Prediction Tools for Psychiatric Adverse Effects After Levetiracetam Prescription

Assessing the Incidence Rate of Neuropsychiatric Adverse Effects in Older Adults Following Levetiracetam Initiation: A Retrospective Study

Background

Levetiracetam (LEV) is commonly prescribed for epilepsy management. However, neuropsychiatric disorders (NPDs) are concerning adverse effects that may result in medication discontinuation. This study aims to examine the incidence and factors influencing LEV associated NPDs in adult patients aged 50 years and above.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients aged 50 years and above prescribed LEV between 2010 and 2020, with at least one follow-up appointment six months post-treatment initiation. The incidence of new-onset or aggravated NPDs and variables potentially influencing this risk were examined. Independent t-test, chi-squared, and Fisher's exact test were used, in addition to univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

Results

The study included 100 patients with a mean age at LEV start of 63.31 years (SD = 16.48). Neuropsychiatric symptoms were observed in 6 (6.0%) patients. Factors associated with new-onset NPDs were younger age at epilepsy diagnosis (p=0.005), younger age at LEV start (p=0.004), and concurrent use of Carbamazepine/Oxcarbazepine (p=0.004). On multivariate analysis, only the association with Carbamazepine/Oxcarbazepine remained significant (OR 14.62, 95% CI 1.86-114.70, p=0.011).

Conclusion

The findings indicate that the incidence of NPDs in elderly patients is relatively low (6%). Further research with larger samples is needed in comparison with a younger sample as a control group to confirm these findings.

The relationship between psychiatric symptoms and the use of levetiracetam in people with epilepsy

Background: Mental health in people with epilepsy (PWE) is often overlooked, especially in developing countries.Purpose: Consequently, the current work had two objectives: (1) to estimate the burden of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and stress, and (2) to examine the association of these psychiatric/psychological symptoms with levetiracetam and other relevant clinical factors in a cohort of Jordanian PWE.Research Design: This is a cross-sectional study. The demographic and clinical data were recorded. Depression was measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9, Arabic-validated version) and anxiety by the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7, Arabic-validated version). The insomnia severity index (ISI-A, Arabic version) was used to assess sleep quality, and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-A, Arabic version) was used to measure perceived stress.Study Sample: Data were analyzed from 280 patients, of which 178 (63.6%) received levetiracetam as monotherapy or as adjuvant.Results: Depression was reported in 150 (53.6%), anxiety in 110 (39.3%), insomnia in 131 (46.8%), and clinically significant stress in 211 (75.4%). At univariate analysis, levetiracetam was not associated with psychiatric symptoms. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that severe depressive symptoms were associated with family history (OR = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.42-4.33, P = .001) and seizure type (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.01-2.80, P = .04), severe anxiety symptoms were associated with family history (OR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.12-3.23, P = .01), severe insomnia was associated with seizure type (OR = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.33-3.5, P = .002) and severe stress was associated with marital status (OR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.31-4.29, P = .004).Conclusions: The high psychological burden of PWE is a challenging issue that requires attention and prompt action to control its risk factors. Levetiracetam was not associated with psychiatric symptoms in this study.

Epilepsy and psychosis

Psychotic disorders are eight times more frequent in epilepsy than in the general population. The various clinical syndromes are classified according to their chronology of onset in relation to epileptic seizures: ictal psychoses (during epileptic discharge), post-ictal psychoses (PIP, after a seizure), interictal psychoses (IIP, with no chronological link) and those related to complete seizure control. Antiepileptic drugs can cause psychotic disorders in all these situations. Post-ictal psychoses (PIP) are affective psychoses that occur after a lucid interval lasting 12 to 120hours following a cluster of seizures. They last an average of 10days, with an abrupt beginning and end. PIP are directly linked to epileptic seizures, and disappear when the epilepsy is controlled. Interictal psychoses are schizophrenias. The management of psychotic disorders in epilepsy is neuropsychiatric, and requires close collaboration between epileptologists and psychiatrists. Antipsychotics can be prescribed in persons with epilepsy. Even today, psychotic disorders in epilepsy are poorly understood, under-diagnosed and under-treated.

Mood disorders in adults with epilepsy: a review of unrecognized facts and common misconceptions

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurologic conditions. Its clinical manifestations are not restricted to seizures but often include cognitive disturbances and psychiatric disorders. Prospective population-based studies have shown that people with epilepsy have an increased risk of developing mood disorders, and people with a primary mood disorder have an increased risk of developing epilepsy. The existence of common pathogenic mechanisms in epilepsy and mood disorders may explain the bidirectional relation between these two conditions. Recognition of a personal and family psychiatric history at the time of evaluation of people for a seizure disorder is critical in the selection of antiseizure medications: those with mood-stabilizing properties (e.g., lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine) should be favoured as a first option in those with a positive history while those with negative psychotropic properties (e.g., levetiracetam, topiramate) avoided. While mood disorders may be clinically identical in people with epilepsy, they often present with atypical manifestations that do not meet ICD or DSM diagnostic criteria. Failure to treat mood disorders in epilepsy may have a negative impact, increasing suicide risk and iatrogenic effects of antiseizure medications and worsening quality of life. Treating mood disorders in epilepsy is identical to those with primary mood disorders. Yet, there is a common misconception that antidepressants have proconvulsant properties. Most antidepressants are safe when prescribed at therapeutic doses. The incidence of seizures is lower in people randomized to antidepressants than placebo in multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trials of people treated for a primary mood disorder. Thus, there is no excuse not to prescribe antidepressant medications to people with epilepsy.

Dosage, time, and polytherapy dependent effects of different levetiracetam regimens on cognitive function

OBJECTIVE

Cognitive impairment is a potential drawback of antiseizure medications. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different levetiracetam drug regimens on cognitive function.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis identified 221 patients diagnosed with seizures who underwent cognitive screening. Patients were categorized into four groups: no medications, non-levetiracetam medications, high and low dose levetiracetam. Composite scores determined low and high levetiracetam groups whereby one point was added for each increment in dosage, duration since uptake, and concurrent anti-seizure medication. Variables known to affect cognition were recorded and classified as demographic, seizure-related, diagnosis-related, and psychopathology. Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with cognitive scores below cut-off.

RESULTS

Multivariable analysis found being male, non-active in the community, less than 12 years of education, left temporal lobe epilepsy, high seizure frequency, and depression were associated with poor cognitive performance. In a final regression analysis, the high levetiracetam group exhibited a 4.5-fold higher likelihood of scoring below cut-off than the medication-free group (OR 4.5, CI 1.5-13.6, p<.08). Depression (OR 2.1, CI 1.1-3.9, p<.03), being male (OR 2.2, CI 1.1-4.3, p<.02), and not being active in the community (OR 3.8, 1.6-8.7, p <.003) remained significant contributors to the model. Language (p<.05), attention (p<.05), and delayed recall (p<.001) were the most affected cognitive domains.

SIGNIFICANCE

When taken in small doses, for brief periods as monotherapy, levetiracetam minimally influences cognition. At higher doses, as part of long-term seizure management, in conjunction with multiple ASMs, LEV is associated with cognitive impairment.

Levetiracetam vs Lamotrigine as First-Line Antiseizure Medication in Female Patients With Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy

Importance

After the recent limitations to prescribing valproate, many studies have highlighted the challenging management of female patients of reproductive age with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). However, no study, to the authors' knowledge, has addressed the comparative effectiveness of alternative antiseizure medications (ASMs) in these patients.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and safety of levetiracetam and lamotrigine as initial monotherapy in female patients of childbearing age with IGE.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a multicenter, retrospective, comparative effectiveness cohort study analyzing data from patients followed up from 1994 to 2022. Patients were recruited from 22 primary, secondary, and tertiary adult and child epilepsy centers from 4 countries. Eligible patients were female individuals of childbearing age, diagnosed with IGE according to International League Against Epilepsy (2022) criteria and who initiated levetiracetam or lamotrigine as initial monotherapy. Patients were excluded due to insufficient follow-up after ASM prescription.

Exposures

Levetiracetam or lamotrigine as initial monotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to compare treatment failure (TF) among patients who received levetiracetam or lamotrigine as initial monotherapy.

Results

A total of 543 patients were included in the study, with a median (IQR) age at ASM prescription of 17 (15-21) years and a median (IQR) follow-up of 60 (24-108) months. Of the study population, 312 patients (57.5%) were prescribed levetiracetam, and 231 (42.5%) were prescribed lamotrigine. An IPTW-adjusted Cox model showed that levetiracetam was associated with a reduced risk of treatment failure after adjustment for all baseline variables (IPTW-adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-0.99; P = .04). However, after stratification according to different IGE syndromes, the higher effectiveness of levetiracetam was confirmed only in patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME; IPTW-adjusted HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.32-0.68; P < .001), whereas no significant differences were found in other syndromes. Patients treated with levetiracetam experienced adverse effects more frequently compared with those treated with lamotrigine (88 of 312 [28.2%] vs 42 of 231 [18.1%]), whereas the 2 ASMs had similar retention rates during follow-up (IPTW-adjusted HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.65-1.23; P = .60).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this comparative effectiveness research study suggest the use of levetiracetam as initial alternative monotherapy in female patients with JME. Further studies are needed to identify the most effective ASM alternative in other IGE syndromes.

Differential effects of carbamazepine and levetiracetam monotherapy on reproductive endocrine function in Nigerian women with epilepsy

Objective

This study is aimed at comparing differential effect of Levetiracetam (LTC) monotherapy and Carbamazepine (CZP) monotherapy in W omen with epilepsy (WWE) on gonadal hormone.

Methods

87 WWE were recruited comprising randomly of 46 and 41 on CZP and LTC group respectively with diagnosis and classification based on International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE). Reproductive hormones (Luteinizing Hormone (LH), Follicle stimulating hormone, progesterone, estradiol and testosterone) were assayed. National Hospital Seizure Severity Scale (NHSS) and Zung self-reporting depression scale (ZSRDS) were used to assess the seizure severity and the mood respectively. Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20. The Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables while Student's t-test or its non-parametric equivalent where appropriate were used to compare continuous variables.

Results

Clinical characteristics were comparable in both groups except for ZSRDS (p = 0.048), NHSS (p = 0.012) and hip circumference (p = 0.037). The CZP group had a higher ASEX score and proportion of WWE with clinically significant sexual dysfunction (p < 0.001). WWE on LTC had similar hormonal profiles with those on CZP except for a higher median serum testosterone level (p = 0.004), and lower median serum LH (p = 0.006). Age was negatively associated with serum testosterone level for the 25th, 50th, and 75th quartile. However, the differential effect for AED type was only significant for the 25th quartile; with higher values in LTC.

Conclusion

The therapeutics implication of lower LH and testosterone levels in the LTC group compared to CZP group need to be explored.

Balancing risks and benefits of cannabis use: umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess credibility and certainty of associations between cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis based medicines and human health, from observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

Umbrella review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, PsychInfo, Embase, up to 9 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs that have reported on the efficacy and safety of cannabis, cannabinoids, or cannabis based medicines were included. Credibility was graded according to convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant (observational evidence), and by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) (RCTs). Quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2). Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

101 meta-analyses were included (observational=50, RCTs=51) (AMSTAR 2 high 33, moderate 31, low 32, or critically low 5). From RCTs supported by high to moderate certainty, cannabis based medicines increased adverse events related to the central nervous system (equivalent odds ratio 2.84 (95% confidence interval 2.16 to 3.73)), psychological effects (3.07 (1.79 to 5.26)), and vision (3.00 (1.79 to 5.03)) in people with mixed conditions (GRADE=high), improved nausea/vomit, pain, spasticity, but increased psychiatric, gastrointestinal adverse events, and somnolence among others (GRADE=moderate). Cannabidiol improved 50% reduction of seizures (0.59 (0.38 to 0.92)) and seizure events (0.59 (0.36 to 0.96)) (GRADE=high), but increased pneumonia, gastrointestinal adverse events, and somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For chronic pain, cannabis based medicines or cannabinoids reduced pain by 30% (0.59 (0.37 to 0.93), GRADE=high), across different conditions (n=7), but increased psychological distress. For epilepsy, cannabidiol increased risk of diarrhoea (2.25 (1.33 to 3.81)), had no effect on sleep disruption (GRADE=high), reduced seizures across different populations and measures (n=7), improved global impression (n=2), quality of life, and increased risk of somnolence (GRADE=moderate). In the general population, cannabis worsened positive psychotic symptoms (5.21 (3.36 to 8.01)) and total psychiatric symptoms (7.49 (5.31 to 10.42)) (GRADE=high), negative psychotic symptoms, and cognition (n=11) (GRADE=moderate). In healthy people, cannabinoids improved pain threshold (0.74 (0.59 to 0.91)), unpleasantness (0.60 (0.41 to 0.88)) (GRADE=high). For inflammatory bowel disease, cannabinoids improved quality of life (0.34 (0.22 to 0.53) (GRADE=high). For multiple sclerosis, cannabinoids improved spasticity, pain, but increased risk of dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For cancer, cannabinoids improved sleep disruption, but had gastrointestinal adverse events (n=2) (GRADE=moderate). Cannabis based medicines, cannabis, and cannabinoids resulted in poor tolerability across various conditions (GRADE=moderate). Evidence was convincing from observational studies (main and sensitivity analyses) in pregnant women, small for gestational age (1.61 (1.41 to 1.83)), low birth weight (1.43 (1.27 to 1.62)); in drivers, car crash (1.27 (1.21 to 1.34)); and in the general population, psychosis (1.71 (1.47 to 2.00)). Harmful effects were noted for additional neonatal outcomes, outcomes related to car crash, outcomes in the general population including psychotic symptoms, suicide attempt, depression, and mania, and impaired cognition in healthy cannabis users (all suggestive to highly suggestive).

CONCLUSIONS

Convincing or converging evidence supports avoidance of cannabis during adolescence and early adulthood, in people prone to or with mental health disorders, in pregnancy and before and while driving. Cannabidiol is effective in people with epilepsy. Cannabis based medicines are effective in people with multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, and in palliative medicine but not without adverse events.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018093045.

FUNDING

None.

Depression and anxiety in glioma patients

AbstractGlioma patients carry the burden of having both a progressive neurological disease and cancer, and may face a variety of symptoms, including depression and anxiety. These symptoms are highly prevalent in glioma patients (median point prevalence ranging from 16-41% for depression and 24-48% for anxiety when assessed by self-report questionnaires) and have a major impact on health-related quality of life and even overall survival time. A worse overall survival time for glioma patients with depressive symptoms might be due to tumor progression and/or its supportive treatment causing depressive symptoms, an increased risk of suicide or other (unknown) factors. Much is still unclear about the etiology of depressive and anxiety symptoms in glioma. These psychiatric symptoms often find their cause in a combination of neurophysiological and psychological factors, such as the tumor and/or its treatment. Although these patients have a particular idiosyncrasy, standard treatment guidelines for depressive and anxiety disorders apply, generally recommending psychological and pharmacological treatment. Only a few nonpharmacological trials have been conducted evaluating the efficacy of psychological treatments (eg, a reminiscence therapy-based care program) in this population, which significantly reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms. No pharmacological trials have been conducted in glioma patients specifically. More well-designed trials evaluating the efficacy of nonpharmacological treatments for depressive and anxiety disorders in glioma are urgently needed to successfully treat psychiatric symptoms in brain tumor patients and to improve (health-related) quality of life.

Variation in prognosis and treatment outcome in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy: a Biology of Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy Consortium proposal for a practical definition and stratified medicine classifications

Reliable definitions, classifications and prognostic models are the cornerstones of stratified medicine, but none of the current classifications systems in epilepsy address prognostic or outcome issues. Although heterogeneity is widely acknowledged within epilepsy syndromes, the significance of variation in electroclinical features, comorbidities and treatment response, as they relate to diagnostic and prognostic purposes, has not been explored. In this paper, we aim to provide an evidence-based definition of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy showing that with a predefined and limited set of mandatory features, variation in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy phenotype can be exploited for prognostic purposes. Our study is based on clinical data collected by the Biology of Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy Consortium augmented by literature data. We review prognosis research on mortality and seizure remission, predictors of antiseizure medication resistance and selected adverse drug events to valproate, levetiracetam and lamotrigine. Based on our analysis, a simplified set of diagnostic criteria for juvenile myoclonic epilepsy includes the following: (i) myoclonic jerks as mandatory seizure type; (ii) a circadian timing for myoclonia not mandatory for the diagnosis of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy; (iii) age of onset ranging from 6 to 40 years; (iv) generalized EEG abnormalities; and (v) intelligence conforming to population distribution. We find sufficient evidence to propose a predictive model of antiseizure medication resistance that emphasises (i) absence seizures as the strongest stratifying factor with regard to antiseizure medication resistance or seizure freedom for both sexes and (ii) sex as a major stratifying factor, revealing elevated odds of antiseizure medication resistance that correlates to self-report of catamenial and stress-related factors including sleep deprivation. In women, there are reduced odds of antiseizure medication resistance associated with EEG-measured or self-reported photosensitivity. In conclusion, by applying a simplified set of criteria to define phenotypic variations of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, our paper proposes an evidence-based definition and prognostic stratification of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy. Further studies in existing data sets of individual patient data would be helpful to replicate our findings, and prospective studies in inception cohorts will contribute to validate them in real-world practice for juvenile myoclonic epilepsy management.

Levetiracetam, from broad-spectrum use to precision prescription: A narrative review and expert opinion

Levetiracetam (LEV) is an antiseizure medication (ASM) whose mechanism of action involves the modulation of neurotransmitters release through binding to the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A. It is a broad-spectrum ASM displaying favorable pharmacokinetic and tolerability profiles. Since its introduction in 1999, it has been widely prescribed, becoming the first-line treatment for numerous epilepsy syndromes and clinical scenarios. However, this might have resulted in overuse. Increasing evidence, including the recently published SANAD II trials, suggests that other ASMs are reasonable therapeutic options for generalized and focal epilepsies. Not infrequently, these ASMs show better safety and effectiveness profiles compared to LEV (partially due to the latter's well-known cognitive and behavioral adverse effects, present in up to 20% of patients). Moreover, it has been shown that the underlying etiology of epilepsy is significantly linked to ASMs response in particular scenarios, highlighting the importance of an etiology-based ASM choice. In the case of LEV, it has demonstrated an optimal effectiveness in Alzheimer's disease, Down syndrome, and PCDH19-related epilepsies whereas, in other etiologies such as malformations of cortical development, it may show negligible effects. This narrative review analyzes the current evidence related to the use of LEV for the treatment of seizures. Illustrative clinical scenarios and practical decision-making approaches are also addressed, therefore aiming to define a rational use of this ASM.

Mood and Anxiety Disorders and Suicidality in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Focal Epilepsy: An Analysis of a Complex Comorbidity

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Mood, anxiety disorders, and suicidality are more frequent in people with epilepsy than in the general population. Yet, their prevalence and the types of mood and anxiety disorders associated with suicidality at the time of the epilepsy diagnosis are not established. We sought to answer these questions in patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and to assess their association with suicidal ideation and attempts.

METHODS

The data were derived from the Human Epilepsy Project study. A total of 347 consecutive adults aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy were enrolled within 4 months of starting treatment. The types of mood and anxiety disorders were identified with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, whereas suicidal ideation (lifetime, current, active, and passive) and suicidal attempts (lifetime and current) were established with the Columbia Suicidality Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS). Statistical analyses included the t test, χ2 statistics, and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 151 (43.5%) patients had a psychiatric diagnosis; 134 (38.6%) met the criteria for a mood and/or anxiety disorder, and 75 (21.6%) reported suicidal ideation with or without attempts. Mood (23.6%) and anxiety (27.4%) disorders had comparable prevalence rates, whereas both disorders occurred together in 43 patients (12.4%). Major depressive disorders (MDDs) had a slightly higher prevalence than bipolar disorders (BPDs) (9.5% vs 6.9%, respectively). Explanatory variables of suicidality included MDD, BPD, panic disorders, and agoraphobia, with BPD and panic disorders being the strongest variables, particularly for active suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts.

DISCUSSION

In patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, the prevalence of mood, anxiety disorders, and suicidality is higher than in the general population and comparable to those of patients with established epilepsy. Their recognition at the time of the initial epilepsy evaluation is of the essence.

Current evidence for adjunct pyridoxine (vitamin B6) for the treatment of behavioral adverse effects associated with levetiracetam: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam (LVT), while an effective treatment for multiple seizure types, is associated with a high incidence of neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPAEs). In predominantly retrospective studies, supplementation with pyridoxine/vitamin B₆ (PN) was associated with improvement in NPAEs in some people. A previous review highlighted a lack of double-blind, controlled trials of PN for the treatment of NPAEs in individuals treated with LVT. The current paper updates the findings from the previous review to include evidence from studies published since June 2019.

METHODS

An updated systematic review of the published literature was performed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched to identify studies published between June 2019 and 2nd November 2022 in which supplementary PN was initiated for the treatment of LVT-associated NPAEs. All study types were eligible. The risk of bias in randomized trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Seven additional studies were identified: two double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), four retrospective studies, and one retrospective case series. One RCT reported significant improvements from baseline in behavioral adverse events (BAEs) in both the intervention (PN) group and the low-dose control group (both p < 0.05), with a significantly greater improvement in the intervention group (p < 0.001). In the second RCT, differences in BAE severity between PN and placebo groups at the endpoint were not statistically significant. In one retrospective study, subjective irritability was reported to have improved from baseline in 9/20 individuals (45%) treated with supplementary PN. Data for systematic assessments (PHQ-9 and GAD-7) were available for 10 individuals. Assessment by PHQ-9 showed that six individuals improved, two worsened and two had no change. Based on the GAD-7, three people improved, two worsened and five had no change. In the second retrospective study, 18/41 individuals (44%) who commenced PN following the emergence of BAEs showed "significant" improvement. In a separate group of individuals with pre-existing behavioral problems in whom PN treatment was initiated at the same time as commencing LVT, 3/18 (16.7%) developed BAEs. This compared with 79/458 people (17.2%) who were initially treated only with LVT. The third retrospective study compared treatment-related irritability in individuals who had been treated with both LVT and perampanel, either sequentially or concomitantly. Two people who developed irritability while receiving LVT monotherapy were able to continue treatment with the addition of PN. The fourth study reported a significantly lower LVT discontinuation rate in individuals taking PN and a higher rate of improved behavior in those who were able to continue LVT. The case series reported improvements in behavioral symptoms in six people within two to three weeks of commencing supplementary PN.

CONCLUSION

Data published within the last three years add to earlier evidence suggesting that PN might be effective in the treatment of NPAEs associated with LVT. However, the quality of evidence remains poor and only a few prospective trials have been published. Data from placebo-controlled trials are still largely lacking. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to justify any firm recommendation for PN supplementation to treat NPAEs associated with LVT. Further well-designed, prospective trials are warranted.

Fundamental Neurochemistry Review: GABAA receptor neurotransmission and epilepsy: Principles, disease mechanisms and pharmacotherapy

Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder associated with alterations of excitation-inhibition balance within brain neuronal networks. GABA_A receptor neurotransmission is the most prevalent form of inhibitory neurotransmission and is strongly implicated in both the pathophysiology and treatment of epilepsy, serving as a primary target for antiseizure medications for over a century. It is now established that GABA exerts a multifaceted influence through an array of GABA_A receptor subtypes that extends far beyond simply negating excitatory activity. As the role of GABA_A neurotransmission within inhibitory circuits is elaborated, this will enable the development of precision therapies that correct the network dysfunction underlying epileptic pathology.

Genetic Mechanisms Behind Severe Psychotic Reactions to Levetiracetam

A Pharmacogenomic Assessment of Psychiatric Adverse Drug Reactions to Levetiracetam

Campbell C, McCormack M, Patel S, Stapleton C, Bobbili D, Krause R, Depondt C, Sills GJ, Koeleman BP, Striano P, Zara F, Sander JW, Lerche H, Kunz WS, Stefansson K, Stefansson H, Doherty CP, Heinzen EL, Scheffer IE, Goldstein DB, O’Brien T, Cotter D, Berkovic SF, EpiPGX Consortium; Sisodiya SM, Delanty N, Cavalleri GL. Epilepsia. 2022;63(6):1563-1570. doi:10.1111/epi.17228

Objective:

Levetiracetam (LEV) is an effective antiseizure medicine, but 10%-20% of people treated with LEV report psychiatric side-effects, and up to 1% may have psychotic episodes. Pharmacogenomic predictors of these adverse drug reactions (ADRs) have yet to be identified. We sought to determine the contribution of both common and rare genetic variation to psychiatric and behavioral ADRs associated with LEV.

Methods:

This case-control study compared cases of LEV-associated behavioral disorder (n = 149) or psychotic reaction (n = 37) to LEV-exposed people with no history of psychiatric ADRs (n = 920). All samples were of European ancestry. We performed genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis comparing those with LEV ADRs to controls. We estimated the polygenic risk scores (PRS) for schizophrenia and compared cases with LEV-associated psychotic reaction to controls. Rare variant burden analysis was performed using exome sequence data of cases with psychotic reactions (n = 18) and controls (n = 122).

Results:

Univariate GWAS found no significant associations with either LEV-associated behavioural disorder or LEV-psychotic reaction. PRS analysis showed that cases of LEV-associated psychotic reaction had an increased PRS for schizophrenia relative to controls (p = .0097, estimate = .4886). The rare-variant analysis found no evidence of an increased burden of rare genetic variants in people who had experienced LEV-associated psychotic reaction relative to controls.

Significance:

The polygenic burden for schizophrenia is a risk factor for LEV-associated psychotic reaction. To assess the clinical utility of PRS as a predictor, it should be tested in an independent and ideally prospective cohort. Larger sample sizes are required for the identification of significant univariate common genetic signals or rare genetic signals associated with psychiatric LEV ADRs.

Psychiatric adverse events in three phase III trials of eslicarbazepine acetate for focal seizures

OBJECTIVE

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a once-daily (QD), oral anti-seizure medication for the treatment of focal (partial-onset) seizures. Here, we evaluate risk factors for the development of psychiatric treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in clinical trials of adjunctive ESL in adults with focal seizures.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from three Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (BIA-2093-301, -302, -304). After an 8-week baseline period, patients were randomized equally to receive placebo, ESL 400 mg (not reported here), 800 mg, or 1200 mg QD (up to 2-week titration; 12-week maintenance; optional open-label extension [OLE]). Incidences of psychiatric TEAEs were evaluated according to three separate criteria: medical history of psychiatric disorders (yes/no); baseline use of psychotropic drugs (yes/no); Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at baseline (0-6: normal; 7-19: mild depression; 20-34: moderate depression).

RESULTS

The analysis populations comprised 1251 patients for the controlled study period and 1137 patients for the 1-year OLE. Psychiatric TEAE incidence was similar between patients taking ESL and placebo in the controlled and OLE study periods and was not related to ESL dose. Psychiatric TEAEs generally occurred more frequently in patients with a medical history of psychiatric disorders, using psychotropic drugs, or with depressive symptoms than in those without a history, not using psychotropic drugs, or with no depressive symptoms. Depression and anxiety were the most frequently reported psychiatric TEAEs.

SIGNIFICANCE

Overall, in clinical trials of ESL in adults with focal seizures, incidences of psychiatric events were not statistically different between patients taking ESL and placebo, were not related to ESL dose, and generally occurred more frequently in patients with baseline psychiatric symptoms or a history of psychiatric disorders. Long-term exposure to ESL was not associated with a marked increase in the incidence of psychiatric TEAEs.

Impact of seizures and their prophylaxis with antiepileptic drugs on rehabilitation course of patients with traumatic or hemorrhagic brain injury

Objective

To determine whether, in patients undergoing rehabilitation after traumatic or hemorrhagic brain injury, seizures and the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) negatively impact on functional outcome, and, in turn, whether prophylactic AED therapy can prevent the development of seizures.

Design

Observational retrospective study.

Setting

Highly specialized inpatient neurorehabilitation clinic.

Participants

Patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), or hemorrhagic stroke (HS) consecutively admitted to our neurorehabilitation unit between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018.

Main measures and variables

Patients' demographic data, neurological status (Glasgow Coma Scale), and rehabilitation outcome (Functional Independence Measure scale), both assessed on admission and on discharge, associated neurosurgical procedures (craniectomy, or cranioplasty), AED use, early or late seizures occurrence, and death during hospitalization.

Results

Of 740 patients, 162 (21.9%) had seizures, and prophylactic AEDs were started in 192 (25.9%). Multivariate logistic regression identified severity of brain injury as a risk factor for acute symptomatic seizures (ASS) in HS (OR = 1.800, 95%CI = 1.133–1.859, p = 0.013), and for unprovoked seizures (US) in TBI (OR = 1.679, 95%CI = 1.062–2.655, p = 0.027). Prophylaxis with AEDs reduced ASS frequency, but, if protracted for months, was associated with US occurrence (HS, p &lt; 0.0001; TBI, p = 0.0002; vs. untreated patients). Presence of US (β = −0.12; p &lt; 0.0001) and prophylaxis with AEDs (β = −0.09; p = 0.002), were associated with poor functional outcome, regardless of age, severity of brain insult, and HS vs. TBI subtype.

Conclusions

Severity of brain injury and occurrence of seizures during neurorehabilitation are the main driver of poor outcome in both HS and TBI. The possible detrimental role on the epileptogenic and functional outcome played by seizures prophylaxis with AEDs, nonetheless useful to prevent ASS if administered over the first week after the brain injury, warrants further investigation.

Pharmacokinetic considerations surrounding the use of levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis in neurocritical care - an overview

INTRODUCTION

Levetiracetam (LEV) is one of the most widely used anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in clinical practice. This is due both to a different mechanism of action when compared to other ASMs and its easy handling. Indeed, because of its interesting pharmacokinetic properties, it is often used outside of the labelled indications, notably in the neurocritical setting as prophylaxis of epileptic seizures.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was conducted and the most relevant studies on the pharmacokinetic properties of LEV were selected by two independent investigators. Current evidence on the use of ASM prophylaxis in the neurocritical setting was also reviewed, highlighting and discussing the strengths and limits of LEV as drug of choice for anti-epileptic prophylaxis in this scenario.

EXPERT OPINION

LEV has a "near-ideal" pharmacokinetic profile, which makes it an attractive drug for ASM prophylaxis in neurocritical care. However, current recommendations restrict ASMs prophylaxis to very selected circumstances and the role of LEV is marginal. Moreover, studies are generally designed to compare LEV versus phenytoin, whereas studies comparing LEV versus placebo are lacking. Further randomized trials will be needed to better elucidate LEV utility and its neuroprotective role in the neurocritical setting.

A pharmacogenomic assessment of psychiatric adverse drug reactions to levetiracetam

OBJECTIVE

Levetiracetam (LEV) is an effective antiseizure medicine, but 10%-20% of people treated with LEV report psychiatric side-effects, and up to 1% may have psychotic episodes. Pharmacogenomic predictors of these adverse drug reactions (ADRs) have yet to be identified. We sought to determine the contribution of both common and rare genetic variation to psychiatric and behavioral ADRs associated with LEV.

METHODS

This case-control study compared cases of LEV-associated behavioral disorder (n = 149) or psychotic reaction (n = 37) to LEV-exposed people with no history of psychiatric ADRs (n = 920). All samples were of European ancestry. We performed genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis comparing those with LEV ADRs to controls. We estimated the polygenic risk scores (PRS) for schizophrenia and compared cases with LEV-associated psychotic reaction to controls. Rare variant burden analysis was performed using exome sequence data of cases with psychotic reactions (n = 18) and controls (n = 122).

RESULTS

Univariate GWAS found no significant associations with either LEV-associated behavioural disorder or LEV-psychotic reaction. PRS analysis showed that cases of LEV-associated psychotic reaction had an increased PRS for schizophrenia relative to contr ols (p = .0097, estimate = .4886). The rare-variant analysis found no evidence of an increased burden of rare genetic variants in people who had experienced LEV-associated psychotic reaction relative to controls.

SIGNIFICANCE

The polygenic burden for schizophrenia is a risk factor for LEV-associated psychotic reaction. To assess the clinical utility of PRS as a predictor, it should be tested in an independent and ideally prospective cohort. Larger sample sizes are required for the identification of significant univariate common genetic signals or rare genetic signals associated with psychiatric LEV ADRs.

Suicidality in Patients With Epilepsy: Why Should Neurologists Care?

Suicidality is a relatively common comorbidity in patients with epilepsy (PWE). Population-based studies have revealed lifetime prevalence rates of 25% of suicidal ideation (SI). In addition, PWE without comorbid psychiatric disorders has two to three higher risk of committing suicide and this risk increases by 12- to 32-fold in the presence of various psychiatric disorders. Risk factors are multiple and include socio-demographic, genetic, age and gender, and psychiatric comorbidities. Among the latter, mood, anxiety, and psychotic disorders have been found to be common risk factors for suicidality in PWE, but iatrogenic causes resulting from pharmacotherapy with antiseizure drugs or epilepsy surgery can also cause SI and behavior. Suicidality and epilepsy have a complex bidirectional relation, whereas PWE are at increased risk of suicidality and vice-versa. Common pathogenic mechanisms operant in both conditions may explain this bidirectional relation. SI can be easily identified in outpatient epilepsy clinics with screening instruments and can be treated and thus prevent its escalation to suicidal attempts and completed suicide. The aim of this manuscript is to review these data in detail.

Psychopharmacology in the Pediatric Oncology and Bone Marrow Transplant Units: Antidepressant Treatment

Objectives: The aim of this study was to characterize the clinical profiles, tolerability, and efficacy of two groups of antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and the atypical antidepressant, mirtazapine, in children and adolescents treated in a large pediatric Hematology-Oncology center. Methods: A review of computerized medical charts of 32 pediatric patients with cancer, from December 2011 to April 2020, was conducted. Efficacy and tolerability of antidepressant medications were retrospectively analyzed. The Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) Scales were used to evaluate psychiatric symptoms severity before and following treatment, while the data on adverse events and drug-drug interactions were retrieved from the computerized medical records. Results: Thirty-two children and adolescents with cancer, 2-21 years of age (mean 14.1 ± 4.6 years), were treated with antidepressants. Fourteen patients (44%) received mirtazapine, whereas 18 patients (56%) received SSRIs: sertraline (25%), escitalopram (25%), or fluoxetine (6%). Treatment choice was dictated either by physician preference or informed by potential drug-drug interactions. The most common psychiatric diagnoses were major depressive disorders (47%), anxiety disorders (19%), and medication-induced psychiatric disorders (19%). The most common psychiatric-medical symptoms were depressed mood (94%) and anxiety (62%). CGI-S improved significantly (p < 0.05) between pretreatment and on-treatment assessments, with no statistically significant difference between SSRI and mirtazapine-treated patients. CGI-I scores at reassessment indicated improvement in most patients (84%). Adverse events of treatment were mild in all patients. Conclusions: The antidepressants used in this study, SSRIs and mirtazapine, were effective and well tolerated in children and adolescents with cancer and psychiatric comorbidities. Given the high rates of depression and anxiety in children with cancer, large-scale, multisite, prospective clinical trials of antidepressants are warranted.

Antiseizure medication treatment pathways in US Medicare beneficiaries with newly treated epilepsy

Objective

This study was undertaken to characterize antiseizure medication (ASM) treatment pathways in Medicare beneficiaries with newly treated epilepsy.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study using Medicare claims. Medicare is the United States' federal health insurance program for people aged 65 years and older plus younger people with disabilities or end‐stage renal disease. We included beneficiaries with newly treated epilepsy (International Classification of Diseases codes for epilepsy/convulsions 2014–2017, no ASM in the previous 2 years). We displayed the sequence of ASM fills using sunburst plots overall, then stratified by mood disorder, age, and neurologist prescriber. We tabulated drug costs for each pathway.

Results

We included 21 458 beneficiaries. Levetiracetam comprised the greatest number of pill days (56%), followed by gabapentin (11%) and valproate (8%). There were 22 288 unique treatment pathways. The most common pathways were levetiracetam monotherapy (43%), gabapentin monotherapy (10%), and valproate monotherapy (5%). Gabapentin was the most common second‐ and third‐line ASM. Whereas only 2% of pathways involved first‐line lacosamide, those pathways accounted for 19% of cost. Gabapentin and valproate use was increased and levetiracetam use was decreased in beneficiaries with mood disorders compared to beneficiaries without mood disorders. Levetiracetam use was increased and gabapentin, valproate, lamotrigine, and topiramate use was decreased in beneficiaries aged >65 years compared with those aged 65 years or less. Lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and lacosamide use was increased and gabapentin use was decreased in beneficiaries whose initial prescriber was a neurologist compared to those whose prescriber was not a neurologist.

Significance

Levetiracetam monotherapy was the most common pathway, although substantial heterogeneity existed. Lacosamide accounted for a small percentage of ASMs but a disproportionately large share of cost. Neurologists were more likely to prescribe lamotrigine compared with nonneurologists, and lamotrigine was prescribed far less frequently than may be endorsed by guidelines. Future work may explore patient‐ and physician‐driven factors underlying ASM choices.

Using the Biopsychosocial Model to Guide Patient-Centered Neurological Treatments

The biopsychosocial model was defined by George L. Engel to propose a holistic approach to patient care. Through this model, physicians can understand patients in their context to aid the development of tailored, individualized treatment plans that consider relevant biological, psychological, and social-cultural-spiritual factors impacting health and longitudinal care. In this article, we advocate for the use of the biopsychosocial model in neurology practice across outpatient and inpatient clinical settings. To do so, we first present the history of the biopsychosocial model, and its relationships to precision medicine and deep phenotyping. Then, we bring the neurologist up-to-date information on the components of the biopsychosocial clinical formulation, including predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating, and protective factors. We conclude by detailing illustrative neurological case examples using the biopsychosocial model, emphasizing the importance of considering relevant psychological and social factors to aid the delivery of patient-centered clinical care in neurology.

Bidirectional Relations Among Depression, Migraine, and Epilepsy: Do They Have an Impact on Their Response to Treatment?

The evaluation and treatment of patients with epilepsy is not limited to the type of epilepsy, but it must incorporate the common comorbid neurologic, psychiatric, and medical disorders, as the latter can bare an impact on the course and response to treatment of the seizure disorder and vice versa. In this article we review the bidirectional relations among epilepsy and two of its most common comorbidities, mood disorders and migraine and examine the implications of these relations on the selection of therapies of these three disorders and their response to treatment. We also review the most salient common pathogenic mechanisms that may explain such relations.

Association between antiseizure medications and quality of life in epilepsy: A mediation analysis

OBJECTIVE

The relationship between antiseizure medications (ASMs), which improve health outcomes by controlling seizures, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is poorly understood and may involve intermediate variables. We evaluated the potential mediators of the association between ASMs and HRQOL.

METHODS

Data are from an outpatient registry of adult patients with epilepsy seen at the Foothills Medical Center, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Quality of life was measured using the 10-item Quality of Life in Epilepsy, and depression was measured using the Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for covariate imbalance between patients who received a single ASM (monotherapy) and those who received two or more ASMs (polytherapy) due to confounding. Mediation analysis was used to estimate the mediating effects of depression and ASM side effects on the association between patients' ASM polytherapy and HRQOL.

RESULTS

Of 778 patients included in this analysis, 274 (35.2%) were on two or more ASMs. Patient-reported depression and ASM side effects jointly mediated the association between ASMs and HRQOL; these mediators accounted for 42% of the total average effect of ASM polytherapy ( β  = -13.6, 95% confidence interval = -18.2 to -8.6) on HRQOL.

SIGNIFICANCE

These findings highlight the importance of managing depression and ASM side effects for improving health outcomes of patients requiring treatment with ASMs. Intervention programs aimed at improving HRQOL of patients with epilepsy need to target these potential mediators.

Does a psychiatric history play a role in the development of psychiatric adverse events to perampanel… and to placebo?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to establish whether a past psychiatric history could play a role in the development of psychiatric treatment-emergent adverse events (PTEAEs) in patients randomized to perampanel (PER) or placebo.

METHODS

The development of PTEAEs was compared between patients with/without a psychiatric history in a post hoc analysis from four randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs) of PER (304/305/306/335) in patients with treatment-resistant focal epilepsy.

RESULTS

Among the 2,187 patients enrolled in the RPCTs, 352 (16.1%) had a psychiatric history (PER n = 244; placebo n = 108), while 1835 patients (83.9%) did not (PER n = 1325; placebo n = 510). Compared to patients without a psychiatric history, those with a positive history reported more PTEAEs for both patients randomized to PER (11.8% vs. 29.9%, p < 0.01) or to placebo (9.2% vs. 19.4%, p < 0.01). The prevalence of PTEAEs was not higher among patients randomized to 2 mg and 4 mg/day doses than placebo in both those with and without psychiatric history. Rather, the higher prevalence rates were among subjects randomized to 8 mg (29.8%) and 12 mg (36.4%) PER doses in patients with a past psychiatric history.

SIGNIFICANCE

A psychiatric history appears to increase the risk of PTEAEs in patients randomized to placebo and to PER at doses of 8 and 12 mg/day. It should be identified in all patients considered for treatment with PER, particularly when prescribed at doses above 4 mg/day.

Neurobehavioural comorbidities of epilepsy: towards a network-based precision taxonomy

Cognitive and behavioural comorbidities are prevalent in childhood and adult epilepsies and impose a substantial human and economic burden. Over the past century, the classic approach to understanding the aetiology and course of these comorbidities has been through the prism of the medical taxonomy of epilepsy, including its causes, course, characteristics and syndromes. Although this 'lesion model' has long served as the organizing paradigm for the field, substantial challenges to this model have accumulated from diverse sources, including neuroimaging, neuropathology, neuropsychology and network science. Advances in patient stratification and phenotyping point towards a new taxonomy for the cognitive and behavioural comorbidities of epilepsy, which reflects the heterogeneity of their clinical presentation and raises the possibility of a precision medicine approach. As we discuss in this Review, these advances are informing the development of a revised aetiological paradigm that incorporates sophisticated neurobiological measures, genomics, comorbid disease, diversity and adversity, and resilience factors. We describe modifiable risk factors that could guide early identification, treatment and, ultimately, prevention of cognitive and broader neurobehavioural comorbidities in epilepsy and propose a road map to guide future research.

Psychiatric disorders of the combination of levetiracetam either with lacosamide or perampanel: a retrospective cohort study

Background The number of patients with epilepsy receiving perampanel or lacosamide as an add-on treatment following levetiracetam treatment has increased. Although levetiracetam causes psychiatric disorders, it is unclear whether they occur with the combined use of these antiepileptic drugs. Objective To determine the frequency of psychiatric disorders in patients received lacosamide or perampanel in combination with levetiracetam. Setting A single-center retrospective cohort study. Method Patients who received levetiracetam + lacosamide or levetiracetam + perampanel were selected. Medical records from the start of combination therapy contained characteristics of patients and the incidence of psychiatric disorders. Main outcome measure The frequency of psychiatric disorders, the time to onset, dose reduction or discontinuation following psychiatric disorders, and the clinical course following disorder onset. Results Forty-four patients used levetiracetam + lacosamide and 50 used levetiracetam + perampanel. The incidence of psychiatric disorders was significantly lower (p < 0.001) with levetiracetam + lacosamide (6.8%) than with levetiracetam + perampanel (44%). The incidence of affect lability was significantly higher with levetiracetam + perampanel than with levetiracetam + lacosamide (p = 0.018). The time to the onset of psychiatric disorders was within 1 month of dose initiation or increase in one case (33.3%) with levetiracetam + lacosamide and 16 cases (72.7%) with levetiracetam + perampanel. There was no significant difference in clinical characteristics and antiepileptic drug dosages owing to the presence or absence of psychiatric disorders. Conclusion As the frequency of psychiatric disorders was higher with levetiracetam + perampanel therapy, levetiracetam + lacosamide may be preferable. These disorders tended to develop within 1 month of therapy and were not dose-dependent. Antiepileptic drugs should be cautiously prescribed to avoid psychiatric disorders.

Effect of antiepileptic drugs in glioma patients on self-reported depression, anxiety, and cognitive complaints

Introduction

AEDs have been associated with depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairment, all frequent complications of glioma and its subsequent treatment, with considerable morbidity and an adverse effect on health-related quality of life. This study aimed to determine the independent association between AED use and self-reported depression, anxiety, and subjective cognitive impairment in glioma patients.

Methods

In this multicenter cross-sectional study, depression and anxiety were assessed with the HADS and subjective cognitive impairment was assessed with the MOS-CFS. Univariable logistic regression analyses were performed on all potential confounding predictor variables. Potential confounders were included in the multivariable analyses if p-value < 0.1, to evaluate whether use of AEDs was independently related to depression, anxiety, and/or subjective cognitive impairment.

Results

A total of 272 patients were included. Prevalence of depression differed significantly between patients not using (10%) and using AEDs (21%, unadjusted Odds Ratio [uOR] = 2.29 [95%CI 1.05–4.97], p = 0.037), but after correction for confounders the statistical significant difference was no longer apparent (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 1.94 [95%CI 0.83–4.50], p = 0.125). Prevalences of anxiety (aOR = 1.17 [95%CI 0.59–2.29], p = 0.659) and subjective cognitive impairment (aOR = 0.83 [95%CI 0.34–2.04], p = 0.684) did not differ significantly before or after adjustment of confounders between patients not using (19% and 16%, respectively) and using AEDs (26% and 21%, respectively).

Conclusions

Our results indicate AED use was not independently associated with concurrent depression, anxiety, or subjective cognitive impairment in glioma patients. Alternative factors seem to have a greater contribution to the risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms in glioma patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11060-021-03747-1.

Levetiracetam, perampanel, and the issue of aggression: A self-report study

This study investigated to which degree levetiracetam (LEV) and perampanel (PER), antiseizure medications (ASM) that are both known to cause aggression and irritability, share the same or different, behavioral side-effect profiles. In this self-report study, 68 participants with epilepsy treated with LEV (n = 35) or PER (n = 33) as part of their medication were asked to rate their behavioral experience with the respective drug as positive, neutral, or negative. Results of a German adaptation of the Adverse Events Profile (AEP) and of the "FPZ", a German personality questionnaire, were analyzed as a function of drug and rating. Thirty-eight percent of the LEV group and 36% of the PER group experienced negative change after the evaluated drug was introduced. By subdividing participants in the LEV sample into those who attributed the negative effects to LEV and those with neutral or positive experience with LEV, a negative evaluation of LEV was associated with significantly worse scores in cognition, mood, and physical domains (80% versus 20-40%). Subdividing participants in the PER sample into those who attributed negative the side effects to PER, and those with a neutral or positive experience with PER, significance could be shown for mood domains only (100% versus 50%), and within this domain only for increased aggression and irritability. Comparing features of the behavioral negative side effects of LEV and PER revealed that LEV appears to have a negative impact on a much broader range of behaviors than PER, which specifically seems to induce aggression and irritability and no other psychiatric side effects. Further research should aim at different expression and different mechanisms of aggression and irritability underlying the superficially similar effects of the two drugs.

Adjunctive brivaracetam - A prospective audit of outcomes from an epilepsy clinic

OBJECTIVE

Brivaracetam (BRV), is licensed in Europe as adjunctive treatment, and in the United States of America as adjunctive and monotherapy for focal seizures with or without secondary generalization in adults, adolescents, and children ≥4 years. As BRV becomes available globally, this prospective audit was undertaken to gain an understanding of how best to use the anti-seizure medication (ASM) in the everyday clinical setting.

METHODS

Brivaracetam was started by patients ≥16 years with difficult-to-control epilepsy at Glasgow epilepsy clinics following a 12-week baseline on stable ASM doses. Target dosing was 200 mg/day. Review occurred every 12-16 weeks until 1 of 4 end-points occurred: seizure freedom for ≥6 months on a given BRV dose; ≥50% (responder) or <50% (marginal benefit) seizure reduction over 6 months compared with baseline on the highest tolerated BRV dose; withdrawal of BRV due to lack of efficacy, adverse effects, or both.

RESULTS

An end-point has been reached by 108 patients (38 men, 70 women; median age 45 years), 88 with focal-onset seizures and 20 with genetic generalized epilepsies (GGEs). Of these, 71 (65.7%) have benefitted from BRV, including 23 (21.3%) who have been seizure free for ≥6 months on a median BRV dose of 100 mg/day (range 25-200 mg/day). A further 18 (16.7%) were classified as responders and 30 (27.8%) showed marginal benefit. Brivaracetam benefitted 16 (80.0%) patients with GGEs, 5 becoming seizure free. Generalized tonic-clonic seizures, absences, and myoclonic seizures were completely controlled in 4 (25%) patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy. Brivaracetam monotherapy was established in 12 patients, 3 of whom had GGEs. Levetiracetam (LEV) had previously been prescribed in 53 patients who had discontinued the ASM due to lack of efficacy, side effects, or both. Adjunctive BRV benefitted 34 (64.2%) of these patients. Brivaracetam was withdrawn in 37 (34.3%) patients, (23 side effects, 4 lack of efficacy, 10 both). Sedation was the commonest side effect leading to BRV withdrawal (n = 14; 13.0%). Psychiatric side effects resulted in BRV discontinuation in 9 (8.3%) patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

Brivaracetam has efficacy for a range of seizure types and syndromes in a wide range of doses. The ASM can produce positive outcomes in patients who have failed LEV. Post-marketing studies remain a useful tool to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of novel ASMs in everyday clinical practice.

Differences in levetiracetam and perampanel treatment-related irritability in patients with epilepsy

PURPOSE

The present study evaluated whether patients with epilepsy who received both levetiracetam (LEV) and perampanel (PER) therapy showed side effects of irritability. The study also examined the relationship between patient characteristics and irritability when it occurred as a side effect.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined medical records of 98 patients with epilepsy who were treated with both LEV and PER at the Department of Psychiatry in the Epilepsy Center of Nishiniigata Chuo National Hospital in Japan. We performed multiple regression analyses with the presence/absence of irritability due to LEV or PER as the dependent variables and clinical characteristics of the patients as independent variables.

RESULTS

LEV and PER caused irritability in 7 and 17 of 98 patients, respectively. LEV- and PER-related irritability did not occur in the same patients. A logistic multiple regression analysis revealed that EEG findings of temporal focal epileptic discharge were significantly associated with increased incidence of irritability due to LEV. LEV-related irritability decreased significantly with higher dosages of LEV. Another logistic multiple regression analysis revealed that a psychiatric comorbidity of irritability and EEG findings of nontemporal focal epileptic discharge were significantly associated with increased incidence of irritability due to PER.

CONCLUSIONS

LEV and PER cause irritability in different patient groups. Additionally, irritability as a side effect was present only at low dosages of LEV, but PER tended to cause irritability even at high dosages.

Primary care electronic medical records can be used to predict risk and identify potentially modifiable factors for early and late death in adult onset epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To use clinically informed machine learning to derive prediction models for early and late premature death in epilepsy.

METHODS

This was a population-based primary care observational cohort study. All patients meeting a case definition for incident epilepsy in the Health Improvement Network database for inclusive years 2000-2012 were included. A modified Delphi process identified 30 potential risk factors. Outcome was early (within 4 years of epilepsy diagnosis) and late (4 years or more from diagnosis) mortality. We used regularized logistic regression, support vector machines, Gaussian naive Bayes, and random forest classifiers to predict outcomes. We assessed model calibration, discrimination, and generalizability using the Brier score, mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) derived from stratified fivefold cross-validation, plotted calibration curves, and extracted measures of association where possible.

RESULTS

We identified 10 499 presumed incident cases from 11 194 182 patients. All models performed comparably well following stratified fivefold cross-validation, with AUCs ranging from 0.73 to 0.81 and from 0.71 to 0.79 for early and late death, respectively. In addition to comorbid disease, social habits (alcoholism odds ratio [OR] for early death = 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12-2.11 and OR for late death = 2.62, 95% CI = 1.66-4.16) and treatment patterns (OR for early death when no antiseizure medication [ASM] was prescribed at baseline = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.07-1.64 and OR for late death after receipt of enzyme-inducing ASM at baseline = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.04-1.66) were significantly associated with increased risk of premature death. Baseline ASM polytherapy (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.36-0.85) was associated with reduced risk of early death.

SIGNIFICANCE

Clinically informed models using routine electronic medical records can be used to predict early and late mortality in epilepsy, with moderate to high accuracy and evidence of generalizability. Medical, social, and treatment-related risk factors, such as delayed ASM prescription and baseline prescription of enzyme-inducing ASMs, were important predictors.

Trait impulsivity in Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy

Objective

Impulsivity is a multidimensional construct that can predispose to psychopathology. Meta‐analysis demonstrates an association between response impulsivity and Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy (JME), a common genetic generalized epilepsy. Here, we test the hypotheses that trait impulsivity is (i) elevated in JME compared to controls; (ii) moderated by specific seizure characteristics; and (iii) associated with psychiatric adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).

Methods

322 participants with JME and 126 age and gender‐matched controls completed the Barratt’s Impulsiveness Scale (BIS‐brief) alongside information on seizure history and AED use. We compared group BIS‐brief scores and assessed associations of JME BIS‐brief scores with seizure characteristics and AED adverse effects.

Results

The mean BIS‐brief score in JME was 18.1 ± 4.4 compared with 16.2 ± 4.1 in controls (P = 0.0007). Elevated impulsivity was associated with male gender (P = 0.027), frequent absence seizures (P = 0.0004) and lack of morning predominance of myoclonus (P = 0.008). High impulsivity significantly increased the odds of a psychiatric adverse event on levetiracetam (P = 0.036), but not any other psychiatric or somatic adverse effects.

Interpretation

Trait impulsivity is elevated in JME and comparable to scores in personality and neurotic disorders. Increased seizure frequency and absence of circadian seizure pattern moderate BIS score, suggesting disruption of both cortico‐striatal and thalamocortical networks as a shared mechanism between seizures and impulsivity in JME. These findings warrant consideration of impulsivity as a distinct target of intervention, and as a stratifying factor for AED treatment in JME, and perhaps other types of epilepsy. The role of impulsivity in treatment adherence and psychosocial outcome requires further investigation.

Precision Medicine: Academic dreaming or clinical reality?

Precision medicine can be distilled into a concept of accounting for an individual's unique collection of clinical, physiologic, genetic, and sociodemographic characteristics to provide patient-level predictions of disease course and response to therapy. Abundant evidence now allows us to determine how an average person with epilepsy will respond to specific medical and surgical treatments. This is useful, but not readily applicable to an individual patient. This has brought into sharp focus the desire for a more individualized approach through which we counsel people based on individual characteristics, as opposed to population-level data. We are now accruing data at unprecedented rates, allowing us to convert this ideal into reality. In addition, we have access to growing volumes of administrative and electronic health records data, biometric, imaging, genetics data, microbiome, and other "omics" data, thus paving the way toward phenome-wide association studies and "the epidemiology of one." Despite this, there are many challenges ahead. The collating, integrating, and storing sensitive multimodal data for advanced analytics remains difficult as patient consent and data security issues increase in complexity. Agreement on many aspects of epilepsy remains imperfect, rendering models sensitive to misclassification due to a lack of "ground truth." Even with existing data, advanced analytics models are prone to overfitting and often failure to generalize externally. Finally, uptake by clinicians is often hindered by opaque, "black box" algorithms. Systematic approaches to data collection and model generation, and an emphasis on education to promote uptake and knowledge translation, are required to propel epilepsy-based precision medicine from the realm of the theoretical into routine clinical practice.

Disability in people with epilepsy: A nationally representative cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore the prevalence and predictors of limitations causing disability in patients treated for seizures or epilepsy compared with patients without epilepsy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We included all participants ≥20 years old for 2013-2018. We classified patients as having epilepsy if they reported taking at least one prescription medication to treat seizures or epilepsy. Physical, mental, and social limitations were determined from interview questions. We report the prevalence of any limitation and total number of limitations for participants without vs. with epilepsy using serial negative binomial regressions and severity of individual limitations according to epilepsy status.

RESULTS

We included 17,057 participants, of whom 148 (0.8%) had epilepsy. Overall, 80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 73%-86%) with epilepsy vs. 38% (95% CI: 36%-39%) without epilepsy reported at least 1 limitation (p < 0.01). The mean number of limitations was 7.5 (95% CI: 6.2-8.8) for those with epilepsy vs. 2.4 (95% CI: 2.3-2.6) for those without epilepsy (p < 0.01). Epilepsy was associated with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 3.1 (95% CI: 2.6-3.7) in an unadjusted negative binomial regression. After adjusting for demographics and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant (IRR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.9-1.7). Limitations cited by 40-50% of participants with epilepsy included stooping/kneeling/crouching, standing for long periods of time, and pushing/pulling objects. Limitation severity was consistently higher in patients with epilepsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with epilepsy had 3.1 times as many physical, mental, or social limitations compared with those without epilepsy, and disability severity was consistently higher. This effect was attenuated after considering baseline variables such as smoking and depression severity. Our work implies the importance of structured mental health screening and self-management programs targeting mood, weight, and lifestyle as potential leverage points towards alleviating epilepsy-related disability.

[Interictal psychosis of epilepsy]

Interictal psychosis (IIP) refers to psychosis that occurs in clear consciousness in persons with epilepsy (PWE) with temporal onset not during or immediately following a seizure. The pooled prevalence estimate of psychosis in PWE is 5.6%. PWE and schizophrenia have very high mortality, and more than one in four persons with both disorders die between the age of 25 and 50years. IIP can manifest in brief or chronic forms. The chronic forms of IIP may closely resemble schizophrenia. However, some authors have described the typical presence of persecutory and religious delusions, sudden mood swings and the preservation of affect, as well as rarity of negative symptoms and catatonic states, but these differences remain controversial. Typically, IIP starts after many years of active temporal lobe epilepsy. Several epilepsy-related variables are considered pathogenically relevant in IIP including epilepsy type and seizure characteristics. Risk factors for developing IIP are family history of psychosis, learning disability, early age of onset of epilepsy, unilateral or bilateral hippocampal sclerosis, history of status epilepticus, history of febrile seizures, and poorly controlled temporal lobe epilepsy. In patients with epilepsy and psychosis, structural imaging studies have shown several relevant changes leading to conflicting findings. Altered neuronal plasticity and excitability have been described in epilepsy and psychotic disorders. Neuropathological data suggest that IIP are not the result of classic epileptic pathology of the temporal lobe. Forced normalization (FN) and alternating psychosis refer to patients with poorly controlled epilepsy (focal or generalized) who have had psychotic episodes associated with remission of their seizures and disappearance of epileptiform activity on their EEGs. FN mainly occurs in temporal lobe epilepsy when patients have frequent seizures that are abruptly terminated triggered by an antiepileptic drug, vagus nerve stimulation or epilepsy surgery. Treatment is based on withdrawal of the responsible drug, and by transient use of antipsychotics for acute symptomatic control on a case-by-case basis. FN is an entity whose pathophysiology remains uncertain. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may sometimes induce psychotic symptoms and psychosis could be a direct effect of the AEDs. IIP has been reported more frequently following the initiation of zonisamide, topiramate, and levetiracetam when compared with other antiepileptic drugs. However, AEDs do not appear to be the only determinant of IIP. The management of IIP requires a multidisciplinary approach with early involvement of a liaison psychiatrist associated with a neurologist. IIP are underdiagnosed and mistreated. Existing recommendations are extrapolated from those established for the treatment of schizophrenia with some additional guidance from expert opinions. A two-step procedure, not necessarily consecutive, is suggested. The first step requires reevaluation of the antiepileptic treatment. The second step requires initiation of atypical neuroleptics. Antipsychotic drugs should be selected with consideration of the balance between pharmacological profiles, efficacy, and adverse effects. Regarding pharmacokinetic interactions, AEDs with inducing properties reduce the blood levels of all antipsychotics. It is important to consider implications of combining neuroleptics and AEDs with a similar spectrum of side effects. Regarding the duration of treatment, IIP episodes are more likely to be recurrent than in primary schizophrenia. In practice, atypical neuroleptics with few motor side effects such as risperidone can be used as first choice, given the low propensity for drug-drug interactions and the low seizure risk, with the added suggestion to start low and go slow. Clozapine could be prescribed in selected cases.

Effectiveness and safety of perampanel monotherapy for focal and generalized tonic-clonic seizures: Experience from a national multicenter registry

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) monotherapy in routine clinical practice for the treatment of focal onset and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS).

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted in patients aged ≥12 years treated with PER as primary monotherapy or converted to PER monotherapy by progressive reduction of background antiepileptic drugs. Outcomes included retention, responder, and seizure-free rate after 3, 6, and 12 months and tolerability throughout the follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients (mean age = 49.6 ± 21.7 years, 51% female) with focal seizures and/or GTCS were treated with PER monotherapy for a median exposure of 14 months (range = 1-57) with a median dose of 4 mg (range = 2-10). The retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months and last follow-up were 93.8%, 89.3%, 80.9%, and 71.4%, respectively. The retention rates according to the type of monotherapy (primary vs conversion) did not differ (log-rank P value = .57). Among the 98 patients, 61.2% patients had seizures throughout the baseline period, with a median seizure frequency of 0.6 seizures per month (range = 0.3-26). Responder rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 79.6%, 70.1%, and 52.8%, respectively, and seizure freedom rates at the same points were 62.7%, 56.1%, and 41.5%. Regarding the 33 patients who had GTCS in the baseline period, 87.8% were seizure-free at 3 months, 78.1% at 6 months, and 55.1% at 12 months. Over the entire follow-up, PER monotherapy was generally well tolerated, and only 16% of patients discontinued PER due to adverse events (AEs). Female patients were found to be at a higher risk of psychiatric AEs (female vs male odds ratio = 2.85, 95% confidence interval = 1-8.33, P = .046).

SIGNIFICANCE

PER demonstrated good effectiveness and a good safety profile when used as primary therapy or conversion to monotherapy at relatively low doses, in a clinical setting with patients with focal seizures and GTCS.

Trends in prevalence and treatment of depressive symptoms in adult patients with epilepsy in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Depressive symptoms are a common comorbidity among adults with epilepsy (AWE). Prior estimates regarding prevalence and treatment of depressive symptoms in AWE have been largely based on samples of tertiary care cohorts that may not be generalizable. We aimed to provide a representative population estimate of the prevalence and treatment of depressive symptoms over time in AWE in the United States as measured by a validated depression screen.

METHOD

Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) were analyzed from 2004 to 2015 to determine the prevalence of "screen positive" depressive symptoms (SPDS) among AWE as evaluated by the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2). We defined pharmacotherapy for depressive symptoms as the prescription of any antidepressant, antipsychotic, anxiolytic, or central nervous system stimulant for the "Clinical Classification Code" of mood disorders within the year sampled, and psychotherapy as any outpatient or office-based visit for "mood disorders" for that year sampled. We analyzed temporal trends and explanatory variables for treatment using the Cochran-Armitage test and logistic regression, respectively.

RESULTS

Our sample included 2024 AWE, representing 1,736,023 patients nationwide. This included 517 AWE with SPDS (AWE-SPDS), representing 401,452 AWE, and 1507 AWE who screened negative for depressive symptoms (AWE-SNDS), representing 1,334,571 AWE. The prevalence of SPDS was 23.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.6%-25.8%). Women (odds ratio [OR]: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.05-1.87), patients ages 35-49 (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.23-2.72; compared with patients ages 18-34), and patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥1 (OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.41-2.61) had higher odds of SPDS. There was no significant change in depressive symptoms' prevalence or treatment in AWE between the epochs of 2004-2006 and 2013-2015.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a quarter of AWE in the United States with SPDS, fewer than half received treatment. This indicates a need for improved efforts to screen AWE for depression and treat appropriately.

Pyridoxine supplementation for levetiracetam-related neuropsychiatric adverse events: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Among people with epilepsy, levetiracetam (LEV) can cause neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPAEs) that impact negatively on quality of life. It has been suggested that pyridoxine can ameliorate LEV-related NPAEs. We conducted a systematic review of studies on the use of pyridoxine supplementation to relieve NPAEs associated with LEV therapy.

METHODS

The review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Medline, EMBASE, Scholar, Cochrane-CENTRAL (2000-2019), and EThOS platform were searched for studies on the use of pyridoxine in patients with LEV-related NPAEs. Proportions of patients reported to benefit from pyridoxine supplementation were tabulated, and a random-effect model meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Eleven retrospective studies/case reports and one randomized prospective study, mostly including pediatric populations, were identified. Retrospective studies, which were rated as low quality due to failure to control for bias, reported an overall improvement of NPAEs after pyridoxine supplementation in 72.5% (108/149) of patients. The proportion of patients showing improvement in a pooled analysis of the four largest retrospective studies (n = 134) was 72.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 47.1-88.3), although there was high heterogeneity across studies (I² = 82%, p_{heterogeneity} < 0.01). In the only prospective trial, patients randomized to pyridoxine supplementation were more likely to show relief from NPAEs than patients not receiving supplementation (p < 0.01), but outcomes might have been affected by assessment bias.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that pyridoxine might be of benefit in relieving LEV-related NPAEs. However, the quality of the evidence is poor, and better-designed prospective studies that include quantitative as well as qualitative data are needed to define the role of pyridoxine in the management of LEV-related NPAEs.