important for the generation and maintenance of focal seizures are established at the time of epilepsy diagnosis and are not necessarily a result of the chronicity of the disorder.

Background This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2010; it includes one additional study. Primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures are a type of generalised seizure. Other types of seizures include: absence, myoclonic, and atonic seizures. Effective control of tonic-clonic seizures reduces the risk of injury and death, and improves quality of life. While most people achieve seizure control with one antiepileptic drug, around 30% do not, and require a combination of antiepileptic drugs. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of add-on lamotrigine for drug-resistant primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Search methods For the latest update, we searched these databases on 19 March 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) Web, MEDLINE Ovid, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The CRS includes records from the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of lamotrigine. Selection criteria Randomised controlled parallel or cross-over trials of add-on lamotrigine for people of any age with drug-resistant primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methodology; two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, evaluated risk of bias, extracted relevant data, and GRADE-assessed evidence. We investigated these outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in primary generalised tonic-clonic seizure frequency; (2) seizure freedom; (3) treatment withdrawal; (4) adverse effects; (5) cognitive effects; and (6) quality of life. We used an intention-to-treat (ITT) population for all analyses, and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for adverse effects, we used 99% CIs to compensate for multiple hypothesis testing. Main results We included three studies (total 300 participants): two parallel-group studies and one cross-over study. We assessed varied risks of bias across studies; most limitations arose from the poor reporting of methodological details. We meta-analysed data extracted from the two parallel-group studies, and conducted a narrative synthesis for data from the cross-over study. Both parallel-group studies (270 participants) reported all dichotomous outcomes. Participants taking lamotrigine were almost twice as likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in primary generalised tonic-clonic seizure frequency than those taking a placebo (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.45; low-certainty evidence). The results between groups were inconclusive for the likelihood of seizure freedom (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.72; very low-certainty evidence); treatment withdrawal (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.99; very low-certainty evidence); and individual adverse effects: ataxia (RR 3.05, 99% CI 0.05 to 199.36); dizziness (RR 0.91, 99% CI 0.29 to 2.86; very low-certainty evidence); fatigue (RR 1.02, 99% CI 0.13 to 8.14; very low-certainty evidence); nausea (RR 1.60, 99% CI 0.48 to 5.32; very low-certainty evidence); and somnolence (RR 3.73, 99% CI 0.36 to 38.90; low-certainty evidence). The cross-over trial (26 participants) reported that 7/14 participants with generalised tonic-clonic seizures experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency with add-on lamotrigine compared to placebo. The authors reported four treatment withdrawals, but did not specify during which treatment allocation they occurred. Rash (seven lamotrigine participants; zero placebo participants) and fatigue (five lamotrigine participants; zero placebo participants) were the most frequently reported adverse effects. None of the included studies measured cognition. One parallel-group study (N = 153) evaluated quality of life. They reported inconclusive results for the overall quality of life score between groups (P = 0.74). Authors' conclusions This review provides insufficient information to inform clinical practice. Low-certainty evidence suggests that lamotrigine reduces the rate of generalised tonic-clonic seizures by 50% or more. Very low-certainty evidence found inconclusive results between groups for all other outcomes. Therefore, we are uncertain to very uncertain that the results reported are accurate, and suggest that the true effect could be grossly different. More trials, recruiting larger populations, over longer periods, are necessary to determine lamotrigine's clinical use.

Objective Current medicines are ineffective in approximately one‐third of people with epilepsy. Therefore, new antiseizure drugs are urgently needed to address this problem of pharmacoresistance. However, traditional rodent seizure and epilepsy models are poorly suited to high‐throughput compound screening. Furthermore, testing in a single species increases the chance that therapeutic compounds act on molecular targets that may not be conserved in humans. To address these issues, we developed a pipeline approach using four different organisms. Methods We sequentially employed compound library screening in the zebrafish, Danio rerio, chemical genetics in the worm, Caenorhabditis elegans, electrophysiological analysis in mouse and human brain slices, and preclinical validation in mouse seizure models to identify novel antiseizure drugs and their molecular mechanism of action. Results Initially, a library of 1690 compounds was screened in an acute pentylenetetrazol seizure model using D rerio. From this screen, the compound chlorothymol was identified as an effective anticonvulsant not only in fish, but also in worms. A subsequent genetic screen in C elegans revealed the molecular target of chlorothymol to be LGC‐37, a worm γ‐aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptor subunit. This GABAergic effect was confirmed using in vitro brain slice preparations from both mice and humans, as chlorothymol was shown to enhance tonic and phasic inhibition and this action was reversed by the GABAA receptor antagonist, bicuculline. Finally, chlorothymol exhibited in vivo anticonvulsant efficacy in several mouse seizure assays, including the 6‐Hz 44‐mA model of pharmacoresistant seizures. Significance These findings establish a multiorganism approach that can identify compounds with evolutionarily conserved molecular targets and translational potential, and so may be useful in drug discovery for epilepsy and possibly other conditions.

BackgroundPredictive models within epilepsy are frequently developed via Cox’s proportional hazards models. These models estimate risk of a specified event such as 12-month remission. They are relatively simple to produce, have familiar output, and are useful to answer questions about short-term prognosis. However, the Cox model only considers time to first event rather than all seizures after starting treatment for example. This makes assessing change in seizure rates over time difficult. Variants to the Cox model exist enabling recurrent events to be modelled. One such variant is the Prentice, Williams and Peterson – Total Time (PWP-TT) model. An alternative is the negative binomial model for event counts. This study aims to demonstrate the differences between the three approaches, and to consider the benefits of the PWP-TT approach for assessing change in seizure rates over time.MethodsTime to 12-month remission and time to first seizure after randomisation were modelled using the Cox model. Risk of seizure recurrence was modelled using the PWP-TT model, including all seizures across the whole follow-up period. Seizure counts were modelled using negative binomial regression. Differences between the approaches were demonstrated using participants recruited to the UK-based multi-centre Standard versus New Antiepileptic Drug (SANAD) study.ResultsResults from the PWP-TT model were similar to those from the conventional Cox and negative binomial models. In general, the direction of effect was consistent although the variables included in the models and the significance of the predictors varied. The confidence intervals obtained via the PWP-TT model tended to be narrower due to the increase in statistical power of the model.ConclusionsThe Cox model is useful for determining the initial response to treatment and potentially informing when the next intervention may be required. The negative binomial model is useful for modelling event counts. The PWP-TT model extends the Cox model to all included events. This is useful in determining the longer-term effects of treatment policy. Such a model should be considered when designing future clinical trials in medical conditions typified by recurrent events to improve efficiency and statistical power as well as providing evidence regarding changes in event rates over time.

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.

ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility and optimal design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of Seizure First Aid Training For Epilepsy (SAFE).DesignPilot RCT with embedded microcosting.SettingThree English hospital emergency departments (EDs).ParticipantsPatients aged ≥16 with established epilepsy reporting ≥2 ED visits in the prior 12 months and their significant others (SOs).InterventionsPatients (and their SOs) were randomly allocated (1:1) to SAFE plus treatment-as-usual (TAU) or TAU alone. SAFE is a 4-hour group course.Main outcome measuresTwo criteria evaluated a definitive RCT’s feasibility: (1) ≥20% of eligible patients needed to be consented into the pilot trial; (2) routine data on use of ED over the 12 months postrandomisation needed securing for ≥75%. Other measures included eligibility, ease of obtaining routine data, availability of self-report ED data and comparability, SAFE’s effect and intervention cost.ResultsOf ED attendees with a suspected seizure, 424 (10.6%) patients were eligible; 53 (12.5%) patients and 38 SOs consented. Fifty-one patients (and 37 SOs) were randomised. Routine data on ED use at 12 months were secured for 94.1% patients. Self-report ED data were available for 66.7% patients. Patients reported more visits compared with routine data. Most (76.9%) patients randomised to SAFE received it and no related serious adverse events occurred. ED use at 12 months was lower in the SAFE+TAU arm compared with TAU alone, but not significantly (rate ratio=0.62, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.17). A definitive trial would need ~674 patient participants and ~39 recruitment sites. Obtaining routine data was challenging, taking ~8.5 months.ConclusionsIn satisfying only one predetermined ‘stop/go’ criterion, a definitive RCT is not feasible. The low consent rate in the pilot trial raises concerns about a definitive trial’s finding’s external validity and means it would be expensive to conduct. Research is required into how to optimise recruitment from the target population.Trial registration numberISRCTN13871327

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder, affecting almost 0.5% to 1% of the population. For nearly 30% of these people, their epilepsy is refractory to currently available drugs. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Lamotrigine is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs and is the topic of this review. Lamotrigine in combination with other antiepileptic drugs (add‐on) can reduce seizures, but with some adverse effects. The aim of this systematic review was to overview the current evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine when used as an adjunctive treatment for people with refractory partial epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of lamotrigine on (1) seizures, (2) adverse effect profile, and (3) cognition and quality of life, compared to placebo controls, when used as an add‐on treatment for people with refractory partial epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the previous version of the review, the authors searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (January 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2010), and reference lists of articles. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (28 May 2015), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to May 2015), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted the manufacturers of lamotrigine (GlaxoSmithKline). No language restrictions were imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised placebo‐controlled trials of people with drug‐resistant partial epilepsy of any age, in which an adequate method of concealment of randomisation was used. The studies were double‐, single‐ or unblinded. For cross‐over studies, the first treatment period was treated as a parallel trial. Eligible participants were adults or children with drug‐resistant partial epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion, and extracted data. Outcomes included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal (any reason), adverse effects, effects on cognition and quality of life. Primary analyses were by intention‐to‐treat. Sensitivity best and worse case analyses were undertaken to account for missing outcome data. Pooled Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl) were estimated for the primary outcomes of seizure frequency and treatment withdrawal. For adverse effects, pooled RRs and 99% Cls were calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the results are unchanged. For the previous version of the review, the authors found five parallel add‐on studies and eight cross‐over studies in adults or children with refractory focal epilepsy, and one parallel add‐on study with a responder‐enriched design in infants. In total, these 14 studies included 1958 participants (38 infants, 199 children, and 1721 adults). Baseline phases ranged from 4 to 12 weeks; treatment phases from 8 to 36 weeks. Overall, eleven studies (n = 1243 participants) were rated as having a low risk of bias, and three (n = 715 participants) had un unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. Effective blinding of studies was reported in three studies (n = 504 participants). The overall risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.80 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.23; 12 RCTs) for twelve studies (n = 1322 participants, adults and children) indicating that lamotrigine was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing seizure frequency. The overall RR for treatment withdrawal (for any reason) was 1.11 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.36; 14 RCTs) for fourteen studies (n = 1958 participants). The adverse events significantly associated with lamotrigine were: ataxia, dizziness, diplopia, and nausea. The RR of these adverse effects were as follows: ataxia 3.34 (99% Cl 2.01 to 5.55; 12 RCTs; n = 1524); dizziness 2.00 (99% Cl 1.51 to 2.64;13 RCTs; n = 1767); diplopia 3.79 (99% Cl 2.15 to 6.68; 3 RCTs; n = 943); nausea 1.81 (99% Cl 1.22 to 2.68; 12 RCTs; n = 1486). The limited data available precluded any conclusions about effects on cognition and quality of life. No important heterogeneity between studies was found for any of the outcomes. Overall, we assessed the evidence as high to moderate quality, due to incomplete data for some outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine as an add‐on treatment for partial seizures appears to be effective in reducing seizure frequency, and seems to be fairly well tolerated. However, the trials were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for the long‐term. Further trials are needed to assess the long‐term effects of lamotrigine, and to compare it with other add‐on drugs. Since we did not find any new studies, our conclusions remain unchanged.

Approximately 1.4% of emergency medical admissions are due to epileptic seizures. For the majority of such cases, computed tomography (CT) will not inform acute management and is unnecessary. Pseudonymised, routinely collected data from seven hospitals within the Cheshire and Merseyside area of the UK were analysed. All patients with emergency admissions to hospital due to seizures between 2014 and 2017 were included. Use of CT of the head was identified from routine coding. We identified 4,183 individuals with an acute seizure admission, of which over 30% received a CT of the head. There was significant variation in CT among hospital trusts. The rate of CT for patients admitted with seizures is high and CT is not being directed to those where they may be indicated. Integrated care pathways and guidelines are required to improve the management of patients presenting acutely with seizures.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in Issue 3, 2015. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non‐traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five‐year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre‐ or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the following databases on 26 June 2017: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta‐analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One three‐armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three‐armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head‐to‐head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence. Incidences of death were reported in only five trials. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no‐treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability. We considered the evidence to be of low quality for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited, low‐quality evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good‐quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.

Purpose: Status epilepticus (SE) is a severe condition of unrelenting seizures requiring urgent identification and treatment. SE may be unprovoked, occurring in someone with epilepsy, or may be provoked by acute intracranial disease or metabolic derangement. Increasingly encephalitis, particularly autoimmune types, is reported to cause refractory seizures. Whilst convulsive SE is readily identified, non-convulsive SE (NCSE) can be difficult to identify clinically, and electroencephalography (EEG) is required. Therefore, it is critical to identify the key clinical features associated with NCSE on EEG to inform future use of EEG. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, retrospective analysis of EEG requests from four general and one specialist neurology hospital in the Northwest of England (2015-2018). Cases were identified from EEG requests for patients with suspected NCSE or other indications such as encephalopathy. We compared demographic and clinical characteristics between EEG-confirmed cases of NCSE and a randomly selected sample of negative controls. Results: 358 EEGs were reviewed, and 8 positive cases of NCSE were identified. Epilepsy was identified as the aetiology in 2 of these cases, and autoimmune encephalitis another 2 cases (one patient with N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antibodies and another with voltage gated potassium channel antibodies). Previous alcohol excess (p = 0.005) and subtle motor signs (p = 0.047) on examination were observed more frequently in patients with NCSE compared to controls. Conclusion: Physicians should have a low threshold for urgent EEG in patients with suspected or previous encephalitis, especially if autoimmunity is suspected or subtle motor signs are present. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder. In approximately 30% of epilepsy cases, seizures are uncontrolled by one antiepileptic drug (AED). These people require treatment with a combination of multiple AEDs and are described as having drug‐resistant epilepsy. Oxcarbazepine is a keto‐analogue of carbamazepine, an established AED, and can be used as an add‐on treatment for drug‐resistant epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of oxcarbazepine as an add‐on treatment for people with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched on 24 September 2018: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Medline (Ovid) 1946 to 21 September 2018; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Originally, we also searched SCOPUS as a substitute for Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised and quasi‐randomised controlled trials in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials with parallel‐group or cross‐over design, recruiting people of any age with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. We accepted any level of blinding and trials could be placebo‐ or active‐controlled. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In accordance with the methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration, two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility before extracting data and assessing risk of bias. We assessed the primary outcomes: median percentage seizure reduction per 28 days; 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; and adverse effects including ataxia, hyponatraemia, and somnolence. We assessed the secondary outcomes: seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; cognitive effects; and quality of life. We used an intention‐to‐treat population for all primary analyses. We present results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), with the exception of adverse effects which we present with 99% CI. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six eligible studies, involving 1593 participants. We judged that three studies were at unclear risk of bias and three were at high risk of bias. Bias mainly arose from lack of methodological details and from high attrition rates. Participants were aged 1 month to 65 years, with a diagnosis of drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. All studies were either placebo‐ or alternative‐dose‐controlled with parallel‐group design. The treatment period varied from 9 days to 26 weeks. The median percentage seizure reduction per 28 days (3 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence) ranged from 26% to 83.3% for participants randomised to experimental oxcarbazepine compared to 7.6% to 28.7% for participants randomised to control treatment. Oxcarbazepine may increase the responder rate for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to control treatment (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.56; random‐effects model; 6 studies; low‐certainty evidence). For seizure freedom, the RR was 2.86 (95% CI 1.19 to 6.87; random‐effects model; 5 studies; low‐certainty evidence), suggesting an advantageous effectiveness of oxcarbazepine over control treatment. Treatment with oxcarbazepine was associated with an increased treatment withdrawal rate compared to control (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; fixed‐effect model; 6 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). The largest oxcarbazepine dose used, 2400 mg/d, was associated with a higher treatment withdrawal rate (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.92 to 2.94; fixed‐effect model; 2 studies) compared to control, than 1200 mg/d (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.95; fixed‐effect model; 3 studies) or 600 mg/d oxcarbazepine (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; fixed‐effect model; 1 study). Treatment with oxcarbazepine was associated with an increased incidence of multiple adverse effects including: ataxia (RR 2.54, 99% CI 0.86 to 7.54; random‐effects model; 5 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence); and somnolence (RR 2.03, 99% CI 1.17 to 3.54; random‐effects model; 6 studies; low‐certainty evidence). Hyponatraemia occurred more frequently with oxcarbazepine treatment but not significantly so (RR 2.53, 99% CI 0.27 to 23.85; fixed‐effect model; 6 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oxcarbazepine might be effective at reducing seizure frequency when used as an add‐on for drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. The efficacy outcomes — 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom — were derived from low‐certainty evidence. We are, therefore, uncertain whether the estimated effect size is representative of the true effect. In contrast, the evidence for median percentage seizure reduction and treatment withdrawal were of moderate certainty: thus, we are fairly certain of the effect estimates' reliability. Overall, we are unsure of the true efficacy of oxcarbazepine, but have concerns about its tolerability.

SSK was supported by a UK Medical Research Council grant (grant number MR/K023152/1). Determining the anatomical basis of hemispheric language dominance (HLD) remains an important scientific endeavor. The Wada test remains the gold standard test for HLD and provides a unique opportunity to determine the relationship between HLD and hemispheric structural asymmetries on MRI. In this study, we applied a whole‐brain voxel‐based asymmetry (VBA) approach to determine the relationship between interhemispheric structural asymmetries and HLD in a large consecutive sample of Wada tested patients. Of 135 patients, 114 (84.4%) had left HLD, 10 (7.4%) right HLD, and 11 (8.2%) bilateral language representation. Fifty‐four controls were also studied. Right‐handed controls and right‐handed patients with left HLD had comparable structural brain asymmetries in cortical, subcortical, and cerebellar regions that have previously been documented in healthy people. However, these patients and controls differed in structural asymmetry of the mesial temporal lobe and a circumscribed region in the superior temporal gyrus, suggesting that only asymmetries of these regions were due to brain alterations caused by epilepsy. Additional comparisons between patients with left and right HLD, matched for type and location of epilepsy, revealed that structural asymmetries of insula, pars triangularis, inferior temporal gyrus, orbitofrontal cortex, ventral temporo‐occipital cortex, mesial somatosensory cortex, and mesial cerebellum were significantly associated with the side of HLD. Patients with right HLD and bilateral language representation were significantly less right‐handed. These results suggest that structural asymmetries of an insular‐fronto‐temporal network may be related to HLD. Publisher PDF

Purpose The ketogenic diet (KD) has been proven to be effective in children with refractory epilepsy and is recommended by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). There is no randomised control trial (RCT) evidence for the clinical or cost effectiveness of KD in adults, for whom the KD is not currently recommended. We assessed the feasibility of the modified ketogenic diet (MKD) in adults with refractory epilepsy along with the willingness of patients to participate in a future RCT. Methods The service evaluation was undertaken in two parts; questionnaire and diet evaluation. Results 102 patients completed a questionnaire, of which 51 patients were willing to try the MKD for 3 months to assess effect on seizures. Forty three patients were willing to participate in a clinical trial to investigate deliverability, efficacy and tolerability. Thirty seven of which would still be willing to participate if the trial were randomised. Of the 17 patients who commenced the diet, 9 completed the 12 week period, 7 of which stayed on the diet for the longer term. Constipation (n=6) and loose stools (n=3) were the only reported adverse effects. Conclusion Our results indicate that there is demand for a ketogenic diet service in adults. The MKD is well tolerated, feasible and financially viable to deliver to adults with epilepsy in the NHS. There is also interest in and willingness to participate in a UK based RCT that would ultimately inform decisions about commissioning appropriate services.

Between 2009 and 2012 there were 26 epilepsy-related deaths in the UK of women who were pregnant or in the first post-partum year. The number of pregnancy-related deaths in women with epilepsy (WWE) has been increasing. Expert assessment suggests that most epilepsy-related deaths in pregnancy were preventable and attributable to poor seizure control. While prevention of seizures during pregnancy is important, a balance must be struck between seizure control and the teratogenic potential of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). A range of professional guidance on the management of epilepsy in pregnancy has previously been issued, but little attention has been paid to how optimal care can be delivered to WWE by a range of healthcare professionals. We summarise the findings of a multidisciplinary meeting with representation from a wide group of professional bodies. This focussed on the implementation of optimal pregnancy epilepsy care aiming to reduce mortality of epilepsy in mothers and reduce morbidity in babies exposed to AEDs in utero. We identify in particular -What stage to intervene - Golden Moments of opportunities for improving outcomes -Which Key Groups have a role in making change -When - 2020 vision of what these improvements aim to achieve. -How to monitor the success in this field We believe that the service improvement ideas developed for the UK may provide a template for similar initiatives in other countries.

IntroductionEmergency department (ED) visits for epilepsy are common, costly, often clinically unnecessary and typically lead to little benefit for epilepsy management. An ‘Alternative Care Pathway’ (ACP) for epilepsy, which diverts people with epilepsy (PWE) away from ED when ‘999’ is called and leads to care elsewhere, might generate savings and facilitate improved ambulatory care. It is unknown though what features it should incorporate to make it acceptable to persons from this particularly vulnerable target population. It also needs to be National Health Service (NHS) feasible. This project seeks to identify the optimal ACP configuration.Methods and analysisMixed-methods project comprising three-linked stages. In Stage 1, NHS bodies will be surveyed on ACPs they are considering and semi-structured interviews with PWE and their carers will explore attributes of care important to them and their concerns and expectations regarding ACPs. In Stage 2, Discrete Choice Experiments (DCE) will be completed with PWE and carers to identify the relative importance placed on different care attributes under common seizure scenarios and the trade-offs people are willing to make. The uptake of different ACP configurations will be estimated. In Stage 3, two Knowledge Exchange workshops using a nominal group technique will be run. NHS managers, health professionals, commissioners and patient and carer representatives will discuss DCE results and form a consensus on which ACP configuration best meets users’ needs and is NHS feasible.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval: NRES Committee (19/WM/0012) and King’s College London ethics Committee (LRS-18/19-10353). Primary output will be identification of optimal ACP configuration which should be prioritised for implementation and evaluation. A pro-active dissemination strategy will make those considering developing or supporting an epilepsy ACP aware of the project and opportunities to take part in it. It will also ensure they are informed of its findings.Project registration numberResearchregistry4723.

Highlights • Tractography approaches showed moderate to good agreement for tract morphology. • Along- and whole-tract diffusivity was significantly correlated across approaches. • Whole-tract AFQ but not manual tract diffusivity correlated with clinical variables. • Absence of excellent agreement between approaches warrants caution., Objective To investigate the agreement between manually and automatically generated tracts from diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Whole and along-the-tract diffusivity metrics and correlations with patient clinical characteristics were analyzed with respect to tractography approach. Methods We recruited 40 healthy controls and 24 patients with TLE who underwent conventional T1-weighted imaging and 60-direction DTI. An automated (Automated Fiber Quantification, AFQ) and manual (TrackVis) deterministic tractography approach was used to identify the uncinate fasciculus (UF) and parahippocampal white matter bundle (PHWM). Tract diffusion scalar metrics were analyzed with respect to agreement across automated and manual approaches (Dice Coefficient and Spearman correlations), to side of onset of epilepsy and patient clinical characteristics, including duration of epilepsy, age of onset and presence of hippocampal sclerosis. Results Across approaches the analysis of tract morphology similarity revealed Dice coefficients at moderate to good agreement (0.54 - 0.6) and significant correlations between diffusion values (Spearman's Rho=0.4–0.9). However, within bilateral PHWM, AFQ yielded significantly lower FA (left: Z = 4.4, p