Vigabatrin for refractory partial epilepsy

Vigabatrin add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2008 and updated in 2013. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition which affects up to 1% of the population. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy do not respond to treatment with currently available drugs. The majority of these people have focal epilepsy. Vigabatrin is an antiepileptic drug licensed for use in drug-resistant epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update of this review, we searched the following databases on 1 November 2018: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 31 October 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) are both included in the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web). We checked reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies and contacted Hoechst Marion Roussel (manufacturers of vigabatrin) in 2000.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully published trials of vigabatrin in people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat (ITT). We evaluated: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, dose-response analysis, cognitive outcomes and quality of life. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% or 99% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 trials that included 756 participants (age range: 10 to 64 years). The trials tested vigabatrin doses between 1 g/day and 6 g/day. All 11 trials displayed a risk of bias across at least three risk of bias domains. Predominantly, the risk of bias was associated with: allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Participants treated with vigabatrin may be two to three times more likely to obtain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared with those treated with placebo (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.63; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Those treated with vigabatrin may also be three times more likely to have treatment withdrawn although we are uncertain (RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.25 to 6.55; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, participants given vigabatrin were more likely to experience adverse effects: dizziness/light-headedness (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.87; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence), fatigue (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.51; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence), drowsiness (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.44; 8 studies) and depression (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.30 to 8.27; 6 studies). Although the incidence rates were higher among participants receiving vigabatrin compared to those receiving placebo, the effect was not significant for the following adverse effects: ataxia (RR 2.76, 95% CI 0.96 to 7.94; 7 studies; very low-certainty evidence), nausea (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.63 to 20.30; 4 studies), abnormal vision (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.02; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence), headache (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.92; 9 studies), diplopia (RR 1.76, 99% CI 0.94 to 3.30) and nystagmus (RR 1.53, 99% CI 0.62 to 3.76; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Vigabatrin had little to no effect on cognitive outcomes or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Vigabatrin may significantly reduce seizure frequency in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The results largely apply to adults and should not be extrapolated to children under 10 years old. Short-term follow-up of participants showed that some adverse effects were associated with its use. Analysis of longer-term observational studies elsewhere, however, has demonstrated that vigabatrin use can lead to the development of visual field defects.

Pharmacotherapy for Focal Seizures in Children and Adolescents

Focal-onset seizures are among the most common forms of seizures in children and adolescents and can be caused by a wide diversity of acquired or genetic etiologies. Despite the increasing array of antiseizure drugs available, treatment of focal-onset seizures in this population remains problematic, with as many as one-third of children having seizures refractory to medications. This review discusses contemporary concepts in focal seizure classification and pathophysiology and describes the antiseizure medications most commonly chosen for this age group. As antiseizure drug efficacy is comparable in children and adults, here we focus on pharmacokinetic aspects, drug-drug interactions, and side effect profiles. Finally, we provide some suggestions for choosing the optimal medication for the appropriate patient.

Efficacy and safety of antiepileptic drugs for refractory partial-onset epilepsy: a network meta-analysis

The optimal combination of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for the treatment of refractory partial-onset epilepsy is a perpetual point of debate. While several network meta-analyses (NMAs) have been published, conclusions remain controversial, especially since newer AEDs have been introduced. In our review, we included the newer AEDs to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of AEDs for the treatment of refractory partial-onset epilepsy. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 1) from their inception to February 18, 2017. The risk of bias in the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was evaluated according to the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. An NMA was performed with a Bayesian random-effects model, and we used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to detect the optimal AEDs. Seventy-six RCTs with 17 AEDs and 20,711 patients were included in the NMAs, which showed that Brivaracetam (BRV), Levetiracetam (LEV), Oxcarbazepine (OXC), Topiramate, Vigabatrin (VGB), and Valproate (VPA) had a greater likelihood of allowing patients to achieve seizure freedom. We also found that LEV was associated with a lower withdrawal rate due to adverse effects than Lacosamide, Eslicarbazepine acetate, OXC, Pregabalin, and Retigabine. LEV, VGB, VPA, and BRV emerged as the agents with the best combination of properties when considering the efficacy and safety outcomes based on the full double-blind treatment period. However, it is critical to perform RCTs and to obtain prospective data from representative cohort studies.

The Pharmacology and Toxicology of Third-Generation Anticonvulsant Drugs

Epilepsy is a neurologic disorder affecting approximately 50 million people worldwide, or about 0.7% of the population [1]. Thus, the use of anticonvulsant drugs in the treatment of epilepsy is common and widespread. There are three generations of anticonvulsant drugs, categorized by the year in which they were developed and released. The aim of this review is to discuss the pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions, and adverse events of the third generation of anticonvulsant drugs. Where available, overdose data will be included. The pharmacokinetic properties of third-generation anticonvulsant drugs include relatively fewer drug-drug interactions, as well as several unique and life-threatening adverse events. Overdose data are limited, so thorough review of adverse events and knowledge of drug mechanism will guide expectant management of future overdose cases. Reporting of these cases as they occur will be necessary to further clarify toxicity of these drugs.

Epilepsy, Antiepileptic Drugs, and Aggression: An Evidence-Based Review

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have many benefits but also many side effects, including aggression, agitation, and irritability, in some patients with epilepsy. This article offers a comprehensive summary of current understanding of aggressive behaviors in patients with epilepsy, including an evidence-based review of aggression during AED treatment. Aggression is seen in a minority of people with epilepsy. It is rarely seizure related but is interictal, sometimes occurring as part of complex psychiatric and behavioral comorbidities, and it is sometimes associated with AED treatment. We review the common neurotransmitter systems and brain regions implicated in both epilepsy and aggression, including the GABA, glutamate, serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline systems and the hippocampus, amygdala, prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and temporal lobes. Few controlled clinical studies have used behavioral measures to specifically examine aggression with AEDs, and most evidence comes from adverse event reporting from clinical and observational studies. A systematic approach was used to identify relevant publications, and we present a comprehensive, evidence-based summary of available data surrounding aggression-related behaviors with each of the currently available AEDs in both adults and in children/adolescents with epilepsy. A psychiatric history and history of a propensity toward aggression/anger should routinely be sought from patients, family members, and carers; its presence does not preclude the use of any specific AEDs, but those most likely to be implicated in these behaviors should be used with caution in such cases.

Immediate antiepileptic drug treatment, versus placebo, deferred, or no treatment for first unprovoked seizure

BACKGROUND

There is considerable disagreement about the risk of recurrence following a first unprovoked epileptic seizure. A decision about whether to start antiepileptic drug treatment following a first seizure should be informed by information on the size of any reduction in risk of future seizures, the impact on long-term seizure remission, and the risk of adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To review the probability of seizure recurrence, seizure remission, mortality, and adverse effects of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment given immediately after the first seizure compared to controls, in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (accessed 13 October 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library September 2015, issue 9, accessed 13 October 2015), PUBMED (accessed 22 April 2015), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 13 October 2015), EMBASE (accessed 22 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (accessed 15 October 2015), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, accessed 13 October 2015). There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that could be blinded or unblinded. People of any age with a first unprovoked seizure of any type. Included studies compared participants receiving immediate antiepileptic treatment versus those receiving deferred treatment, those assigned to placebo, and those untreated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion in the review and extracted data. The quality of the evidence was classified in four categories according to the GRADE approach. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Time-to-event outcomes were expressed as Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% CI. Only one trial used a double-blind design, and the two largest studies were unblinded. Most of the recurrences were generalized tonic-clonic seizures, a major type of seizures that is easily recognised, which should reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias.

MAIN RESULTS

After exclusion of uninformative papers, only six studies (nine reports) were selected for inclusion. For the two largest studies data were available for individual participant meta-analysis. Compared to controls, participants randomised to immediate treatment had a lower probability of relapse at one year (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.58, high quality evidence), at five years (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89; high quality evidence) and a higher probability of an immediate five-year remission (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.54, high quality evidence). However there was no difference between immediate treatment and control in terms of five year remission at any time (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.21, high quality evidence). Antiepileptic drugs did not affect overall mortality after a first seizure (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.95, high quality evidence). Compared to deferred treatment (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.79, moderate quality evidence), treatment of the first seizure was associated with a significantly higher risk of adverse events. Moderate to low quality imprecise evidence was available for the association of treatment of the first seizure compared to no treatment or placebo (RR 14.50, 95% CI 1.93 to 108.76) and(RR 4.91, 95% CI 1.10 to 21.93) respectively)

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of the first unprovoked seizure reduces the risk of a subsequent seizure but does not affect the proportion of patients in remission in the long-term. Antiepileptic drugs are associated with adverse events, and there is no evidence that they reduce mortality. In light of this review, the decision to start antiepileptic drug treatment following a first unprovoked seizure should be individualized and based on patient preference, clinical, legal, and socio-cultural factors.

Vigabatrin versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2012 (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 1).The efficacy and safety of vigabatrin (VGB) as an add-on therapy for refractory epilepsy have been well established. However, this information needs to be weighed against the risk of development of visual field defects. Whether VGB monotherapy is an effective and safe treatment compared with the standard antiepileptic drug carbamazepine (CBZ) as monotherapy for epilepsy has not been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of VGB versus CBZ monotherapy for epilepsy in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3 of 4), MEDLINE (1948 to July 2015), EMBASE (1974 to July 2015) and the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (1979 to July 2015). We searched trial registers and contacted the manufacturer of VGB and authors of included studies for additional information. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VGB versus CBZ monotherapy for epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was time to treatment withdrawal. Secondary outcomes were time to achieve six-month and 12-month remission after randomisation, time to first seizure after randomisation and adverse events. We presented results as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (time to event data) or as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs (adverse events).

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies involving a total of 734 participants were eligible for inclusion. We assessed only one study as good quality and the other four as poor quality. However, it was difficult to perform a meta-analysis by extracting aggregate data to synthesise the results as originally planned, mainly because not all studies reported the same outcomes as those chosen for this review. No significant differences favoured VGB or CBZ in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and time to achieve six-month remission after dose stabilisation from randomisation, but results did show a disadvantage for VGB on time to first seizure after randomisation. Compared with CBZ, VGB was associated with more occurrences of weight gain and fewer occurrences of skin rash and drowsiness. No differences in visual field defects and visual disturbances were noted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data are currently insufficient to address the risk-benefit balance of VGB versus CBZ monotherapy for epilepsy. Given the high prevalence of visual field defects reported in an existing systematic review of observational studies (Maguire 2010), VGB monotherapy should be prescribed with caution for epilepsy and should not be considered a first-line choice. If necessary, the visual field should be frequently assessed. Future research should focus on investigating the reasons for visual field defects and exploring potential prevention strategies. Moreover, future monotherapy studies of epilepsy should report results according to the recommendations of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Commission, and methodological quality should be improved.

A neuron-glia interaction involving GABA transaminase contributes to sleep loss in sleepless mutants

Sleep is an essential process and yet mechanisms underlying it are not well understood. Loss of the Drosophila quiver/sleepless (qvr/sss) gene increases neuronal excitability and diminishes daily sleep, providing an excellent model for exploring the underpinnings of sleep regulation. Here, we used a proteomic approach to identify proteins altered in sss brains. We report that loss of sleepless post-transcriptionally elevates the CG7433 protein, a mitochondrial γ-aminobutyric acid transaminase (GABAT), and reduces GABA in fly brains. Loss of GABAT increases daily sleep and improves sleep consolidation, indicating that GABAT promotes wakefulness. Importantly, disruption of the GABAT gene completely suppresses the sleep phenotype of sss mutants, demonstrating that GABAT is required for loss of sleep in sss mutants. While SSS acts in distinct populations of neurons, GABAT acts in glia to reduce sleep in sss flies. Our results identify a novel mechanism of interaction between neurons and glia that is important for the regulation of sleep.

Antiepileptic Drug Treatment in Children with Epilepsy

Most children with new-onset epilepsy achieve seizure freedom with appropriate antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). However, nearly 20 % will continue to have seizures despite AEDs, as either monotherapy or in combination. Despite the growing market of new molecules over the last 20 years, the proportion of drug-resistant epilepsies has not changed. In this review, we report the evidence of efficacy and safety based on phase III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of AEDs currently used in the paediatric population. We conducted a literature search using the PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also analysed the RCTs of newer AEDs whose efficacy in adolescents and adults might suggest possible use in children. Most of the phase III trials on AEDs in children have major methodological limitations that considerably limit meaningful conclusions about comparative efficacy between old and new molecules. Since the efficacy of new drugs has only been reported versus placebo, the commonly held opinion that new and newer AEDs have a better safety profile than old ones does not appear to be supported by evidence. Despite limited solid evidence, pharmacological management has improved over the years as a consequence of increased awareness of some degree of specificity of treatment in relation to different epilepsy syndromes and attention to adverse events. Future research should be directed taking these factors, as well as the diversity of epilepsy, into consideration.

Network meta-analyses of antiepileptic drug efficacy and tolerability in drug-resistant focal epilepsies: a clinical perspective

PURPOSE

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a new technique that allows multiple treatment comparisons and provides estimates of effect sizes for all possible pair-wise comparisons. Several NMAs of antiepileptic drug (AED) efficacy and tolerability in individuals with refractory focal epilepsy, however, came to non-specific and, in some cases, divergent conclusions. We review some clinical factors that may be responsible for these inconsistent findings.

RESULTS

A major issue is the small number of individuals included in the meta-analyses with consequent wide confidence intervals and lack of ability to achieve significant results. Further issues are lack of robustness of the measured efficacy outcome-the responder ratio (the percentage of individuals with a >50 % improvement in seizure frequency); the selection of randomized studies (RCTs) included, i.e., the inclusion of studies with heterogeneous populations (children and adults); and inclusion of people treated with different doses of the experimental drug. Some methods of analysing data from RCTs, such as the last observation carried forward (LOCF) analysis, the choice of different phases of the study to compare to baseline, and the year in which the trial was conducted, selectively affect measurement of efficacy outcomes. Titration speed and other methodological aspects selectively affect tolerability.

CONCLUSION

Several factors restrict the analysis of clinically useful estimates of the comparative efficacy of AEDs, while analysis of tolerability may be easier to accomplish.

Complex network analysis of CA3 transcriptome reveals pathogenic and compensatory pathways in refractory temporal lobe epilepsy

We previously described - studying transcriptional signatures of hippocampal CA3 explants - that febrile (FS) and afebrile (NFS) forms of refractory mesial temporal lobe epilepsy constitute two distinct genomic phenotypes. That network analysis was based on a limited number (hundreds) of differentially expressed genes (DE networks) among a large set of valid transcripts (close to two tens of thousands). Here we developed a methodology for complex network visualization (3D) and analysis that allows the categorization of network nodes according to distinct hierarchical levels of gene-gene connections (node degree) and of interconnection between node neighbors (concentric node degree). Hubs are highly connected nodes, VIPs have low node degree but connect only with hubs, and high-hubs have VIP status and high overall number of connections. Studying the whole set of CA3 valid transcripts we: i) obtained complete transcriptional networks (CO) for FS and NFS phenotypic groups; ii) examined how CO and DE networks are related; iii) characterized genomic and molecular mechanisms underlying FS and NFS phenotypes, identifying potential novel targets for therapeutic interventions. We found that: i) DE hubs and VIPs are evenly distributed inside the CO networks; ii) most DE hubs and VIPs are related to synaptic transmission and neuronal excitability whereas most CO hubs, VIPs and high hubs are related to neuronal differentiation, homeostasis and neuroprotection, indicating compensatory mechanisms. Complex network visualization and analysis is a useful tool for systems biology approaches to multifactorial diseases. Network centrality observed for hubs, VIPs and high hubs of CO networks, is consistent with the network disease model, where a group of nodes whose perturbation leads to a disease phenotype occupies a central position in the network. Conceivably, the chance for exerting therapeutic effects through the modulation of particular genes will be higher if these genes are highly interconnected in transcriptional networks.

Perampanel: What is its Place in the Management of Partial Onset Epilepsy?

Introduction

Current pathways for treatment of partial onset epilepsy are diverse and include 14 new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) licensed for use as either monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. However, the impact of these new AEDs on the treatment of partial epilepsy has so far been disappointing and there persists a need for additional drugs. Recently, perampanel, a first-in-class AED was licensed as an adjunct for the management of refractory partial onset seizures with or without secondary generalization in patients 12 years and older. This review highlights the current management of partial epilepsy and analyses the published clinical and preclinical data of perampanel to consider its potential role in the treatment of partial epilepsy.

Methods

A literature review of Embase, Medline and PubMed was conducted in April 2013 using the search terms ‘perampanel’ and ‘AMPA receptor antagonist/blocker’. Publications were included if they discussed perampanel in the context of preclinical or clinical epilepsy.

Results

Perampanel acts on the glutamate pathway. It is a novel highly selective non-competitive alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist. This is a previously untargeted post-synaptic glutamate receptor. It is responsible for mediating rapid trans-synaptic signal transduction and hence believed to play a major role in seizure propagation. The three pivotal placebo-controlled trials of adjunctive perampanel demonstrated that the effective dosing range is 4–12 mg/day. The drug can be prescribed once daily, and its adverse effect profile is minimal with dizziness, fatigue, headache, and somnolence being the most commonly reported.

Conclusions

Perampanel is a welcome addition as it represents an alternative approach in the management of epilepsy with potential to have a significant impact on the prognosis of intractable epilepsy. However, it has only recently been licensed for clinical use in Europe, the USA, and Canada, and there are no data directly comparing it with other AEDs; hence, it remains far too early to ascertain its place in the treatment of patients with partial epilepsy.