Safety and efficacy of vigabatrin and carbamazepine in newly diagnosed epilepsy: a multicentre randomised double-blind study. Vigabatrin European Monotherapy Study Group

Drug treatment of epilepsy in the century of the ILAE: the second 50 years, 1959-2009

The drug therapy of epilepsy evolved enormously in this 50 year period. Advances in therapeutics included the incorporation of pharmacokinetics into clinical practice, enormous advances in neurochemistry, a trend to antiepileptic drug monotherapy, better drug assessment, better understanding of therapeutic outcomes, and the recognition of the large epilepsy treatment gap in many countries. An unprecedented range of new drugs was introduced in this period. Before 1989, these included carbamazepine, valproate, ethosuximide, and the benzodiazepines. Since 1989, 13 more new drugs have been licensed and marketed and there are others in the pipeline. The International League Against Epilepsy and its leading figures have played an important role in these developments. In this period, too, there has been a rapid expansion in research and development within the pharmaceutical industry and a rise in the value of the antiepileptic drug market. In parallel, governmental regulation of pharmaceuticals has greatly increased. To what extent the overall prognosis of epilepsy has improved as a result of these activities is an interesting and perplexing question.

Treatment of refractory complex partial seizures: role of vigabatrin

Vigabatrin (VGB) is an antiepileptic drug that was designed to inhibit GABA-transaminase, and increase levels of gamma-amino-butyric acid (GABA), a major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain. VGB has demonstrated efficacy as an adjunctive antiepileptic drug for refractory complex partial seizures (CPS) and for infantile spasms (IS). This review focuses on its use for complex partial seizures. Although VGB is well tolerated, there have been significant safety concerns about intramyelinic edema and visual field defects. VGB is associated with a risk of developing bilateral concentric visual field defects. Therefore, the use of VGB for complex partial seizures should be limited to those patients with seizures refractory to other treatments. Patients must have baseline and follow-up monitoring of visual fields, early assessment of its efficacy, and ongoing evaluation of the benefits and risks of VGB therapy.

Patient-reported cognitive side effects of antiepileptic drugs: predictors and comparison of all commonly used antiepileptic drugs

Subjective cognitive side effects (CSEs) are common in patients taking antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The objective of this study was to predict which patients are at risk for CSEs, and compare the CSE profiles of all commonly used AEDs. In this nonrandomized retrospective study, medical records of 1694 adult outpatients with epilepsy seen at our center over a 5-year period who had taken one or more AEDs were examined. Non-AED predictors of CSEs were investigated, and rates of AED-related CSEs were compared in 1189 patients (546 on monotherapy) newly started on an AED at our center. The average rate of AED-related intolerable CSEs (leading to dosage change or discontinuation) was 12.8%. On multivariate analysis, no significant non-AED predictors of CSEs were found. Significantly more intolerable CSEs were attributed to topiramate (21.5% of 130 patients) than to most other AEDs, including carbamazepine (9.9%), gabapentin (7.3%), levetiracetam (10.4%), lamotrigine (8.9%), oxcarbazepine (11.6%), and valproate (8.3%). CSE rates with zonisamide (14.9%) were significantly higher than those for gabapentin and lamotrigine. After exclusion of CSEs during the first 8 weeks of therapy, rates of CSEs were lower, but relative differences remained unchanged. In monotherapy, significantly more intolerable CSEs occurred with topiramate (11.1% of 18 patients) than with carbamazepine or valproate, and both phenytoin and zonisamide were associated with more CSEs than valproate. From this study, it can be concluded that intolerable patient-reported CSEs are most common with topiramate, followed by zonisamide, phenytoin, and oxcarbazepine. They are least likely to be reported with gabapentin, valproate, lamotrigine, carbamazepine, and levetiracetam.

Choosing a First Drug Treatment for Epilepsy after SANAD: Randomized Controlled Trials, Systematic Reviews, Guidelines and Treating Patients

The ILAE treatment guidelines for initial monotherapy emphasise the poor quality of information available to inform everyday clinical practice. Industry sponsored studies comparing antiepileptic drugs answer restricted licensing questions, rather than those relevant to the clinical community (patients, health professionals and founders of health care). The SANAD study, a pragmatic randomized clinical trial, offers a methodology to address some of these questions. It identifies lamotrigine as a cost-effective alternative to carbamazepine for the treatment of focal epilepsies, but confirms valproate as the most effective drug for the treatment of generalized or unclassified epilepsy.

Rash from Antiepileptic Drugs: Influence by Gender, Age, and Learning Disability

PURPOSE

Cutaneous adverse reactions from antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are common, but have received little scientific attention from a clinical point of view. We wanted to study the incidence of skin reactions of current AEDs and to explore their relation to clinical parameters such as gender, age, and learning disability.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with epilepsy were studied retrospectively. A detailed survey of medical records concerning all treatment with AEDs was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 663 patients were included with altogether 2,567 exposures to 15 different AEDs. Skin reactions were found in 14% of the patients and in 5% of the exposures. Ninety-seven percent of the reactions occurred to either carbamazepine (CBZ, 11%), phenytoin (PHT, 8%), lamotrigine (LTG, 8%), oxcarbazepine (8%), or phenobarbital (2%). Skin reactions developed significantly more often in females than in males (19% vs. 8%), and significantly less often in patients with learning disability than in other patients (7% vs. 16%). These differences were significant for CBZ, PHT, and LTG when analyzed separately. Females displayed higher rash frequency during the reproductive years, while men experienced less frequent rash in the same phase of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Fertile females have a higher risk for skin reactions compared to males, probably due to hormonal factors. Patients with learning disability appeared to have a lower risk than other patients in this study. Hygiene factors may possibly be underlying.

The SANAD study of effectiveness of carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate for treatment of partial epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Carbamazepine is widely accepted as a drug of first choice for patients with partial onset seizures. Several newer drugs possess efficacy against these seizure types but previous randomised controlled trials have failed to inform a choice between these drugs. We aimed to assess efficacy with regards to longer-term outcomes, quality of life, and health economic outcomes.

METHODS

SANAD was an unblinded randomised controlled trial in hospital-based outpatient clinics in the UK. Arm A recruited 1721 patients for whom carbamazepine was deemed to be standard treatment, and they were randomly assigned to receive carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate. Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure, and time to 12-months remission, and assessment was by both intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN38354748.

FINDINGS

For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was significantly better than carbamazepine (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95% CI 0.63-0.97]), gabapentin (0.65 [0.52-0.80]), and topiramate (0.64 [0.52-0.79]), and had a non-significant advantage compared with oxcarbazepine (1.15 [0.86-1.54]). For time to 12-month remission carbamazepine was significantly better than gabapentin (0.75 [0.63-0.90]), and estimates suggest a non-significant advantage for carbamazepine against lamotrigine (0.91 [0.77-1.09]), topiramate (0.86 [0.72-1.03]), and oxcarbazepine (0.92 [0.73-1.18]). In a per-protocol analysis, at 2 and 4 years the difference (95% CI) in the proportion achieving a 12-month remission (lamotrigine-carbamazepine) is 0 (-8 to 7) and 5 (-3 to 12), suggesting non-inferiority of lamotrigine compared with carbamazepine.

INTERPRETATION

Lamotrigine is clinically better than carbamazepine, the standard drug treatment, for time to treatment failure outcomes and is therefore a cost-effective alternative for patients diagnosed with partial onset seizures.

The cost-effectiveness of newer drugs as add-on therapy for children with focal epilepsies

PURPOSE

Epilepsies in children are complex diseases. Guidelines are needed on the appropriate use of newer versus older anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs). This paper presents an individual patient-sampling model to assess the cost-effectiveness of using newer AEDs as add-on therapy in line with UK prescribing guidance.

METHODS

Identification of the relevant parameters and treatment pathways for the model were achieved by a systematic review of the literature and discussions with clinical experts. Data were obtained from the literature and supplemented with data elicited from paediatric neurologists. The model considered paediatric patients over the period of childhood from the age of diagnosis to 18 years.

RESULTS

The results suggest that the older and newer AEDs are similar in terms of drug retention rates and the average time in 'good' treatment outcomes. In terms of cost, the results indicate a consistent increase in cost (compared to older AEDs) when all of the newer AEDs are considered. The decision analysis results indicate that there are no important health benefits from the use of newer AEDs when used as add-on therapy. However, the analysis also reveals that the uncertainties in the model are greater than the differences between the drug strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

To develop guidelines on the appropriate use of newer AEDs, better information is required from randomised controlled trials as there is insufficient data available in the public domain to accurately estimate the nature of the trade off between older versus newer AEDs.

Induction of P-glycoprotein in lymphocytes by carbamazepine and rifampicin: the role of nuclear hormone response elements

AIMS

Carbamazepine (CBZ) is an inducer of cytochrome P450 enzymes, which have been implicated in many drug interactions. However, for immunosuppressant and anti-HIV drugs, whose main site of action is the lymphocyte, induction of P-glycoprotein (Pgp) may also be important. In this study, we have investigated whether CBZ acts as an inducer of Pgp in lymphocytes.

METHODS

Pgp expression was assessed by flow cytometry and real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction using lymphocytes from four healthy subjects after incubation with therapeutic concentrations of CBZ, using rifampicin as a positive control. Binding to DR-4 elements in the MDR1 promoter was assessed by electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) and a luciferase-reporter construct.

RESULTS

CBZ increased MDR1 mRNA expression at 6 h by 3.7-fold [95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 7.6) when compared with controls. CBZ increased lymphocyte Pgp expression at 72 h by 7.6-fold (95% CI 2.1, 13.2) over control values. EMSA revealed a 2.1-fold (95% CI 1.5, 2.7) increased binding to the DR-4 element of CBZ when compared with control values. Activation of the DR-4 element was confirmed using reporter constructs. Rifampicin also had similar effects in all experiments.

CONCLUSIONS

Carbamazepine induces Pgp in a manner comparable to rifampicin, by increasing binding to the DR4 element. This has implications for interactions involving drugs whose site of action is the lymphocyte.

Negative Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs on Mood in Patients with Epilepsy

With the introduction of several new antiepileptic drugs into clinical practice, renewed attention has been focussed on treatment-emergent adverse effects, including mood disorders. There are several possible causes of psychiatric disorders in patients with epilepsy, including antiepileptic drugs, and it is often difficult to determine whether psychopathological manifestations, especially depressive symptoms, are due to drug therapy or to multiple other factors. Assessment of the negative effects of antiepileptic drugs on mood should always consider all potential factors. Case series, audits and open observational studies can identify psychopathological features, case-control studies are useful for identifying the endophenotypes of patients at risk of adverse effects on mood, and controlled clinical trials give good estimates of incidence of such effects, adjusted for the spontaneous occurrence of symptoms. The barbiturates, vigabatrin and topiramate show greater associations with the occurrence of depressive symptoms than other antiepileptic drugs, presenting in up to 10% of all patients, but even more so in susceptible patients. Data on zonisamide are scarce but it seems that mood disorders may occur in approximately 7% of patients who are receiving high dosages of this drug. In most cases, the use of monotherapy, with slow titration schedules, can significantly reduce the incidence of mood disorders. Tiagabine, levetiracetam and felbamate present an intermediate risk, with prevalence of depression of about 4% or lower. Phenytoin, ethosuximide, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, gabapentin, sodium valproate, pregabalin and lamotrigine are all associated with low risks for depression (<1%), and several of these antiepileptic drugs seem to have a positive effect on mood. Antiepileptic drugs can negatively affect mood and behaviour by different mechanisms: potentiation of GABA neurotransmission, folate deficiency, pharmacodynamic interactions with other antiepileptic drugs in polytherapy regimens, forced normalisation. Individuals with a personal or family history of depression should be carefully followed after initiation of therapy with a new antiepileptic drug, especially if structural brain abnormalities such as hippocampal sclerosis are present.

ILAE treatment guidelines: evidence-based analysis of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes

PURPOSE

To assess which antiepileptic medications (AEDs) have the best evidence for long-term efficacy or effectiveness as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy.

METHODS

A 10-member subcommission of the Commission on Therapeutic Strategies of The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE), including adult and pediatric epileptologists, clinical pharmacologists, clinical trialists, and a statistician evaluated available evidence found through a structured literature review including MEDLINE, Current Contents and the Cochrane Library for all applicable articles from 1940 until July 2005. Articles dealing with different seizure types (for different age groups) and two epilepsy syndromes were assessed for quality of evidence (four classes) based on predefined criteria. Criteria for class I classification were a double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, >or=48-week treatment duration without forced exit criteria, information on >or=24-week seizure freedom data (efficacy) or >or=48-week retention data (effectiveness), demonstration of superiority or 80% power to detect a <or=20% relative difference in efficacy/effectiveness versus an adequate comparator, and appropriate statistical analysis. Class II studies met all class I criteria except for having either treatment duration of 24 to 47 weeks or, for noninferiority analysis, a power to only exclude a 21-30% relative difference. Class III studies included other randomized double-blind and open-label trials, and class IV included other forms of evidence (e.g., expert opinion, case reports). Quality of clinical trial evidence was used to determine the strength of the level of recommendation.

RESULTS

A total of 50 RCTs and seven meta-analyses contributed to the analysis. Only four RCTs had class I evidence, whereas two had class II evidence; the remainder were evaluated as class III evidence. Three seizure types had AEDs with level A or level B efficacy and effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy: adults with partial-onset seizures (level A, carbamazepine and phenytoin; level B, valproic acid), children with partial-onset seizures (level A, oxcarbazepine; level B, None), and elderly adults with partial-onset seizures (level A, gabapentin and lamotrigine; level B, None). One adult seizure type [adults with generalized-onset tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures], two pediatric seizure types (GTC seizures and absence seizures), and two epilepsy syndromes (benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes and juvenile myoclonic epilepsy) had no AEDs with level A or level B efficacy and effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This evidence-based guideline focused on AED efficacy or effectiveness as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy. The absence of rigorous comprehensive adverse effects data makes it impossible to develop an evidence-based guideline aimed at identifying the overall optimal recommended initial-monotherapy AED. There is an especially alarming lack of well-designed, properly conducted RCTs for patients with generalized seizures/epilepsies and for children in general. The majority of relevant existing RCTs have significant methodologic problems that limit their applicability to this guideline's clinically relevant main question. Multicenter, multinational efforts are needed to design, conduct and analyze future clinically relevant RCTs that can answer the many outstanding questions identified in this guideline. The ultimate choice of an AED for any individual patient with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy should include consideration of the strength of the efficacy and effectiveness evidence for each AED along with other variables such as the AED safety and tolerability profile, pharmacokinetic properties, formulations, and expense. When selecting a patient's AED, physicians and patients should consider all relevant variables and not just efficacy and effectiveness.

Weight Change and Antiepileptic Drugs

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) constitute a diverse class of agents with heterogeneous mechanisms of action and diverse side-effect profiles. Weight change, either gain or loss, is a common AED side effect, conferring multiple risks of additional morbidity.

REVIEW SUMMARY

The risks inherent in weight change, such as diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD), and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), may be exacerbated by the interaction of polypharmacy and comorbidities. Patients with epilepsy are more likely to be receiving multiple medications and are also more likely than the general population to suffer from morbidities related to both weight gain and weight loss. For certain patients, use of an AED associated with weight change, particularly weight loss, may be salubrious, although long-term weight change in these patients may ultimately become undesirable. Appropriate selection of an AED to minimize the risk of morbidity arising from weight change should be guided by a knowledge of patients' weight status, their comorbidities, and use of other medications. The potential for added risk in certain subpopulations, such as pediatric, elderly, and female patients, requires additional caution in selecting an AED.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a weight-neutral AED is recommended to lessen the risk of dysfunction arising from weight change.

Optimizing epilepsy management in teenagers

Optimal epilepsy management in teenage patients represents a particular challenge. These patients are often likely to respond more positively to a regimen that least disrupts their activities. In addition, as a patient group, they are more sensitive to peer perception. Current perceptions of older antiepilepsy drugs do not take into account frequent undesirable side effects or potential adverse interactions with other drugs. Furthermore, they often do not completely control seizures. Recent data suggest that not only do the newer antiepileptic drugs appear to be as efficacious as the older drugs, they also often have more favorable cognitive, cosmetic, and teratogenic side-effect profiles. In addition, newer antiepileptic drugs are being used more often in monotherapy. Successful management of epilepsy in teenagers requires that physicians not only understand the advantages that the newer antiepileptic drugs appear to provide but also consider the social impact of treatment on their patients.

Medications Associated with Weight Gain

OBJECTIVE

To review available literature regarding weight gain associated with commonly prescribed drugs and adjunctive therapy used to limit weight gain.

DATA SOURCES

Information was retrieved from a MEDLINE English-literature search between 1995 and July 2005, with a major subject heading of weight gain/drug effects excluding complementary alternative medicines. Other limits applied included human subjects and individuals >19 years of age. Additionally, references from retrieved articles were reviewed to identify other literature sources.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Changes in weight are generally reported as a primary or secondary outcome of many studies. Where possible, prospective, randomized, controlled trials were preferred; however, many studies were retrospective or open label. Meta-analyses and recent reviews, especially those providing a detailed description of the proposed mechanism involved in weight gain beyond the scope of this article, were included. Limited information was available from case reports. Studies were categorized by therapeutic area including psychiatry, neurology, diabetes, and other miscellaneous drug therapy. Medications used to intentionally stimulate appetite for weight gain, such as megesterol acetate, were not included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Weight gain with medication is usually associated with individual agents within a class. The tendency to cause weight gain is often related to differential specificity and sensitivity of binding to receptors involved with appetite regulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically significant weight gain is associated with some commonly prescribed medicines. There is wide interindividual variation in response and variation of the degree of weight gain within drug classes. Where possible, alternative therapy should be selected, especially for individuals predisposed to overweight and obesity.

Randomized dose-controlled study of topiramate as first-line therapy in epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate as monotherapy, using a dose-controlled study design.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a multinational, randomized, double-blind trial in adults and children (> or =6 years old) with epilepsy that was not being treated when randomized to 400 or 50 mg/day topiramate as target maintenance dosages. In addition to > or =2 lifetime unprovoked seizures, patients had to have one or two partial-onset seizures or generalized-onset tonic-clonic seizures in the 3-month retrospective baseline. The primary efficacy end point was time to first seizure; a secondary efficacy measure was the seizure-free rate at 6 months and 1 year. Double-blind treatment continued until 6 months after the last patient was randomized.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier survival analyses for time to first seizure (intent-to-treat, n = 470) favored 400 mg/day over 50 mg/day (P = 0.0002) as a target maintenance dosage. The first evaluation point with a significant difference (P = 0.046) favoring the higher dose was at day 14 when patients were receiving 100 or 25 mg/day. The probability of being seizure-free at 6 months was 83% in patients randomized to 400 mg/day and 71% in those randomized to 50 mg/day (P = 0.005). Seizure-free rates at 12 months were 76% and 59%, respectively (P = 0.001). Differences favoring the higher dose were significant in patients with partial-onset seizures (P = 0.009) and in those with generalized-onset tonic-clonic seizures (P = 0.005). The most common dose-related adverse events were paresthesia, weight loss, and decreased appetite. Discontinuations due to cognitive-related adverse events were 2% in the 50-mg group and 7% in the 400-mg group. Overall, 7% and 19%, respectively, discontinued with adverse events during the median treatment duration of 9 months.

CONCLUSION

Topiramate is effective as monotherapy in adults and children. Because a therapeutic effect emerges during titration, clinicians should adjust dosages in step-wise fashion with intermediate stopping points, e.g., 100 mg/day, to evaluate patient response and achieve the optimal maintenance dosage.

The safety and effectiveness of newer antiepileptics: a comparative postmarketing cohort study

Clinical trials for the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have provided inconclusive information to evaluate comparative risk benefit. The authors use data from postmarketing observational cohort studies to compare the failure of treatment with lamotrigine, vigabatrin, and gabapentin in patients with refractory epilepsy. The Drug Safety Research Unit has conducted prescription event monitoring (PEM) studies for lamotrigine, vigabatrin, and gabapentin to monitor their safety when used in primary care. The primary outcome of this study was time to treatment failure in patients who had been prescribed the drug after the start of the PEM study. Patients on gabapentin had reduced time to treatment failure compared to those on the other 2 drugs. The age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio of failure was 1.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.38-1.70) for gabapentin compared to lamotrigine and 1.19 (95% CI = 1.10-1.30) for vigabatrin compared to lamotrigine. The observed differences between the 3 study drugs might be confounded by a higher proportion of patients treated with gabapentin having refractory epilepsy, a shorter duration of the gabapentin PEM study, and a lower relative dose of gabapentin (approved at the time of the PEM study). The current study provides information about the routine usage of newer AEDs, which complements evidence from clinical trials regarding the efficacy and safety of these AEDs. Although this study showed differences on times to treatment failure between lamotrigine, vigabatrin, and gabapentin, the results are only useful when considered together with results from other studies seeking to answer the same questions.

Liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry for the determination of carbamazepine and its main metabolite in rat plasma utilizing an automated blood sampling system

A liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method for the simultaneous determination of carbamazepine and its main metabolite carbamazepine 10,11-epoxide in rat plasma is described. The method consists of a liquid-liquid extraction procedure and electrospray LC/MS/MS analysis. The chromatographic separation was achieved within 5 min using a C(8) (150 mm x 2.1mm) 5 microm column with a mobile phase composed of water/acetonitrile/acetic acid (69.5:30:0.5, v/v/v) at a flow rate of 0.4 ml/min. D(10)-carbamazepine is used as the internal standard for all compounds. Analytes were determined by electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry in the positive ion mode using selected reaction monitoring (SRM). Carbamazepine was monitored by scanning m/z 237-->194, carbamazepine 10,11-epoxide by m/z 253-->210 and d(10)-carbamazepine by m/z 247-->204. The lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) is 5 ng/ml for each analyte, based on 0.1 ml aliquots of rat plasma. The extraction recovery of analytes from rat plasma was over 87%. Intra-day and inter-day assay coefficients of variations were in the range of 2.6-9.5 and 4.0-9.6%, respectively. Linearity is observed over the range of 5-2000 ng/ml. This method was used for pharmacokinetic studies of carbamazepine and carbamazepine 10,11-epoxide in response to two different blood sampling techniques (i.e., manual sampling versus automated sampling) in the rat. Several differences between the two sampling techniques suggest that the method of blood collection needs to be considered in the evaluation of pharmacokinetic data.

Drug treatment of epilepsy: when does it fail and how to optimize its use?

Although modern community-based studies have shown that a majority of people with newly diagnosed epilepsy will enter long-term remission, seizures remain refractory to treatment in a substantial proportion of this population--perhaps as much as 40%. A consensus is being reached that, for operational purposes, pharmacoresistance can be suspected when two appropriately chosen, well-tolerated, first-line antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) or one monotherapy and one combination regimen have failed due to lack of efficacy. Poor prognostic factors include lack of response to the first AED, specific syndromes, symptomatic etiology, family history of epilepsy, psychiatric comorbidity, and high frequency of seizures. These observations suggest that prognosis can often be determined early in the course of the disorder. We propose a management paradigm that aims to maximize the chance of successful AED therapy, including the early use of "rational polytherapy" for patients not responding to monotherapy, and to identify efficiently patients suitable for "curative" resective surgery, in particular those with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. An orderly approach to each epilepsy syndrome will optimize the chance of perfect seizure control and help more patients achieve a fulfilling life.

Seizures in elderly patients with dementia: epidemiology and management

Epileptic seizures occur in patients with dementia at a higher prevalence than among healthy elderly individuals. The incidence of seizures among patients with dementia varies with the aetiology of the dementing illness. In patients with Alzheimer's disease (the most common form of dementia), approximately 10-22% have at least one unprovoked seizure. Seizures usually occur in later stages of Alzheimer's disease, on average, > or =6 years into the course of the disease. Seizures in Alzheimer's disease are more likely to occur with early-onset disease, particularly if there is a familial presenilin I mutation. The incidence of seizures in other dementing diseases is less clear. There are special considerations regarding the management of seizures in the elderly with dementia. First, the presence of cognitive impairment may impede an accurate diagnosis of seizures. Clinicians may also mistake seizure manifestations for symptoms of the underlying dementia. Second, since most dementia patients are elderly, there are pharmacokinetic changes with aging that affect the use of antiepileptic drugs. Third, antiepileptic drugs have potential cognitive adverse effects that may worsen dementia. Although few studies are available, extrapolations from research in young people and elderly patients without dementia provide several recommendations for the management of seizures in patients with dementia: exclude symptomatic causes of seizures before committing to antiepileptic drug therapy; treat after a first seizure if there is evidence of focal neurological involvement or a risk of recurrent seizures; use antiepileptic drugs with minimal cognitive adverse effects, such as carbamazepine, valproic acid, gabapentin and lamotrigine; and use the lowest possible dosage and monitor antiepileptic drug levels, where possible.

Health-related quality of life in senior adults with epilepsy: what we know from randomized clinical trials and suggestions for future research

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this work was to review the randomized controlled trial (RCT) literature on antiepileptic medication effects on health-related quality of life in seniors with epilepsy.

METHODS

Studies published from 1998 to June 2002 were identified by searching through Medline and the Cochrane Clinical Trials Register. Pre-1998 RCTs identified by Baker et al. [Epilepsia 41 (2003) 1357] were also examined for relevance to the present review. Studies were reviewed if they included a RCT design and included epilepsy patients over the age of 60.

RESULTS

A total of 85 clinical trials were reviewed. Of the 85 studies reviewed only 37 RCT studies included patients over the age of 60. However, formal quality-of-life outcome assessment was not performed in any of the RCTs that included senior adults, and only six studies provided formal quantitative analyses of AED effects in the form of adverse events incidence and participant withdrawal rates. For the most part, early study withdrawal rates were substantial for seniors and adverse events were very common. Two studies reporting on the cognitive and behavioral effects of study AEDs indicated only modest impact when AED monotherapy was kept at therapeutic levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite growing appreciation for quality-of-life, issues in the management of epilepsy little current empirical guidance is available for elderly with epilepsy. There exists virtually no information on elderly patient preferences and goals for epilepsy treatment outcomes, and available data primarily concerns younger adults. Despite some encouraging preliminary evidence from this review suggesting that conservative AED treatment may have a more favorable quality of life-related outcome, more conclusive statements await further systematic investigation.

Effect of antiepileptic drugs on bodyweight: overview and clinical implications for the treatment of epilepsy

The potential of specific antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) to cause clinically significant changes in bodyweight is a key consideration in the management of epilepsy; changes in weight can pose health hazards, impair body image and self-esteem, and lead to noncompliance with therapy. This article reviews the data regarding the effects of conventional and newer AEDs on weight and discusses the clinical implications of these effects for the management of patients with epilepsy. The data demonstrate that AEDs can differ substantially in their effects on weight. Some, such as valproate and carbamazepine, increase weight; others, such as topiramate and felbamate, decrease it. Still others, such as lamotrigine, levetiracetam and phenytoin, are weight neutral. Because most data regarding the effects of AEDs on weight are circumstantial, the incidence, magnitude and determinants of weight changes with AEDs remain poorly elucidated. Furthermore, little is known about the mechanisms of AED-induced changes in weight. The importance of effects on weight in selecting an AED depends largely upon the individual patient's needs and the risks and benefits of therapy for that patient. The most appropriate therapeutic choice is a weight-neutral medication unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

Translating monotherapy trials into clinical practice: a look into the abyss

To be approved for monotherapy by regulatory authorities, new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) must first be tested in well-controlled studies in refractory patients (conversion to monotherapy trials) or in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. However, the applicability of the information obtained in these trials to day-to-day clinical practice is limited. Clinical trials in newly diagnosed patients, particularly those allowing dose flexibility, offer more useful information, but a close scrutiny of methodological details is required to avoid misinterpretation of the findings. In many instances, the neurologist has a drug with a label, but lacks critical information on optimal titration rates, optimal target and maintenance dosages, response rates in populations with different epilepsy syndromes, different age ranges and comorbidities, and long-term safety data. Such information becomes available only through general clinical experience, well-designed phase IV studies, and postmarketing surveillance.

Measuring the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs

Clinical trials of new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) include regulatory studies aimed at demonstrating efficacy and reasonable safety, post-marketing open-open label studies and longer term outcome studies. Regulatory trials involve a carefully selected population of patients and are conducted under rigorously standardised conditions. Data from such studies cannot often be translated into clinical practice. Pragmatic post-marketing studies using flexible dosing schedules allow clinicians to better judge the utility of the new drug in a wider population of patients with epilepsy and decide the most appropriate dosing schedules. This paper discusses some of the issues surrounding the measurement of efficacy of new AEDs in both pre- and post-marketing phases of their development. All of the newer AEDs are initially used in patients with refractory partial seizures as adjunctive treatment. These trials are generally parallel-group studies although cross-over designs have been employed. The use of placebo-control is uncontroversial in this type of study. Efficacy endpoints are generally manipulations of seizure frequency on study drug compared to control. Global outcome measures and health related quality of life scores can also be used to measure efficacy. As the standard AEDs are associated with a high rate of seizure remission in patients who receive them as monotherapy, demonstration of superior efficacy of a new agent in a comparative trial will require large numbers of patients in a design that takes into account the natural history of treated epilepsy. Comparing investigational agents to a standard AED in an 'active-control' study with demonstration of equivalent efficacy would seem to be an acceptable way of assessing efficacy of new AEDs in this population. Some regulators, however, do not accept equivalence as proof of efficacy and insist on demonstration of superiority compared to a control. The use of placebo alone in the control group is ethically dubious. Several innovative study designs have, therefore, been used to satisfy regulatory requirements, while maintaining patient safety including withdrawal to monotherapy using high versus low dose comparators. Observational outcome studies provide the best opportunity of exploring the long-term utility of individual AEDs. Such studies largely follow standard clinical practice and need considerable time and resources. They can, however, yield valuable information about the effectiveness of AEDs in everyday clinical practice. Data from regulatory trials should be complemented by postmarketing studies and longer term studies of outcome to help clinicians decide the best way of utilising new AEDs and establishing their role in the therapeutic armamentarium.

Epilepsy: from consensus to daily practice

Most clinicians would accept that epilepsy treatment should begin with monotherapy, and in the majority of cases this is the preferred drug maintenance option. The clinical choice of one antiepileptic drug (AED) over another should be based on firm evidence of efficacy and tolerability as evaluated in comparative monotherapy studies and pharmacokinetics. This paper presents the findings of evidence-based reviews of AED monotherapy in patients newly diagnosed with epilepsy. The main study was conducted in the United Kingdom and investigated the clinical evidence supporting AEDs used as first-line monotherapy. In this paper the general treatment recommendations will focus on valproate, one of the mainstay drugs used in the fight against epilepsy. Finally, with these recommendations in mind, the principles behind AED drug selection in clinical practice will be discussed. Factors for consideration that impact on AED decision-making include: seizure and syndrome diagnosis, AED tolerability profiles, patient characteristics and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic AED interactions.

Review of new antiepileptic drugs as initial therapy

The new onset of epilepsy usually leads to initiation of treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Selection of the appropriate drug in this clinical situation is usually based on several factors, including efficacy for the suspected epilepsy type, tolerability, acute and long-term idiosyncratic side effects, pharmacokinetic interactions, possibility of rapid titration, formulation, and expense. Over the last several years, the choices for treatment in newly diagnosed epilepsy have increased because a number of new AEDs have been approved for use in monotherapy. This article reviews randomized, controlled studies that have evaluated the use of new AEDs in monotherapy.

Clinical trial response and dropout rates with olanzapine versus risperidone

BACKGROUND

In schizophrenia, comparing treatment dropouts between olanzapine and risperidone can be useful to better understand their relative effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the differences in the rates of dropout from clinical trials and response between these 2 antipsychotics.

METHODS

Literature search was based on MEDLINE (1966-May 2002). Analysis 1 included 4 randomized studies (838 patients), analysis 2 included 2 randomized studies (n = 716), and analysis 3 assessed 5 clinical studies for olanzapine (n = 928) and 3 for risperidone (n = 290). Odds ratios were estimated by the fixed-effect model.

RESULTS

The risk of treatment discontinuation (analysis 1) was significantly greater for risperidone than for olanzapine (42% vs. 33%, respectively). The response rates were identical for the 2 drugs (analysis 2). A slightly better pattern of maintenance of response was found for olanzapine (analysis 3).

CONCLUSIONS

The pattern of dropout and maintenance of remission seems to be better controlled for olanzapine than for risperidone.

Topiramate, carbamazepine and valproate monotherapy: double-blind comparison in newly diagnosed epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

To compare topiramate (TPM) with investigator's choice of carbamazepine (CBZ) or valproate (VPA) for initial treatment in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In patients with epilepsy diagnosed within previous 3 months, investigators selected CBZ (600 mg/day) or VPA (1250 mg/day) as preferred therapy based on the patient's clinical presentation. Based on investigators' treatment choice, patients (n=613) were assigned to the CBZ or VPA treatment branch. Within each branch, patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with the traditional antiepileptic drugs (CBZ or VPA), TPM 100 mg/day, or TPM 200 mg/day. Patients continued double-blind treatment until exiting the study or until 6 months after last patient randomized.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences between fixed doses of TPM and CBZ or VPA were observed in efficacy measures: time to exit, time to first seizure, and the proportion of patients seizure-free during the last 6 months of treatment. TPM 100 mg/day was associated with the fewest discontinuations due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

In patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy, an initial target dose of TPM 100 mg/day is at least as effective as therapeutic doses of CBZ and VPA.

New antiepileptic drug therapies

The introduction of these new antiepileptic drugs, from felbamate to levetiracetam, raised hope of control of epilepsy with fewer adverse effects and improved quality of life. Unfortunately, many patients continue to experience refractory epilepsy despite the use of these new agents, and dose-related adverse effects and idiosyncratic reactions continue to be problematic. A recent report describes six new compounds in preclinical development, and five in clinical trials [131]. As the number of available, effective, but imperfect antiepileptic drugs increases, many challenges remain. These include: choosing the drug appropriate for the epileptic syndrome, assessing accurately the range of a drug's adverse effects in an individual patient, and considering carefully the drug's interactions in combination drug therapy. In considering drug combinations, differing mechanisms of drug action and favorable pharmacodynamic interactions (an area requiring additional studies) are of importance. Clinicians caring for children who have epilepsy anticipate further advances in the pharmacogenetics and molecular pathophysiology of epilepsy, leading to individually tailored, effective, and safe therapy.

Characteristics of patients initiated on the new antiepileptic drugs: a PADS study

Whereas randomized controlled trials remain a standard for evaluating and comparing efficacy and safety of the new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), postmarketing drug research offers a useful means of comparing efficacy and safety of new AEDs. However, differences in baseline characteristics of patients in different drug groups create the potential for bias in drug comparison studies. In this study, baseline demographic characteristics of 1,386 patients initiating lamotrigine (LTG), tiagabine (TGB), or topiramate (TPM) were compared to identify patient characteristics that may influence AED use in epilepsy patients. Data were collected at 14 epilepsy centers and included medications, seizure types and syndromes, and prior adverse events. There were 402 patients in the LTG group, 725 TPM, and 259 TGB. The groups differed both in their number of concurrent AEDs (p<0.001) and in their number of prior AEDs (p<0.01). There was no difference in proportion with partial versus generalized epilepsy syndromes. The groups differed in the proportions of patients with complex partial seizures (p=0.049), primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (p=0.01), and myoclonic seizures (p=0.03). Baseline behavioral adverse event rate was lowest in patients initiating TPM (p<0.01); LTG patients had the lowest rate of prior AED-related rash (p=0.02). There was no relationship between AED assignment and patient age, age of epilepsy onset, epilepsy duration, institutionalization status, gender, or psychiatric history. Numerous epidemiological differences were identified among patients placed on the new AEDs, including current and prior AED profiles, seizure types, and prior adverse event history. Accounting for these differences is of crucial importance because they may bias conclusions of nonrandomized post-marketing trials comparing the drugs.

Gabapentin versus lamotrigine monotherapy: a double-blind comparison in newly diagnosed epilepsy

PURPOSE

This randomised, double-blind study compared the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) gabapentin (GBP) and lamotrigine (LTG) as monotherapy in newly diagnosed epilepsy.

METHODS

Patients with partial seizures with and/or without secondary generalization or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures were randomized to either GBP or LTG. During 2- and 6-week titration periods, respectively, GBP dosage reached 1,800 mg/day, and LTG, 150 mg/day. In the subsequent 24-week maintenance phase, the dose could be adjusted based on seizure control or adverse events between 1,200 and 3,600 mg/day for GBP and 100 and 300 mg/day for LTG. The primary end point was time to exit, a composite of efficacy and tolerability. Evaluable patients were used for the primary efficacy analysis, whereas tolerability was examined on an intent-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

A total of 309 patients was randomized, and 291 (148 GBP, 143 LTG) were included in the evaluable population. Nineteen patients in each group had an exit event. The median time to exit was 69 days for GBP and 48 days for LTG. The hazard ratio was estimated as 1.043 (90% confidence intervals, 0.602-1.809). Overall, 106 (71.6% of the evaluable population) GBP-treated and 96 (67.1%) LTG-treated patients completed the study. Of those, 80 (75.5%) patients taking GBP and 73 (76.0%) taking LTG remained seizure free during the final 12 weeks of treatment. Only 14 (8.9%) GBP-treated patients and 15 (9.9%) LTG-treated patients withdrew because of study drug-related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

GBP and LTG monotherapy were similarly effective and well tolerated in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Response to Early AED Therapy and Its Prognostic Implications

Determining the prognosis of patients when they first present with epilepsy is a difficult task. Several clinical studies have shed light on this very important topic. Potential predictors of the refractory state, including seizure etiology, duration of epilepsy before treatment, and epilepsy type, have not been successful indicators of long-term outcome. One predictor of the refractory state appears to be early response to AED therapy. Inadequate seizure control after initial treatment is a poor prognostic sign. Recent research into genetic causes of the refractory state has included investigation of the multiple drug resistance gene, and polymorphisms at drug targets. More work is needed to determine the causes and predictors of drug resistance.

Response to Early AED Therapy and Its Prognostic Implications

Determining the prognosis of patients when they first present with epilepsy is a difficult task. Several clinical studies have shed light on this very important topic. Potential predictors of the refractory state, including seizure etiology, duration of epilepsy before treatment, and epilepsy type, have not been successful indicators of long-term outcome. One predictor of the refractory state appears to be early response to AED therapy. Inadequate seizure control after initial treatment is a poor prognostic sign. Recent research into genetic causes of the refractory state has included investigation of the multiple drug resistance gene, and polymorphisms at drug targets. More work is needed to determine the causes and predictors of drug resistance.

What can we learn from clinical trials of anticonvulsant drugs in epilepsy?

Any physician who intends to utilize the available antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) judiciously, cannot do so without being well versed on their pharmacological properties and the large body of evidence that is continuously accumulating on their relative efficacy and tolerability in different types of epilepsy. While informal observations such as retrospective surveys and case reports can be useful under special circumstances, prospective randomized clinical studies represent by far the most important tool by which objective information can be obtained about the clinical value of existing drugs. Even randomized trials, however, can produce misleading conclusions because of inherent weaknesses or bias in study design, analysis, and interpretation. Common deficiencies identified in some of the most recent drug trials in epilepsy include 1) inclusion of inappropriately heterogeneous patient groups (for example, patients with partial and primarily generalized seizures); 2) low statistical power due to insufficient sample size (for trials designed to show therapeutic equivalence); 3) inappropriate titration rates or suboptimal dosages or dosing schedules (often favouring the sponsor's product over the comparator); 4) insufficient duration of treatment; and 5) utilization of endpoints of questionable clinical significance. In part, some of the above shortcomings can be ascribed to the fact that most clinical drug trials are designed to address regulatory needs rather than to provide the type of information required for rational prescribing. Physicians need to be alerted about the importance of these issues, and they should make every possible effort to interpret critically the medical literature on which they rely to guide and support their therapeutic decisions.

Efficacy and Safety of Remacemide versus Carbamazepine in Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy: Comparison by Sequential Analysis

An international trial comparing remacemide hydrochloride with carbamazepine was undertaken in newly diagnosed epilepsy using a novel double-blind, parallel group, double triangular sequential design. Patients with two or more partial or generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the previous year were randomized to 600 mg daily of remacemide or carbamazepine. Subsequent dosage adjustments were allowed while maintaining the blind. The trial completed 20 months after initiation following the second interim analysis. Efficacy data on 449 patients showed carbamazepine to be significantly more effective than remacemide in preventing seizure recurrence (P = 0.003). Median time to first seizure after titration, the primary endpoint, was 112 days for remacemide and 306 days with carbamazepine. Time to second, third, and fourth seizures after randomization all significantly favored carbamazepine. Remacemide was shown unequivocally to be inferior to carbamazepine in this patient population. This study also establishes carbamazepine as a proven treatment for use in subsequent active control comparative trials.

The promise of new antiepileptic drugs

Epilepsy is the most common serious disorder of the brain and comprises a wide range of different conditions with varying aetiologies. The long-established antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) control seizures in 50% of patients developing partial seizures, and 60-70% of those developing generalized seizures. Several AEDs were made available in the 1990s. These drugs have efficacy, but have had only a modest impact on those with refractory epilepsies. A 50% seizure reduction, which is commonly used as an endpoint in clinical trials, confers little benefit to a patient. Of the newer AEDs, lamotrigine and oxcarbazepine are now licensed for use as monotherapy and vigabatrin has a monotherapy licence for infantile spasms. Careful and prolonged postmarketing surveillance is essential to detect adverse effects, which may not be evident in premarketing clinical trials. At this time, there are 10 AEDs currently in varying stages of clinical development. Current strategies for selecting an AED for a particular patient are crude. Magnetic resonance spectroscopic measures of cerebral neuro-transmitters and genetic analysis may allow better prediction of which drug is most likely to be efficacious and to have low risk of adverse effects. Present AEDs suppress the occurrence of seizures. Agents that prevent the development of epilepsy and which protect the brain from the consequences of seizures would be of great value, but it will be difficult to prove their effectiveness. At present AEDs are given continually and systemically. Local drug delivery is feasible and could avoid the adverse effects of AEDs. The combination of local drug delivery with prediction of seizure occurrence could revolutionize the treatment of currently refractory epilepsies.

Bodyweight gain and anticonvulsants: a comparative review

Bodyweight gain is a common and frequent undesirable effect associated with the use of anticonvulsant drugs. This has been observed for many years with valproic acid (sodium valproate) and carbamazepine, and also, more recently, with some of the newer anticonvulsants such as vigabatrin and gabapentin. Very often bodyweight gain in children, adolescents and adults with epilepsy taking such anticonvulsants results in cosmetic adverse effects. On the other hand, bodyweight gain is disturbing to general health, with a possible increase in the risk of diabetes mellitus or heart disease. Other potential adverse effects, such as the association of obesity with polycystic ovaries, have been reported with the use of valproic acid. Potential mechanisms of anticonvulsant-associated bodyweight gain are not yet clear and differ between drugs used. The involvement of lowered blood glucose level, which may stimulate eating through an effect on the hypothalamus, constitutes one of the possible mechanisms. Lowered blood glucose levels may result from a competition between the binding of the drug and long chain fatty acids. An increased availability of the latter stimulates insulin production and lowers the serum glucose levels. Another possible explanation for lowered blood glucose may be a deficiency in carnitine directly caused by the drug, that would result in a reduction of fatty acid metabolism and an increase in glucose consumption. An enhancing effect of gamma-aminobutyric acid-mediated neurotransmission may increase appetite for carbohydrates and reduce energy expenditure. An antidiuretic hormone-like effect or effects on norepinephrine (noradrenaline) or serotonin-mediated neurotransmission are more rarely considered. Many studies on anticonvulsant-associated bodyweight gain illustrate how we could better define the risk factors for the development of anticonvulsant-induced bodyweight gain and uncover the mechanisms behind it.

Treating epilepsy in the elderly: safety considerations

The incidence of epilepsy increases with advancing age. Epilepsy in the elderly has different aetiologies from that in younger populations, cerebrovascular disease being the most common condition associated with seizures. Partial seizures are the predominant seizure type in older patients. A diagnosis of epilepsy in the elderly is based mainly on the history and is frequently delayed. In addition, seizure imitators are especially frequent. In many cases ancillary tests for diagnosis may show normal age-related variants, sometimes making results difficult to interpret. Treating epilepsy in the elderly is problematic due to a number of issues that relate to age and comorbidity. The physical changes associated with increasing age frequently lead to changes in the pharmacokinetics of many anticonvulsants. The treatment of epilepsy in the elderly is also complicated by the existence of other diseases that might affect the metabolism or excretion of anticonvulsants and the presence of concomitant medications that might interact with them. Moreover, specific trials of anticonvulsants in the aged population are scarce. General guidelines for treatment include starting at lower doses, slowing the titration schedule, individualising the choice of anticonvulsant to the characteristics of the patient, avoiding anticonvulsants with important cognitive or sedative adverse effects, and where possible, treating with monotherapy.

[A practical study of the efficacy of a delayed-action preparation of carbamazepine (Tegretol CR 400) in the treatment of patients with partial epilepsy ]

INTRODUCTION

Carbamazepine (CBZ) is the first choice antiepileptic drug in the treatment of partial seizures. Many clinical studies show high efficacy and good tolerance of CBZ in the majority of patients. However, poor water solubility and erratic absorption as well as autoinduction of its metabolism, cause wide and unpredictable fluctuations in CBZ serum concentration. In order to avoid these problems controlled-release formulations of CBZ (Tegretol CR 400) were developed.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerance and practicality of the therapy of partial seizures in adults with controlled-release CBZ (Tegretol CR 400).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Over a three-year period we conducted an open pragmatic study of controlled-release CBZ in the therapy of 141 adult patients with established diagnosis of localized related epilepsy. Patients with progressive brain or systemic disease were excluded. All patients had unacceptable seizure frequency and were divided into four groups: 1) 34 with newly-diagnosed epilepsy; 2) 42 with chronic epilepsy and no previous antiepileptic medication; 3) 27 with chronic epilepsy previously treated with conventional preparations of carbamazepine (CBZ); and 4) 38 with chronic epilepsy previously treated with other antiepileptic medications. Patients were switched to controlled-release CBZ and the dosage was slowly adjusted. Baseline evaluation included the analysis of efficacy, tolerance and practicality of the controlled-release CBZ therapy. Three categories of efficiency were defined: 1) successful (patients without seizures); 2) partially successful (patients with improvement of at least 50% in frequency and severity of seizures); and 3) unsuccessful therapy (same or worse than before controlled-release CBZ). Tolerance and practicity were evaluated through the analysis of side effects and frequency of daily doses, respectively. These variables were compared to the corresponding ones after a period of at least three months of full dosage controlled-release CBZ therapy.

RESULTS

In all four groups the therapy was successful in 76%, 52%, 30% and 29%, partially successful in 18%, 43%, 30% and 32%, and unsuccessful in 6%, S%, 40% and 39%, respectfully. Side effects occurred less frequently in all 4 groups during the therapy with controlled-release CBZ. We found reduced frequency of drug administration (once or twice daily) in 97.9% of our patients.

DISCUSSION

Due to its slow and irregular absorption, short half life, wide and unpredictable fluctuation in plasma levels CBZ has decreased ability to control seizures, with the appearance of the intermittent side-effects such as diplopia, ataxia, headache and dizziness. Controlled-release formulation of CBZ sustains stable absorption and reduces fluctuations in carbamazepine serum concentration. Steady serum levels permit to the majority of patients to tolerate a higher total daily dose by reducing peak-dependent side-effects and improve compliance as a result of less frequent daily doses (1 or 2).

CONCLUSION

In patients with partial seizures controlled-release vs. conventional carbamazepine had better efficiency, based on an excellent tolerance, favorable daily dosage and superior compliance.

Clinical pharmacology and therapeutic use of the new antiepileptic drugs

Although older generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) such as carbamazepine, phenytoin and valproic acid continue to be widely used in the treatment of epilepsy, these drugs have important shortcomings such as a highly variable and nonlinear pharmacokinetics, a narrow therapeutic index, suboptimal response rates, and a propensity to cause significant adverse effects and drug interactions. In an attempt to overcome these problems, a new generation of AEDs has been introduced in the last decade. Compared with older agents, some of these drugs offer appreciable advantages in terms of less variable kinetics and, particularly in the case of gabapentin, levetiracetam and vigabatrin, a lower interaction potential. Lamotrigine, topiramate, zonisamide and felbamate protect against partial seizures and a variety of generalized seizure types, vigabatrin is effective against partial seizures (with or without secondary generalization) and infantile spasms, while the use of oxcarbazepine, tiagabine and gabapentin is mainly restricted to patients with partial epilepsy (and, in the case of oxcarbazepine, also primarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures). Levetiracetam, the latest AED to be introduced, has been found to be effective in partial seizures, but its potentially broader efficacy spectrum remains to be determined in clinical studies. Currently, the main use of new generation AEDs is in the adjunctive therapy of patients refractory to older agents. However, due to advantages in terms of tolerability and ease of use, some of these drugs are increasingly used for first-line management in certain subgroups of patients. Due to serious toxicity risks, felbamate and vigabatrin should be prescribed only in patients refractory to other drugs. In the case of vigabatrin, however, first line use may be justified in infants with spasms.

LC determination of carbamazepine in murine brain

A reversed phase HPLC method for the determination of carbamazepine (CBZ) in the brain of adult mice is described. CBZ was recovered from murine brain by solvent-extraction with ethyl acetate and resolved from imipramine (internal standard) and brain endogenous material using a Lichrospher RP select B column with a linear gradient of acetonitrile (40-80 v/v, 25 min) in ammonium acetate buffer (25 mM, pH 4.0) with UV detection at 285 nm. The method is selective, reproducible and precise with a limit detection of 45 ng/ml and is suitable for the determination of CBZ in murine brain after intra-peritoneal administration.

Life-threatening adverse events of antiepileptic drugs

Treating a patient with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may give rise to unexpected life-threatening adverse events. Despite extensive experimental and clinical testing to ensure safety, most AEDs on the market have been associated with cases of severe cutaneous reactions, serious hematological disorders, or hepatic failure. Most of these disorders emerge as idiosyncratic immune-mediated disease or are related to toxic metabolic products of the AEDs. Early diagnosis is the only means of reducing the harmful, potentially fatal effects of these reactions. A high degree of suspicion, knowledge of risk factors, and close physician-patient contact increases the likelihood of early diagnosis and treatment. When diagnosed, severe reactions must be fully documented and reported to health authorities. The very rare occurrence of life threatening events should not, in general, limit treatment decision-making. Future epidemiological, chemical, and genetic research might provide methods for ascertaining which patients are at risk, so undue exposure can be avoided.

Visual field defects with vigabatrin: epidemiology and therapeutic implications

Vigabatrin is an antiepileptic drug (AED) that acts as a selective irreversible inhibitor of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transaminase. In 1997, 3 cases of severe symptomatic and persistent visual field constriction associated with vigabatrin treatment were described. During 1997 to 1998, similar concentric visual field constrictions were described in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who were receiving vigabatrin concurrently with other AEDs. However, a study of patients treated with vigabatrin monotherapy alone showed that there was a causal relationship between vigabatrin treatment and the specific bilateral concentric visual field constriction. The Marketing Authorisation Holders survey (involving 335 vigabatrin recipients aged >14 years) indicated that 31% of patients [95% confidence interval (CI) 26 to 36%] had a visual field defect attributable to vigabatrin, compared with a 0% incidence of visual field defects (upper 95% CI 3%) in an unexposed control group. Other studies in adults have given similar overall prevalences, with a total of 169 of 528 patients diagnosed with vigabatrin-associated field defects (32%, 95% CI 28 to 36%). Male gender seems to be associated with an increase in the relative risk of visual field loss of approximately 2-fold. The pattern of defect is typically a bilateral, absolute concentric constriction of the visual field, the severity of which varies from mild to severe. Data gathered so far suggest that the cumulative incidence increases rapidly during the first 2 years of treatment and within the first 2 kg of vigabatrin intake, stabilising at 3 years and after a total vigabatrin dose of 3 kg. The prevalence of vigabatrin-associated field defects seems to be lower in children, but there are also methodological problems and greater variability in the assessment of visual fields in children. There is particular concern that the increased risk of the visual field defects will outweigh the benefit of the drug in patients who could be controlled with other AEDs. Vigabatrin should currently be used only in combination with other AEDs for patients with resistant partial epilepsy when all other appropriate drug combinations have proved inadequate or have not been tolerated. Regular visual field testing should be performed before the start of treatment and at regular intervals during treatment. Patients with pre-existent visual field defects due to other causes should not be treated with vigabatrin. Currently, the benefits of treating infantile spasms with vigabatrin monotherapy seem to outweigh the risks, but further prospective studies and follow-up of children receiving treatment are needed to evaluate the place of vigabatrin in this indication.