Vagus nerve stimulation for partial seizures

Gene therapy for epilepsy targeting neuropeptide Y and its Y2 receptor to dentate gyrus granule cells

Gene therapy is emerging as an alternative option for individuals with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Here, we explore the potential of a novel gene therapy based on Neuropeptide Y (NPY), a well-known endogenous anticonvulsant. We develop a lentiviral vector co-expressing NPY with its inhibitory receptor Y2 in which, for the first time, both transgenes are placed under the control of the minimal CamKIIa(0.4) promoter, biasing expression toward excitatory neurons and allowing autoregulation of neuronal excitability by Y2 receptor-mediated inhibition. Vector-induced NPY and Y2 expression and safety are first assessed in cultures of hippocampal neurons. In vivo experiments demonstrate efficient and nearly selective overexpression of both genes in granule cell mossy fiber terminals following vector administration in the dentate gyrus. Telemetry video-EEG monitoring reveals a reduction in the frequency and duration of seizures in the synapsin triple KO model. This study shows that targeting a small subset of neurons (hippocampal granule cells) with a combined overexpression of NPY and Y2 receptor is sufficient to reduce the occurrence of spontaneous seizures.

Viral Vector-Based Gene Therapy for Epilepsy: What Does the Future Hold?

In recent years, many pre-clinical studies have tested gene therapy approaches as possible treatments for epilepsy, following the idea that they may provide an alternative to conventional pharmacological and surgical options. Multiple gene therapy approaches have been developed, including those based on anti-sense oligonucleotides, RNA interference, and viral vectors. In this opinion article, we focus on translational issues related to viral vector-mediated gene therapy for epilepsy. Research has advanced dramatically in addressing issues like viral vector optimization, target identification, strategies of gene expression, editing or regulation, and safety. Some of these pre-clinically validated potential gene therapies are now being tested in clinical trials, in patients with genetic or focal forms of drug-resistant epilepsy. Here, we discuss the ongoing translational research and the advancements that are needed and expected in the near future. We then describe the clinical trials in the pipeline and the further challenges that will need to be addressed at the clinical and economic levels. Our optimistic view is that all these issues and challenges can be overcome, and that gene therapy approaches for epilepsy will soon become a clinical reality.

Lamotrigine add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review last updated in 2020. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder, affecting 0.5% to 1% of the population. In nearly 30% of cases, epilepsy is resistant to currently available drugs. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Lamotrigine is a second-generation antiseizure medication. When used as an add-on (in combination with other antiseizure medications), lamotrigine can reduce seizures, but with some adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of add-on lamotrigine, compared with add-on placebo or no add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 3 October 2022 with no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated add-on lamotrigine versus add-on placebo or no add-on treatment in people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We used data from the first period of eligible cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. Our primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Our secondary outcomes were treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, cognitive effects, and quality of life. Primary analyses were by intention-to-treat. We performed sensitivity best- and worse-case analyses to account for missing outcome data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cls) for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no new studies for this update, so the results and conclusions of the review are unchanged. We included five parallel-group studies in adults or children, eight cross-over studies in adults or children, and one parallel study with a responder-enriched design in infants. In total, these 14 studies enroled 1806 eligible participants (38 infants, 199 children, 1569 adults). Baseline phases ranged from four to 12 weeks and treatment phases ranged from eight to 36 weeks. We rated 11 studies (1243 participants) at low overall risk of bias and three (697 participants) at unclear overall risk of bias due to lack of information on study design. Four studies (563 participants) reported effective blinding. Lamotrigine compared with placebo probably increases the likelihood of achieving 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.23; 12 trials, 1322 participants (adults and children); moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in risk of treatment withdrawal for any reason among people treated with lamotrigine versus people treated with placebo (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 14 trials; 1806 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Lamotrigine compared with placebo is probably associated with a greater risk of ataxia (RR 3.34, 99% Cl 2.01 to 5.55; 12 trials; 1525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), dizziness (RR 1.76, 99% Cl 1.28 to 2.43; 13 trials; 1768 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), nausea (RR 1.81, 99% CI 1.22 to 2.68; 12 studies, 1486 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and diplopia (RR 3.79, 99% Cl 2.15 to 6.68; 3 trials, 944 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of fatigue between lamotrigine and placebo (RR 0.82, 99% CI 0.55 to 1.22; 12 studies, 1552 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lamotrigine as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal seizures is probably effective for reducing seizure frequency. Certain adverse effects (ataxia, dizziness, diplopia, and nausea) are probably more likely to occur with lamotrigine compared with placebo. There is probably little or no difference in the number of people who withdraw from treatment with lamotrigine versus placebo. The trials were of relatively short duration and provided no long-term evidence. In addition, some trials had few participants. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of lamotrigine and to compare lamotrigine with other add-on drugs.

Perianaesthetic management on a child with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome for vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) placement

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neurostimulatory modality in treating patients with medically resistant epilepsy (MRE). It was introduced in 1997 and has been proven to reduce patients' dependency on antiepileptic drugs and seizure frequency. However, the usage of VNS in children with MRE has been limited, especially those with Lennox Gastaut Syndrome (LGS). Our teenage boy with this syndrome developed MRE and successfully underwent VNS placement. We discuss the perianaesthetic challenges, a brief description of VNS and the reported successes in patients with LGS.

Immunomodulatory interventions for focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of an original Cochrane Review published in 2013 (Walker 2013). Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder affecting 0.5% to 1% of the population. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. However, up to 30% of people do not respond to drug treatment, and therefore do not achieve seizure remission. Experimental and clinical evidence supports a role for inflammatory pathway activation in the pathogenesis of epilepsy which, if effectively targeted by immunomodulatory interventions, highlights a potentially novel therapeutic strategy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of immunomodulatory interventions on seizures, adverse effect profile, cognition, and quality of life, compared to placebo controls, when used as additional therapy for focal epilepsy in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 11 November 2021: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and Medline (Ovid) 1946 to 10 November 2021. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We placed no language restrictions. We reviewed the bibliographies of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised placebo-controlled trials of add-on immunomodulatory drug interventions, in which an adequate method of concealment of randomisation was used. The studies were double-, single- or unblinded. Eligible participants were children (aged over 2 years) and adults with focal epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We assessed the following outcomes. 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. 2. Seizure freedom. 3. Treatment withdrawal for any reason. 4. Quality of life. 5.

ADVERSE EFFECTS

We used an intention-to-treat (ITT) population for all primary analyses, and we presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl).

MAIN RESULTS

We included three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on a total of 172 participants. All trials included children and adults over two years of age with focal epilepsy. Treatment phases lasted six weeks and follow-up from six weeks to six months. One of the three included trials described an adequate method of concealment of randomisation, whilst the other two trials were rated as having an unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. Effective blinding of studies was reported in all three trials. All analyses were by ITT. One trial was sponsored by the manufacturer of an immunomodulatory agent and therefore was at high risk of funding bias. Immunomodulatory interventions were significantly more effective than placebo in reducing seizure frequency (risk ratio (RR) 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 4.60; 3 studies, 172 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For treatment withdrawal, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that people were more likely to discontinue immunomodulatory intervention than placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.80; 3 studies, 172 participants; low-certainty evidence). The RR for adverse effects was 1.16 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.59; 1 study, 66 participants; low-certainty evidence). Certain adverse effects such as dizziness, headache, fatigue, and gastrointestinal disorders were more often associated with immunomodulatory interventions. There were little to no data on cognitive effects and quality of life. No important heterogeneity between studies was found for any of the outcomes. We judged the overall certainty of evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide confidence intervals.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Immunomodulatory interventions as add-on treatment for children and adults with focal epilepsy appear to be effective in reducing seizure frequency. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about the tolerability of these agents in children and adults with epilepsy. Further randomised controlled trials are needed.

A new strategy for treating drug-resistant focal aware seizures: thalamic specific nuclei deep brain stimulation. Illustrative case

BACKGROUND

Focal aware seizures (FASs) are relatively common and frequently pharmaco-resistant. If the seizure onset zone (SOZ) is in eloquent cortical areas, making resective surgery risky and inadvisable, deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus, which is efficacious in less than half of the cases, has been the main alternative. New targets should be searched to address this deficiency. The present study aims to determine if DBS of different thalamic specific nuclei can modulate the abnormal electrical activity of the SOZ located in their respective cortical projection areas. Herein, the authors present the first patient in an ongoing trial.

OBSERVATIONS

A 60-year-old female patient presented with 25-year history of pharmaco-resistant focal aware visual seizures frequently evolving to focal impaired awareness seizures. The SOZ was in the right occipital lobe (positron emission tomography-computed tomography/video electroencephalography). Magnetic resonance imaging was normal. She underwent ipsilateral lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) DBS procedure. After a 24-month follow-up, seizure frequency decreased by 97%, improving quality of life and daily functioning without complications.

LESSONS

This is the first time the LGN has been targeted in humans. The results support the hypothesis that led to this study. This strategy represents a paradigm shift in the way of treating pharmaco-resistant FASs not amenable to resective surgery.

Vagus nerve stimulation primes platelets and reduces bleeding in hemophilia A male mice

Deficiency of coagulation factor VIII in hemophilia A disrupts clotting and prolongs bleeding. While the current mainstay of therapy is infusion of factor VIII concentrates, inhibitor antibodies often render these ineffective. Because preclinical evidence shows electrical vagus nerve stimulation accelerates clotting to reduce hemorrhage without precipitating systemic thrombosis, we reasoned it might reduce bleeding in hemophilia A. Using two different male murine hemorrhage and thrombosis models, we show vagus nerve stimulation bypasses the factor VIII deficiency of hemophilia A to decrease bleeding and accelerate clotting. Vagus nerve stimulation targets acetylcholine-producing T lymphocytes in spleen and α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (α7nAChR) on platelets to increase calcium uptake and enhance alpha granule release. Splenectomy or genetic deletion of T cells or α7nAChR abolishes vagal control of platelet activation, thrombus formation, and bleeding in male mice. Vagus nerve stimulation warrants clinical study as a therapy for coagulation disorders and surgical or traumatic bleeding.

Epilepsy and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): The Underlying Mechanisms and Therapy Targets Related to Adenosine

Epilepsy and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are highly mutually comorbid, suggesting potential overlaps in genetic etiology, pathophysiology, and neurodevelopmental abnormalities. Adenosine, an endogenous anticonvulsant and neuroprotective neuromodulator of the brain, has been proved to affect the process of epilepsy and ASD. On the one hand, adenosine plays a crucial role in preventing the progression and development of epilepsy through adenosine receptordependent and -independent ways. On the other hand, adenosine signaling can not only regulate core symptoms but also improve comorbid disorders in ASD. Given the important role of adenosine in epilepsy and ASD, therapeutic strategies related to adenosine, including the ketogenic diet, neuromodulation therapy, and adenosine augmentation therapy, have been suggested for the arrangement of epilepsy and ASD. There are several proposals in this review. Firstly, it is necessary to further discuss the relationship between both diseases based on the comorbid symptoms and mechanisms of epilepsy and ASD. Secondly, it is important to explore the role of adenosine involved in epilepsy and ASD. Lastly, potential therapeutic value and clinical approaches of adenosine-related therapies in treating epilepsy and ASD need to be emphasized.

Vagus nerve stimulation for focal seizures

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in 2015. Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder, characterised by recurring, unprovoked seizures. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory treatment that is used as an adjunctive therapy for treating people with drug-resistant epilepsy. VNS consists of chronic, intermittent electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, delivered by a programmable pulse generator.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS), and MEDLINE Ovid on 3 March 2022. We imposed no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered parallel or cross-over, randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of VNS as add-on treatment, which compared high- and low-level stimulation (including three different stimulation paradigms: rapid, mild, and slow duty-cycle), and VNS stimulation versus no stimulation, or a different intervention. We considered adults or children with drug-resistant focal seizures who were either not eligible for surgery, or who had failed surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods, assessing the following outcomes: 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency 2. Treatment withdrawal (any reason) 3. Adverse effects 4. Quality of life (QoL) 5. Cognition 6. Mood

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the conclusions are unchanged. We included the five randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the last update, with a total of 439 participants. The baseline phase ranged from 4 to 12 weeks, and double-blind treatment phases from 12 to 20 weeks. We rated two studies at an overall low risk of bias, and three at an overall unclear risk of bias, due to lack of reported information about study design. Effective blinding of studies of VNS is difficult, due to the frequency of stimulation-related side effects, such as voice alteration. The risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.64; 4 RCTs, 373 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that high frequency VNS was over one and a half times more effective than low frequency VNS. The RR for treatment withdrawal was 2.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 12.71; 4 RCTs, 375 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results for the top five reported adverse events were: hoarseness RR 2.17 (99% CI 1.49 to 3.17; 3 RCTs, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); cough RR 1.09 (99% CI 0.74 to 1.62; 3 RCTs, 334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); dyspnoea RR 2.45 (99% CI 1.07 to 5.60; 3 RCTs, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence); pain RR 1.01 (99% CI 0.60 to 1.68; 2 RCTs; 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); paraesthesia 0.78 (99% CI 0.39 to 1.53; 2 RCTs, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Results from two studies (312 participants) showed that a small number of favourable QOL effects were associated with VNS stimulation, but results were inconclusive between high- and low-level stimulation groups. One study (198 participants) found inconclusive results between high- and low-level stimulation for cognition on all measures used. One study (114 participants) found the majority of participants showed an improvement in mood on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale compared to baseline, but results between high- and low-level stimulation were inconclusive. We found no important heterogeneity between studies for any of the outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

VNS for focal seizures appears to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment. Results of the overall efficacy analysis show that high-level stimulation reduced the frequency of seizures better than low-level stimulation. There were very few withdrawals, which suggests that VNS is well tolerated. Adverse effects associated with implantation and stimulation were primarily hoarseness, cough, dyspnoea, pain, paraesthesia, nausea, and headache, with hoarseness and dyspnoea more likely to occur with high-level stimulation than low-level stimulation. However, the evidence for these outcomes is limited, and of moderate to low certainty. Further high-quality research is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS for drug-resistant focal seizures.

Connectomic profiling and Vagus nerve stimulation Outcomes Study (CONNECTiVOS): a prospective observational protocol to identify biomarkers of seizure response in children and youth

INTRODUCTION

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulation therapy that can reduce the seizure burden of children with medically intractable epilepsy. Despite the widespread use of VNS to treat epilepsy, there are currently no means to preoperatively identify patients who will benefit from treatment. The objective of the present study is to determine clinical and neural network-based correlates of treatment outcome to better identify candidates for VNS therapy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this multi-institutional North American study, children undergoing VNS and their caregivers will be prospectively recruited. All patients will have documentation of clinical history, physical and neurological examination and video electroencephalography as part of the standard clinical workup for VNS. Neuroimaging data including resting-state functional MRI, diffusion-tensor imaging and magnetoencephalography will be collected before surgery. MR-based measures will also be repeated 12 months after implantation. Outcomes of VNS, including seizure control and health-related quality of life of both patient and primary caregiver, will be prospectively measured up to 2 years postoperatively. All data will be collected electronically using Research Electronic Data Capture.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Hospital for Sick Children Research Ethics Board (REB number 1000061744). All participants, or substitute decision-makers, will provide informed consent prior to be enrolled in the study. Institutional Research Ethics Board approval will be obtained from each additional participating site prior to inclusion. This study is funded through a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant (PJT-159561) and an investigator-initiated funding grant from LivaNova USA (Houston, TX; FF01803B IIR).

Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation Promotes White Matter Repair and Improves Dysphagia Symptoms in Cerebral Ischemia Model Rats

Background

Clinical and animal studies have shown that transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (ta-VNS) exerts neuroprotection following cerebral ischemia. Studies have revealed that white matter damage after ischemia is related to swallowing defects, and the degree of white matter damage is related to the severity of dysphagia. However, the effect of ta-VNS on dysphagia symptoms and white matter damage in dysphagic animals after an ischemic stroke has not been investigated.

Methods

Middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) rats were randomly divided into the sham, control and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) group, which subsequently received ta-VNS for 3 weeks. The swallowing reflex was measured once weekly by electromyography (EMG). White matter remyelination, volume, angiogenesis and the inflammatory response in the white matter were assessed by electron microscopy, immunohistochemistry, stereology, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Western blotting.

Results

ta-VNS significantly increased the number of swallows within 20 s and reduced the onset latency to the first swallow. ta-VNS significantly improved remyelination but did not alleviate white matter shrinkage after MCAO. Stereology revealed that ta-VNS significantly increased the density of capillaries and increased vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and basic fibroblast growth factor (FGF2) expression in the white matter. ta-VNS significantly alleviated the increase inTLR4, MyD88, phosphorylated MAPK and NF-κB protein levels and suppressed the expression of the proinflammatory factors IL-1β and TNF-α.

Conclusion

These results indicated ta-VNS slightly improved dysphagia symptoms after ischemic stroke, possibly by increasing remyelination, inducing angiogenesis, and inhibiting the inflammatory response in the white matter of cerebral ischaemia model rats, implying that ta-VNS may be an effective therapeutic strategy for the treatment of dysphagia after ischemic stroke.

Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review last published in Issue 7, 2019; it includes two additional studies. Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one-third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs that has been developed to improve outcomes. In this review we summarised the current evidence regarding pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the following databases on 16 November 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 16 November 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of pregabalin and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add-on for people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Double-blind and single-blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT). We presented summary risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 randomised controlled trials (3949 participants). Nine trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.72, 9 trials, 2663 participants, low-certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose-response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.60; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.64; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared pregabalin to three active-control drugs: lamotrigine, levetiracetam and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12; 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to levetiracetam (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine for seizure freedom (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83). However, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add-on pregabalin compared to levetiracetam (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We detected no significant differences in treatment withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse effects, specifically, during either pooled analysis or subgroup analysis. Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, headache and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin than in active control. We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We assessed all the studies to be at a high risk of funding bias as they were all sponsored by Pfizer. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment was significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, although there were issues with tolerability at higher doses. However, the trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision-making. This review focused on the use of pregabalin in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of pregabalin when used as monotherapy.

Different Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation Parameters Modulate the Anti-Inflammatory Effects on Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Acute Inflammation in Mice

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is considered a potential method for anti-inflammation due to the involvement of the VN in the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway (CAP) formation of a connection between the central nervous system and peripheral immune cells that help relieve inflammation. However, whether a non-invasive transcutaneous auricular VNS (taVNS) modulates the inflammation levels via altering the parameter of taVNS is poorly understood. This study aimed to determine the differential inhibitory effects of taVNS on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced systemic inflammation using electrical stimulation parameters such as pulse frequency and time. The taVNS-promoted CAP activity significantly recovered LPS-induced tissue injuries (lung, spleen, and intestine) and decreased inflammatory cytokine levels and tissue-infiltrated immune cells. Interestingly, the anti-inflammatory capacity of taVNS with 15 Hz was much higher than that of taVNS with 25 Hz. When a cytokine array was used to investigate the changes of inflammation and immune response-related cytokines/chemokines expression in taVNS with 15 Hz or 25 Hz treatment in LPS-induced endotoxemia in mice, most of the expression of cytokines/chemokines associated with pro-inflammation was severely decreased in taVNS with 15 Hz compared to 25 Hz. This study demonstrated that the taVNS parameter could differentially modulate the inflammation levels of animals, suggesting the importance of taVNS parameter selection for use in feasible interventions for acute inflammation treatment.

Human organ donor-derived vagus nerve biopsies allow for well-preserved ultrastructure and high-resolution mapping of myelinated and unmyelinated fibers

The vagus nerve provides motor, sensory, and autonomic innervation of multiple organs, and electrical vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) provides an adjunctive treatment option for e.g. medication-refractory epilepsy and treatment-resistant depression. The mechanisms of action for VNS are not known, and high-resolution anatomical mapping of the human vagus nerve is needed to better understand its functional organization. Electron microscopy (EM) is required for the detection of both myelinated and unmyelinated axons, but access to well-preserved human vagus nerves for ultrastructural studies is sparse. Intact human vagus nerve samples were procured intra-operatively from deceased organ donors, and tissues were immediately immersion fixed and processed for EM. Ultrastructural studies of cervical and sub-diaphragmatic vagus nerve segments showed excellent preservation of the lamellated wall of myelin sheaths, and the axolemma of myelinated and unmyelinated fibers were intact. Microtubules, neurofilaments, and mitochondria were readily identified in the axoplasm, and the ultrastructural integrity of Schwann cell nuclei, Remak bundles, and basal lamina was also well preserved. Digital segmentation of myelinated and unmyelinated axons allowed for determination of fiber size and myelination. We propose a novel source of human vagus nerve tissues for detailed ultrastructural studies and mapping to support efforts to refine neuromodulation strategies, including VNS.

Sulthiame monotherapy for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2014. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition characterised by recurrent seizures. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Sulthiame (STM) is widely used as an antiepileptic drug in Europe and Israel. In this review, we have presented a summary of evidence for the use of STM as monotherapy in epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and side effect profile of STM as monotherapy when compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug for people with epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 13 April 2020: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 10 April 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of STM and researchers in the field to ask about ongoing and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled monotherapy trials of STM in people of any age with epilepsy of any aetiology.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: treatment withdrawal; seizure-free at six months; adverse effects; and quality of life scoring. We conducted the primary analyses by intention-to-treat where possible, and presented a narrative analysis of the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies involving a total of 355 participants: three studies (209 participants) with a diagnosis of benign epilepsy of childhood with centrotemporal spikes (BECTS), and one study (146 participants) with a diagnosis of generalised tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). STM was given as monotherapy compared with placebo and with levetiracetam in the BECTS studies, and compared with phenytoin in the GTCS study. An English translation of the full text of one of the BECTS studies could not be found, and analysis of this study was based solely on the English translation of the abstract. For the primary outcome, the total number of dropouts caused either by seizure recurrence or adverse reaction was significantly higher in the levetiracetam treatment arm compared to the STM treatment arm (RR 0.32, 95% Cl 0.10 to 1.03; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes for this comparison, results for seizure freedom were inconclusive (RR 1.12, 95% Cl 0.88 to 1.44; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Reporting of adverse effects was incomplete. Participants receiving STM were significantly less likely to develop gingival hyperplasia than participants receiving phenytoin in the GTCS study (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.58; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence). No further statistically significant adverse events were noted when STM was compared with phenytoin or placebo. The most common adverse events were related to behavioural disturbances when STM was compared with levetiracetam (RR 0.95, 95% Cl 0.59 to 1.55; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence), with the same incidence in both groups. No data were reported for quality of life. Overall, we assessed one study at high risk of bias and one study at unclear bias across the seven domains, mainly due to lack of information regarding study design. Only one trial reported effective methods for blinding. The risk of bias assessments for the other two studies ranged from low to high. We rated the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes as low using the GRADE approach.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides insufficient information to inform clinical practice. Small sample sizes, poor methodological quality, and lack of data on important outcome measures precluded any meaningful conclusions regarding the efficacy and tolerability of sulthiame as monotherapy in epilepsy. More trials, recruiting larger populations, over longer periods, are needed to determine whether sulthiame has a clinical use.

Implantable vagus nerve stimulator settings and short-term adverse effects in epileptic dogs

BACKGROUND

Implantable vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) devices can be used to treat epilepsy in dogs. Adverse effects and short-term complications associated with delivering suggested therapeutic electrical stimulation (>1.5 mA) are not well-described.

OBJECTIVES

To compare complications and adverse effects observed with standard and rapid protocols of current increase.

ANIMALS

Sixteen client-owned dogs with idiopathic epilepsy.

METHODS

Nonrandomized, nonblinded prospective cohort study. Surgical complications, stimulation-related adverse effects, modifications to stimulator settings, number of hospital visits, and time to reach 1.5 mA stimulation current without intolerable adverse effects were described in dogs receiving current increases every 1 to 3 weeks (slow ramping) and dogs receiving current increases every 8 to 12 hours (fast ramping).

RESULTS

Self-resolving surgery site seromas formed in 6 dogs. No other surgical complications were observed. Fourteen dogs reached 1.5 mA. Coughing (11/14 dogs; 5 slow, 6 fast ramping) was the most common adverse effect. Intolerable coughing that limited current increases despite changing other stimulus parameters occurred in 6/7 of the fast-ramping group and in none of the slow-ramping group. Median time to 1.5 mA was 72 days (range, 28-98) in the slow-ramping group and 77 days (range, 3-152) in the fast-ramping group. Median number of clinic visits was 6 for the slow-ramping group (range, 5-6) and 3 for the fast-ramping group (range, 1-7).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Coughing is a common adverse effect of VNS in dogs and generally is well tolerated, particularly if current is increased slowly and other stimulation parameters are adapted for effect.

Auricular Neuromodulation for Mass Vagus Nerve Stimulation: Insights From SOS COVID-19 a Multicentric, Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind French Pilot Study

Importance: An exacerbated inflammatory response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is believed to be one of the major causes of the morbidity and mortality of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Neuromodulation therapy, based on vagus nerve stimulation, was recently hypothesized to control both the SARS-CoV-2 replication and the ensuing inflammation likely through the inhibition of the nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells pathway and could improve the clinical outcomes as an adjunct treatment. We proposed to test it by the stimulation of the auricular branch of the vagus nerve, i.e., auricular neuromodulation (AN), a non-invasive procedure through the insertion of semipermanent needles on the ears.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of AN on the clinical outcomes in patients affected by COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial included 31 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 requiring hospitalization. Within 72 h after admission, patients received either AN (n = 14) or sham neuromodulation (SN, n = 15) in addition to the conventional treatments.

Main Outcome and Measures: The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of a clinical benefit conferred by AN at Day 14 (D14) as assessed by a 7-point Clinical Progression Scale. The secondary endpoint of the study was the impact of AN on the rate of transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and on the survival rate at D14.

Results: The AN procedure was well-tolerated without any reported side effects but with no significant improvement for the measures of both primary (p > 0.3) and secondary (p > 0.05) endpoints at the interim analysis. None of the AN-treated patients died but one in the SN group did (81 years). Two AN-treated patients (73 and 79 years, respectively) and one SN-treated patient (59 years) were transferred to ICU. Remarkably, AN-treated patients were older with more representation by males than in the SN arm (i.e., the median age of 75 vs. 65 years, 79% male vs. 47%).

Conclusion: The AN procedure, which was used within 72 h after the admission of patients with COVID-19, was safe and could be successfully implemented during the first two waves of COVID-19 in France. Nevertheless, AN did not significantly improve the outcome of the patients in our small preliminary study. It is pertinent to explore further to validate AN as the non-invasive mass vagal stimulation solution for the forthcoming pandemics.

Clinical Trial Registration: [https://clinicaltrials.gov/], identifier [NCT04341415].

Factors Affecting Vagus Nerve Stimulation Outcomes in Epilepsy

Epilepsy as a common neurological disease is mostly managed effectively with antiepileptic medications. One-third of patients do not respond to medical treatments requiring alternative therapies. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) has been used in the last decades for the treatment of medically resistant epilepsy. Despite the extensive use of VNS in these patients, factors associated with clinical outcomes of VNS remain to be elucidated. In this study, we evaluated factors affecting VNS outcomes in epileptic patients to have a better understanding of patients who are better candidates for VNS therapy. Several databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched through June 2020 for relevant articles. The following factors were assessed in this review: previous surgical history, age at implantation and gender, types of epilepsy, duration of epilepsy, age at epilepsy onset, frequency of attacks, antiepileptic drugs, VNS parameters, EEG findings, MRI findings, and biomarkers. Literature data show that nonresponder rates range between 25% and 65%. Given the complexity and diversity of factors associated with response to VNS, more clinical studies are needed to establish better paradigm for selection of patients for VNS therapy.

Cerebral Hemodynamic Correlates of Transcutaneous Auricular Vagal Nerve Stimulation in Consciousness Restoration: An Open-Label Pilot Study

This study aimed to preliminarily illustrate the cerebral hemodynamic correlates of transcutaneous auricular vagal nerve stimulation (taVNS) in consciousness restoration. Arterial spin labeling (ASL) was adopted with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure cerebral blood flow (CBF) changes before and after taVNS in 10 qualified patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC). Before taVNS, five patients responded to auditory stimuli (RtAS), and five did not respond to auditory stimuli (nRtAS). The RtAS DOC patients obtained favorable prognoses after the 4-week taVNS treatment, whereas the nRtAS ones did not. Simultaneously, taVNS increased CBF of multiple brain regions in the RtAS DOC patients, but hardly in the nRtAS ones. In conclusion, the preserved auditory function might be the prior key factor of the taVNS responders in DOC patients, and taVNS might alleviate RtAS DOC by activating the salience network, the limbic system, and the interoceptive system.

The Pharmacoresistant Epilepsy: An Overview on Existent and New Emerging Therapies

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological chronic disorders, with an estimated prevalence of 0. 5 - 1%. Currently, treatment options for epilepsy are predominantly based on the administration of symptomatic therapy. Most patients are able to achieve seizure freedom by the first two appropriate drug trials. Thus, patients who cannot reach a satisfactory response after that are defined as pharmacoresistant. However, despite the availability of more than 20 antiseizure medications (ASMs), about one-third of epilepsies remain drug-resistant. The heterogeneity of seizures and epilepsies, the coexistence of comorbidities, and the broad spectrum of efficacy, safety, and tolerability related to the ASMs, make the management of these patients actually challenging. In this review, we analyze the most relevant clinical and pathogenetic issues related to drug-resistant epilepsy, and then we discuss the current evidence about the use of available ASMs and the alternative non-pharmacological approaches.

Sharpened and Mechanically Durable Carbon Fiber Electrode Arrays for Neural Recording

Bioelectric medicine treatments target disorders of the nervous system unresponsive to pharmacological methods. While current stimulation paradigms effectively treat many disorders, the underlying mechanisms are relatively unknown, and current neuroscience recording electrodes are often limited in their specificity to gross averages across many neurons or axons. Here, we develop a novel, durable carbon fiber electrode array adaptable to many neural structures for precise neural recording. Carbon fibers ( [Formula: see text] diameter) were sharpened using a reproducible blowtorchmethod that uses the reflection of fibers against the surface of a water bath. The arrays were developed by partially embedding carbon fibers in medical-grade silicone to improve durability. We recorded acute spontaneous electrophysiology from the rat cervical vagus nerve (CVN), feline dorsal root ganglia (DRG), and rat brain. Blowtorching resulted in fibers of 72.3 ± 33.5-degree tip angle with [Formula: see text] exposed carbon. Observable neural clusters were recorded using sharpened carbon fiber electrodes fromrat CVN ( [Formula: see text]), feline DRG ( [Formula: see text]), and rat brain ( [Formula: see text]). Recordings from the feline DRG included physiologically relevant signals from increased bladder pressure and cutaneous brushing. These results suggest that this carbon fiber array is a uniquely durable and adaptable neural recordingdevice. In the future, this device may be useful as a bioelectric medicine tool for diagnosis and closed-loop neural control of therapeutic treatments and monitoring systems.

Potential surgical therapies for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

Drug-resistant focal epilepsy (DRFE), defined by failure of two antiepileptic drugs, affects 30% of epileptic patients. Epilepsy surgeries are alternative options for this population. Preoperative evaluation is critical to include potential candidates, and to choose the most appropriate procedure to maximize efficacy and simultaneously minimize side effects. Traditional procedures involve open skull surgeries and epileptic focus resection. Alternatively, neuromodulation surgeries use peripheral nerve or deep brain stimulation to reduce the activities of epileptogenic focus. With the advanced improvement of laser-induced thermal therapy (LITT) technique and its utilization in neurosurgery, magnetic resonance-guided LITT (MRgLITT) emerges as a minimal invasive approach for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. In the present review, we first introduce drug-resistant focal epilepsy and summarize the indications, pros and cons of traditional surgical procedures and neuromodulation procedures. And then, focusing on MRgLITT, we thoroughly discuss its history, its technical details, its safety issues, and current evidence on its clinical applications. A case report on MRgLITT is also included to illustrate the preoperational evaluation. We believe that MRgLITT is a promising approach in selected patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, although large prospective studies are required to evaluate its efficacy and side effects, as well as to implement a standardized protocol for its application.

Vagus Nerve Stimulation and Seizure Outcomes in Pediatric Refractory Epilepsy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We synthesized evidence for effectiveness of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) as adjuvant therapy in pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) by obtaining pooled estimates for seizure outcomes and analyzing their determinants.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2019 for original research on VNS in pediatric (≤18 years of age) epilepsy. The primary outcome was 50% responder rate (50% RR), the proportion of patients with ≥50% seizure reduction, at the last reported follow-up. Other outcomes included a 50% RR and proportion of seizure-free patients at additional reported time points. A random-effects meta-analysis with restricted maximum likelihood estimation was performed to obtain pooled effect estimates. Meta-regression using multiple linear models was performed to obtain determinants of seizure outcomes and sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 101 studies were included. The pooled prevalence estimates for a 50% RR and seizure freedom at last follow-up (mean 2.54 years) were 56.4% (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 52.4, 60.4) and 11.6% (95% CI 9.6, 13.9), respectively. Fewer antiseizure medications (ASMs) tried before VNS and later age at onset of seizures were associated with better seizure outcomes following VNS implantation. An effect of sex distribution of studies on long-term outcomes and a potential publication bias for short-term outcomes were also observed.

CONCLUSION

Pooled evidence supports possible effectiveness of VNS in pediatric DRE, although complete seizure freedom is less common. Early referral (fewer trials of ASMs) may be a modifiable factor for desirable seizure outcomes with VNS from a clinical perspective.

A Novel Statistical Model for Predicting the Efficacy of Vagal Nerve Stimulation in Patients With Epilepsy (Pre-X-Stim) Is Applicable to Different EEG Systems

Background: Identifying patients with intractable epilepsy who would benefit from therapeutic chronic vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) preoperatively remains a major clinical challenge. We have developed a statistical model for predicting VNS efficacy using only routine preimplantation electroencephalogram (EEG) recorded with the TruScan EEG device (Brazdil et al., 2019). It remains to be seen, however, if this model can be applied in different clinical settings.

Objective: To validate our model using EEG data acquired with a different recording system.

Methods: We identified a validation cohort of eight patients implanted with VNS, whose preimplantation EEG was recorded on the BrainScope device and who underwent the EEG recording according to the protocol. The classifier developed in our earlier work, named Pre-X-Stim, was then employed to classify these patients as predicted responders or non-responders based on the dynamics in EEG power spectra. Predicted and real-world outcomes were compared to establish the applicability of this classifier. In total, two validation experiments were performed using two different validation approaches (single classifier or classifier voting).

Results: The classifier achieved 75% accuracy, 67% sensitivity, and 100% specificity. Only two patients, both real-life responders, were classified incorrectly in both validation experiments.

Conclusion: We have validated the Pre-X-Stim model on EEGs from a different recording system, which indicates its application under different technical conditions. Our approach, based on preoperative EEG, is easily applied and financially undemanding and presents great potential for real-world clinical use.

Hydrogel-based electrodes for selective cervical vagus nerve stimulation

Objective.Electrical vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) has the potential to treat a wide variety of diseases by modulating afferent and efferent communication to the heart, lungs, esophagus, stomach, and intestines. Although distal vagal nerve branches, close to end organs, could provide a selective therapeutic approach, these locations are often surgically inaccessible. In contrast, the cervical vagus nerve has been targeted for decades using surgically implantable helix electrodes to treat epileptic seizures and depression; however, to date, clinical implementation of VNS has relied on an electrode with contacts that fully wrap around the nerve, producing non-selective activation of the entire nerve. Here we demonstrate selective cervical VNS using cuff electrodes with multiple contacts around the nerve circumference to target different functional pathways.Approach.These flexible probes were adjusted to the diameter of the nerve using an adhesive hydrogel wrap to create a robust electrode interface. Our approach was verified in a rat model by demonstrating that cervical VNS produces neural activity in the abdominal vagus nerve while limiting effects on the cardiovascular system (i.e. changes in heart rate or blood pressure).Main results.This study demonstrates the potential for selective cervical VNS as a therapeutic approach for modulating distal nerve branches while reducing off target effects.Significance.This methodology could potentially be refined to treat gastrointestinal, metabolic, inflammatory, cardiovascular, and respiratory diseases amenable to vagal neuromodulatory control.

Optical vagus nerve modulation of heart and respiration via heart-injected retrograde AAV

Vagus nerve stimulation has shown many benefits for disease therapies but current approaches involve imprecise electrical stimulation that gives rise to off-target effects, while the functionally relevant pathways remain poorly understood. One method to overcome these limitations is the use of optogenetic techniques, which facilitate targeted neural communication with light-sensitive actuators (opsins) and can be targeted to organs of interest based on the location of viral delivery. Here, we tested whether retrograde adeno-associated virus (rAAV2-retro) injected in the heart can be used to selectively express opsins in vagus nerve fibers controlling cardiac function. Furthermore, we investigated whether perturbations in cardiac function could be achieved with photostimulation at the cervical vagus nerve. Viral injection in the heart resulted in robust, primarily afferent, opsin reporter expression in the vagus nerve, nodose ganglion, and brainstem. Photostimulation using both one-photon stimulation and two-photon holography with a GRIN-lens incorporated nerve cuff, was tested on the pilot-cohort of injected mice. Changes in heart rate, surface electrocardiogram, and respiratory responses were observed in response to both one- and two-photon photostimulation. The results demonstrate feasibility of retrograde labeling for organ targeted optical neuromodulation.

Gabapentin add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially people with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 11 August 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no new studies for this update, therefore, the results and conclusions are unchanged. In the previous update of this review, we combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall risk ratio (RR) for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (95% CI 19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (95% CI 8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-certainty evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, the studies were at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide CIs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and seems to be fairly well-tolerated. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of gabapentin, and to compare gabapentin with other add-on drugs.

Saudi Arabian Consensus Statement on Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Refractory Epilepsy

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an approved adjunctive therapy for refractory epilepsy and used in patients who are not candidates for resective epilepsy surgery. In Saudi Arabia, VNS device implantation is being performed since 2008 by several comprehensive epilepsy programs, but with variable protocols. Therefore, to standardize the use of VNS, a task force was established to create a national consensus. This group consisted of epileptologists, epilepsy surgeons and a VNS nurse coordinator working in comprehensive epilepsy centers and dealing with refractory epilepsy cases. The group intensively reviewed the literature using Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, in addition to physician's manual. Evidence is reported as three stages: preimplantation and patient selection, a perioperative phase involving all stakeholders and post-operative care with specific programming pathways.

Effects of anterior thalamic nuclei stimulation on gene expression in a rat model of temporal lobe epilepsy

Deep brain stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT-DBS) has been shown to be effective and safe in the long-term treatment of refractory epilepsy. However, the mechanisms by which ANT-DBS controls epilepsy at the gene expression level (e.g., which regulatory mechanisms are altered) is not well understood. Nine rats were randomly assigned to the control group, the kainic acid (KA) group, and the DBS group. Temporal lobe epilepsy in rats was induced by a stereotaxic KA injection (KA group). The DBS group received the KA injection followed by treatment with ANT-DBS. Video-electroencephalogram (EEG) was used to monitor seizures. Total RNA samples were isolated from the hippocampus of three groups. Microarray was used to detect differentially regulated mRNAs. GO and pathway analysis were performed to analyze the functional categories and affected pathways. qPCR was used to prove the reliability of the microarray results. The differentially expressed genes the KA group and the DBS group, relative to the control group, were screened and a total of 2910 genes were identified. These genes were involved in functional categories such as ion channel activity (P = 5.01 × 10^-8), gated channel activity (P = 1.42 × 10^-7), lipid binding (P = 4.97 × 10^-5), and hydrolase activity (P = 5.02 × 10^-5) and pathways such as calcium signaling pathway (P = 2.09 × 10^-8), glutamatergic synapse (P = 4.09 × 10^-8) and NOD-like receptor signaling pathway (P = 2.70 × 10^-6). Differentially expressed mRNAs might play a role in the pathogenesis of temporal lobe epilepsy. Calcium signaling pathways, synaptic glutamate, and NOD-like receptor signaling pathway play a central role in normal-epilepsy-ANT-DBS treatment series. ANT-DBS achieves its antiepileptic effects by modulating target genes involved in a variety of functions and pathways.

The Effectiveness of Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Drug-Resistant Epilepsy Correlates with Vagus Nerve Stimulation-Induced Electroencephalography Desynchronization

Introduction: VNS is an adjunctive neuromodulation therapy for patients with drug-refractory epilepsy. The antiseizure effect of VNS is thought to be related to a diffuse modulation of functional connectivity but remains to be confirmed.

Aim: To investigate electroencephalographic (EEG) metrics of functional connectivity in patients with drug-refractory epilepsy treated by vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), between VNS-stimulated “ON” and nonstimulated “OFF” periods and between responder (R) and nonresponder (NR) patients.

Methods: Scalp-EEG was performed for 35 patients treated by VNS, using 21 channels and 2 additional electrodes on the neck to detect the VNS stimulation. Patients were defined as VNS responders if a reduction of seizure frequency of ∼50% was documented. We analyzed the synchronization in EEG time series during “ON” and “OFF” periods of stimulation, using average phase lag index (PLI) in signal space and phase-locking value (PLV) between 10 sources. Based on graph theory, we computed brain network models and analyzed minimum spanning tree (MST) for responder and nonresponder patients.

Results: Among 35 patients treated by VNS for a median time of 7 years (range 4 months to 22 years), 20 were R and 15 were NR. For responder patients, PLI during ON periods was significantly lower than that during OFF periods in delta (p = 0.009), theta (p = 0.02), and beta (p = 0.04) frequency bands. For nonresponder patients, there were no significant differences between ON and OFF periods. Moreover, variations of seizure frequency with VNS correlated with the PLI OFF/ON ratio in delta (p = 0.02), theta (p = 0.04), and beta (p = 0.03) frequency bands. Our results were confirmed using PLV in theta band (p < 0.05). No significant differences in MST were observed between R and NR patients.

Conclusion: The correlation between VNS-induced interictal EEG time-series desynchronization and decrease in seizure frequency suggested that VNS therapeutic impact might be related to changes in interictal functional connectivity.

Rufinamide add-on therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a central nervous system disorder (neurological disorder). Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical nerve cell electrical activity in the brain. Despite the development of more than 10 new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) since the early 2000s, approximately a third of people with epilepsy remain resistant to pharmacotherapy, often requiring treatment with a combination of AEDs. In this review, we summarised the current evidence regarding rufinamide, a novel anticonvulsant medication, which, as a triazole derivative, is structurally unrelated to any other currently used anticonvulsant medication when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy. In January 2009, rufinamide was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of children four years of age and older with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. It is also approved as an add-on treatment for adults and adolescents with focal seizures. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of rufinamide and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on trials of rufinamide, recruiting people (of any age or gender) with drug-resistant epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome); seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; and adverse effects (secondary outcomes). Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT) and we presented summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included six trials, representing 1759 participants. Four trials (1563 participants) included people with uncontrolled focal seizures. Two trials (196 participants) included individuals with established Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Overall, the age of adults ranged from 18 to 80 years and the age of children ranged from 4 to 16 years. Baseline phases ranged from 28 to 56 days and double-blind phases from 84 to 96 days. Five of the six included trials described adequate methods of concealment of randomisation, and only three described adequate blinding. All analyses were by ITT. Overall, five studies were at low risk of bias and one had unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturer of rufinamide and therefore were at high risk of funding bias. The overall RR for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.79 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.22; 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), indicating that rufinamide (plus conventional AED) was significantly more effective than placebo (plus conventional AED) in reducing seizure frequency by at least 50% when added to conventionally used AEDs in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Data from only one study (73 participants) reported seizure freedom: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.36 to 4.86; 1 RCT, 73 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The overall RR for treatment withdrawal (for any reason and due to AED) was 1.83 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.31; 6 RCTs, 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that rufinamide was significantly more likely to be withdrawn than placebo. Most adverse effects were significantly more likely to occur in the rufinamide-treated group. Adverse events significantly associated with rufinamide were headache, dizziness, somnolence, vomiting, nausea, fatigue, and diplopia. The RRs for these adverse effects were as follows: headache 1.36 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.69; 3 RCTs, 1228 participants; high-certainty evidence); dizziness 2.52 (95% Cl 1.90 to 3.34; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); somnolence 1.94 (95% Cl 1.44 to 2.61; 6 RCTs, 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); vomiting 2.95 (95% Cl 1.80 to 4.82; 4 RCTs, 777 participants; low-certainty evidence); nausea 1.87 (95% Cl 1.33 to 2.64; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); fatigue 1.46 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.97; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and diplopia 4.60 (95% Cl 2.53 to 8.38; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no important heterogeneity between studies for any outcomes. Overall, we assessed the evidence as moderate to low certainty due to wide CIs and potential risk of bias from some studies contributing to the analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment was effective in reducing seizure frequency. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for long-term use of rufinamide. In the short term, rufinamide as an add-on was associated with several adverse events. This review focused on the use of rufinamide in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of rufinamide when used as monotherapy.

Learnings from 30 years of reported efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for epilepsy treatment: A critical review

Three decades after its introduction as an adjuvant therapeutic option in the management of selective drug-resistant epilepsy cases (DRE), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) retains growing interest. An implantable device was first approved for epilepsy in Europe in 1994 and in the United States (US) in 1997. Subsequent modifications improved the safety and the efficacy of the system. The most recent application of vagal neurostimulation is represented by transcutaneous devices that are claimed to have strong therapeutic potential. In this review, we sought to analyze the most meaningful available data describing the indications, safety and efficacy of the different approaches of VNS in clinical practice. Therefore, we identified studies reporting VNS efficacy and/or safety in epilepsy and its comorbidities from January 1990 to February 2020 from various databases including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, US government databases and VNS manufacturer published resources. In general, VNS efficacy becomes optimal around the sixth month of treatment and a 50-100 % seizure frequency reduction is achieved in approximately 45-65 % of the patients. However, some clinically relevant differences have been reported with specific factors such as epilepsy etiology or type, patient age as well as the delay of VNS therapy onset. VNS efficacy on seizure frequency has been demonstrated in both children and adults, in lesional and non-lesional cases, in focal and generalized epilepsies, on both seizures and epilepsy comorbidities. Regarding the latter, VNS can lead to an improvement of about 25-35 % in depression scores, 35 % in anxiety scores and 25 % in mood assessment scores. If non-invasive devices are undeniably safer, their efficacy is limited due to the scarcity of large cohort studies and the disparity of methodological approaches (study design and stimulation parameters). Overall, we believe that there is a progress margin for improving the safety of implantable devices and, above all, the effectiveness of the various VNS approaches.

Vagus nerve stimulation: a pre-hospital case report

Introduction:

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an adjunct therapy to anti-epileptics in patients where combination drug therapy alone has failed. The VNS device resembles an implantable defibrillator, and can be found underneath the clavicle on either side of the chest. By using a strong ring magnet, the device can be manipulated to seize function or operate on higher intensities, depending on how it is applied. The use of vagal stimulation is increasingly common and VNS is being explored for a range of other medical complaints.

Case:

This case study discusses the encounter between a paramedic and a woman presenting with a choking sensation, isolated uvular deviation and stable cardiorespiratory functions. Following a short period of observation without adverse events, she was discharged on scene and advised to see her specialist epilepsy nurse.

Conclusion:

Side effects of VNS increase with intensity of stimulation and can manifest throughout any branch of the vagus nerve. Its therapeutic mechanism of action is yet to be fully understood. The symptoms of over-stimulation are often frightening but benign, and although life-threatening events are rare, they require rapid recognition and immediate intervention.

Health Technology Assessment Report on Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

Background: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a palliative treatment for medical intractable epileptic syndromes not eligible for resective surgery. Health technology assessment (HTA) represents a modern approach to the analysis of technologies used for healthcare. The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical, organizational, financial, and economic impact of VNS therapy in drug-resistant epilepsies and to establish the congruity between costs incurred and health service reimbursement. Methods: The present study used an HTA approach. It is based on an extensive detailed bibliographic search on databases (Medline, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane, sites of scientific societies and institutional sites). The HTA study includes the following issues: (a) social impact and costs of the disease; (b) VNS eligibility and clinical results; (c) quality of life (QoL) after VNS therapy; (d) economic impact and productivity regained after VNS; and (e) costs of VNS. Results: Literature data indicate VNS as an effective treatment with a potential positive impact on social aspects and on quality of life. The diagnosis-related group (DRG) financing, both on national and regional levels, does not cover the cost of the medical device. There was an evident insufficient coverage of the DRG compared to the full cost of implanting the device. Conclusions: VNS is a palliative treatment for reducing seizure frequency and intensity. Despite its economic cost, VNS should improve patients' quality of life and reduce care needs.

Lamotrigine add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2016. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder, affecting 0.5% to 1% of the population. For nearly 30% of these people, their epilepsy is resistant to currently available drugs. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Lamotrigine is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs. Lamotrigine, in combination with other antiepileptic drugs (add-on), can reduce seizures, but with some adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of lamotrigine on (1) seizures, (2) adverse-effect profile, and (3) cognition and quality of life, compared to placebo, when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update of the review, we searched the following databases on 9 March 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to March 06, 2020). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials from PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. No language restrictions were imposed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised placebo-controlled trials of people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy of any age, in which an adequate method of concealment of randomisation was used. The studies were double-, single- or unblinded, placebo-controlled. For cross-over studies, the first treatment period was treated as a parallel trial. Eligible participants were adults or children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion, and extracted data. Outcomes included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal (any reason), adverse effects, effects on cognition and quality of life. Primary analyses were by intention-to-treat. Sensitivity best- and worse-case analyses were undertaken to account for missing outcome data. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cls) were estimated for the primary outcomes of seizure frequency and treatment withdrawal. For adverse effects, we calculated pooled RRs and 99% Cls.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the results and conclusions are unchanged. In previous updates of this review, the authors found five parallel add-on studies, eight cross-over studies in adults or children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and one parallel add-on study with a responder-enriched design in infants. In total, these 14 studies included 1806 eligible participants (38 infants, 199 children, 1569 adults). Baseline phases ranged from four to 12 weeks; treatment phases from eight to 36 weeks. Overall, 11 studies (1243 participants) were rated as having low risk of bias, and three (697 participants) had unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. Effective blinding of studies was reported in four studies (563 participants). The overall risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.80 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.23; 12 trials, 1322 participants (adults and children); moderate-certainty evidence) indicating that lamotrigine was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing seizure frequency. The overall RR for treatment withdrawal (for any reason) was 1.11 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 14 trials; 1806 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The adverse events significantly associated with lamotrigine were: ataxia, dizziness, diplopia (double vision), and nausea. The RR of these adverse effects were as follows: ataxia 3.34 (99% Cl 2.01 to 5.55; 12 trials; 1525 participants; high-certainty evidence); dizziness 2.00 (99% Cl 1.52 to 2.64;13 trials; 1768 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); diplopia 3.79 (99% Cl 2.15 to 6.68; 3 trials, 944 participants; high-certainty evidence); nausea 1.81 (99% Cl 1.22 to 2.68; 12 studies,1486 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The limited data available precluded any conclusions about effects on cognition and quality of life. No important heterogeneity between studies was found for any of the outcomes. Overall, we assessed the evidence as high to moderate certainty, due to incomplete data for some outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lamotrigine as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal seizures appears to be effective in reducing seizure frequency, and seems to be fairly well-tolerated. However, the trials were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for the long term. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of lamotrigine, and to compare lamotrigine with other add-on drugs.

Oxcarbazepine add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder. In approximately 30% of epilepsy cases, seizures are uncontrolled by one antiepileptic drug (AED). These people require treatment with a combination of multiple AEDs and are described as having drug-resistant epilepsy. Oxcarbazepine is a keto-analogue of carbamazepine, an established AED, and can be used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of oxcarbazepine as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

The following databases were searched on 24 September 2018: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Medline (Ovid) 1946 to 21 September 2018; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Originally, we also searched SCOPUS as a substitute for Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in Embase are now included in CENTRAL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials with parallel-group or cross-over design, recruiting people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We accepted any level of blinding and trials could be placebo- or active-controlled.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In accordance with the methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration, two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility before extracting data and assessing risk of bias. We assessed the primary outcomes: median percentage seizure reduction per 28 days; 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; and adverse effects including ataxia, hyponatraemia, and somnolence. We assessed the secondary outcomes: seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; cognitive effects; and quality of life. We used an intention-to-treat population for all primary analyses. We present results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), with the exception of adverse effects which we present with 99% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible studies, involving 1593 participants. We judged that three studies were at unclear risk of bias and three were at high risk of bias. Bias mainly arose from lack of methodological details and from high attrition rates. Participants were aged 1 month to 65 years, with a diagnosis of drug-resistant focal epilepsy. All studies were either placebo- or alternative-dose-controlled with parallel-group design. The treatment period varied from 9 days to 26 weeks. The median percentage seizure reduction per 28 days (3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) ranged from 26% to 83.3% for participants randomised to experimental oxcarbazepine compared to 7.6% to 28.7% for participants randomised to control treatment. Oxcarbazepine may increase the responder rate for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to control treatment (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.56; random-effects model; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). For seizure freedom, the RR was 2.86 (95% CI 1.19 to 6.87; random-effects model; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), suggesting an advantageous effectiveness of oxcarbazepine over control treatment. Treatment with oxcarbazepine was associated with an increased treatment withdrawal rate compared to control (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; fixed-effect model; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). The largest oxcarbazepine dose used, 2400 mg/d, was associated with a higher treatment withdrawal rate (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.92 to 2.94; fixed-effect model; 2 studies) compared to control, than 1200 mg/d (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.95; fixed-effect model; 3 studies) or 600 mg/d oxcarbazepine (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; fixed-effect model; 1 study). Treatment with oxcarbazepine was associated with an increased incidence of multiple adverse effects including: ataxia (RR 2.54, 99% CI 0.86 to 7.54; random-effects model; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); and somnolence (RR 2.03, 99% CI 1.17 to 3.54; random-effects model; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). Hyponatraemia occurred more frequently with oxcarbazepine treatment but not significantly so (RR 2.53, 99% CI 0.27 to 23.85; fixed-effect model; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oxcarbazepine might be effective at reducing seizure frequency when used as an add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The efficacy outcomes - 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom - were derived from low-certainty evidence. We are, therefore, uncertain whether the estimated effect size is representative of the true effect. In contrast, the evidence for median percentage seizure reduction and treatment withdrawal were of moderate certainty: thus, we are fairly certain of the effect estimates' reliability. Overall, we are unsure of the true efficacy of oxcarbazepine, but have concerns about its tolerability.

Analysis of pharmacotherapy regimen and costs in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy following vagus nerve stimulation therapy: a single-center study (Poland)

Approximately 30-40% of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) who underwent vagus nerve stimulator (VNS) implantation achieve above 50% reduction in seizure frequency. VNS proves effective in reducing frequency of seizures in DRE patients, when combined with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). This raises a question whether improvement of clinical parameters is achieved with VNS only or relies on combined therapy with AEDs. The aim of the study was the analysis of impact of VNS on clinical recovery of patients with DRE and the analysis of pharmacotherapy costs and drug regimen following VNS implantation in DRE patients. The study included all the patients who had VNS implanted at our department in the years 2014-2018. The patients would be followed up for 2 years after the VNS implantation date. The most commonly used drugs included levetiracetam, lacosamide, valproate, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate. Average cost of AEDs in year 1 following VNS implantation was between EUR 15.53 (CLB) and EUR 545.52 (TGB) and in year 2 between EUR 13.51 (NTZ) and EUR 779.44 (LAC). The greatest number of seizures affected the group of patients treated with three drugs. A statistically significant improvement in seizure frequency was observed in the group of patients treated with two and three drugs. With the rising costs of healthcare, the importance of economic efficiency is becoming increasingly relevant. VNS is a reasonable option for saving money in the healthcare system while ensuring measurable clinical and therapeutic outcomes over the long term.

Efficacy of the Whole-Body Cryotherapy as Add-on Therapy to Pharmacological Treatment of Depression-A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Accumulating evidence indicates the effectiveness of cryogenic temperature interventions in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, and chronic low back pain. The application of whole-body cryotherapy (WBC) in psychiatric aspects of medicine was also noted. Nevertheless, the exact mechanisms explaining the beneficial effect of WBC on mood disorders remain unclear. The study aimed to assess the efficacy of repetitive short exposure to extremely low temperatures (WBC) on mood, quality of life as well as on biochemical measures among people diagnosed with depressive episode undergoing pharmacological treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective randomized, double-blind sham-controlled protocol was used. The study enrolled 92 medically stable adults (aged 20-73 years) with a diagnosis of a depressive episode. The participants were randomly allocated and exposed to 10 whole-body cryotherapy (WBC) sessions (-110°C till -160°C [the experimental group (EG)] or to low, but not cryogenic temperatures -50°C [the control group (CG)]. Thirty participants in the EG and 26 in CG completed the whole study. The primary outcome measures were depressive symptoms evaluated with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) as well as the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D 17). The quality of life, quality of sexual life, acceptance of the disease and self-reported mood, vitality, and sleep quality were assessed as secondary outcome measures. The study was registered at Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619001600134).

RESULTS

The results show evidence for a statistically significant difference in the clinical assessment of depressive symptoms according to HAM-D 17 scale (T4 by group interaction p=0.02), BDI-II (T2 time by group interaction p=0.01), cognitive-affective BDI dimension (T4 by group interaction p=0.00), and somatic BDI dimension (T4 by group interaction p=0.028). Significant improvement was also noticed in life quality (p < 0.05), self-assessed mood (p=0.035), and disease acceptance (p=0.007). There were no statistically significant changes related to sexual satisfaction, self-assessed vitality, and sleep (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Whole-body cryotherapy is a useful method to improve standard pharmacological treatment. The WBC intervention reduces mental health deterioration, especially in mood disorders, such as depression, and can be beneficial for well-being and quality of life.

The Long and Winding Road of Vagus Nerve Stimulation: Challenges in Developing an Intervention for Difficult-to-Treat Mood Disorders

PURPOSE

The Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) Therapy System has been studied for more than 20 years in patients with severe, treatment-resistant, chronic mood disorder, i.e., difficult-to-treat depression (DTD). This review distills some of the implications of this research for future therapeutic trials in this population.

METHODS

A narrative review is provided on VNS in DTD. Protocols for a new, large, sham-controlled trial and a global, longitudinal observational study are described.

RESULTS

Following encouraging results in open studies, a randomized, masked, sham-controlled trial of VNS for DTD failed to demonstrate an effect on the primary outcome. The negative results may have been partly due to inadequate treatment duration (10 weeks). In long-term observational studies, adjunctive VNS, combined with treatment-as-usual (VNS+TAU), was administered to more than 1100 DTD patients and compared with TAU alone in more than 400 patients. VNS+TAU had superior antidepressant effects, but maximal symptom reduction was often observed after 12 months or longer of stimulation. VNS+TAU had also marked superiority in durability of benefit. Sustained levels of symptom reduction below the traditional cutoff for response (i.e. < 50%) were associated with improved quality of life.

LIMITATIONS

Most comparisons of VNS+TAU and TAU were derived from observational, open label studies.

CONCLUSION

The history of VNS in DTD has implications for interventional studies in this population, and perhaps other chronic medical disorders. The slow onset of benefit with VNS necessitates considerably longer controlled observation periods to establish efficacy. Durability of benefit should be routinely incorporated in efficacy assessment. New outcome metrics are needed to both categorically identify clinically meaningful benefit and to integrate information on symptom burden over time.

Vagus nerve stimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory therapeutic option for drug-resistant epilepsy. In randomised controlled trials, VNS implantation has resulted in over 50% reduction in seizure frequency in 26%-40% of patients within 1 year. Long-term uncontrolled studies suggest better responses to VNS over time; however, the assessment of other potential predictive factors has led to contradictory results. Although initially designed for managing focal seizures, its use has been extended to other forms of drug-resistant epilepsy. In this review, we discuss the evidence supporting the use of VNS, its impact on seizure frequency and quality of life, and common adverse effects of this therapy. We also include practical guidance for the approach to and the management of patients with VNS in situ.

Neurostimulation in the treatment of refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening condition with a mortality of up to 60% in the advanced and comatose forms of SE. In one out of five adults, first and second line fails to control epileptic activity, leading to refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and in around 3% to super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE), where SE continues despite anesthetic treatment for 24 h or more. In this rare but devastating condition, innovative and safe treatments are needed. In a recent review on the use of vagal nerve stimulation in RSE and SRSE, a 74% response rate for abrogation of SE was reported. Here, we review the currently available evidence supporting the use of neurostimulation, including vagal nerve stimulation, direct cortical stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, electroconvulsive therapy, and deep brain stimulation in RSE and SRSE. This article is part of the Special Issue "Proceedings of the 7th London-Innsbruck Colloquium on Status Epilepticus and Acute Seizures".

A Review of Neurostimulation for Epilepsy in Pediatrics

Neurostimulation for epilepsy refers to the application of electricity to affect the central nervous system, with the goal of reducing seizure frequency and severity. We review the available evidence for the use of neurostimulation to treat pediatric epilepsy, including vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), chronic subthreshold cortical stimulation (CSCS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). We consider possible mechanisms of action and safety concerns, and we propose a methodology for selecting between available options. In general, we find neurostimulation is safe and effective, although any high quality evidence applying neurostimulation to pediatrics is lacking. Further research is needed to understand neuromodulatory systems, and to identify biomarkers of response in order to establish optimal stimulation paradigms.

Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one-third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs which have been developed to improve outcomes.This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2014, and includes three new studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), on 5 July 2018, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 5 July 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (5 July 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 5 July 2018), and contacted Pfizer Ltd, manufacturer of pregabalin, to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add-on for people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Double-blind and single-blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected and assessed trials for eligibility and extracted data. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Two review authors assessed the included studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine industry-sponsored randomised controlled trials (3327 participants) in the review. Seven trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.42, 7 trials, 2193 participants, low-certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose-response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.65, 7 trials, 2193 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.88 to 3.74, 7 trials, 2193 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).Three trials compared pregabalin to three active-control drugs: lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12, 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to levetiracetam (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11, 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12, 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) for seizure freedom, however, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add-on pregabalin compared to levetiracetam (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52), levetiracetam (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49), or gabapentin (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.07) for treatment withdrawal due to any reason or due to adverse effects (pregabalin versus lamotrigine: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.48; versus levetiracetam: RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.54; versus gabapentin: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.11). Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin.We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin, when used as an add-on drug for treatment-resistant focal epilepsy, is significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, however issues with tolerability were noted at higher doses. The trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision making.

Fifteen-minute consultation: When medicines don't work-the child with poorly controlled seizures

Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) occurs in 20%-30% of children with epilepsy with significant impact on their quality of life. Management of this group of children has greatly improved in the recent years with streamlining of epilepsy surgery services and associated quaternary multimodal evaluation. This article provides a review of DRE in children and management based on recent evidence and published opinion. We have also presented an algorithmic approach to the child with possible DRE.

Electroceutical Targeting of the Autonomic Nervous System

Autonomic nerves are attractive targets for medical therapies using electroceutical devices because of the potential for selective control and few side effects. These devices use novel materials, electrode configurations, stimulation patterns, and closed-loop control to treat heart failure, hypertension, gastrointestinal and bladder diseases, obesity/diabetes, and inflammatory disorders. Critical to progress is a mechanistic understanding of multi-level controls of target organs, disease adaptation, and impact of neuromodulation to restore organ function.