Vagus nerve stimulation: effectiveness and tolerability in patients with epileptic encephalopathies

Vagus nerve stimulation for the therapy of Dravet syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Dravet syndrome (DS) is a refractory developmental and epileptic encephalopathy characterized by seizures, developmental delay and cognitive impairment with a variety of comorbidities, including autism-like behavior, speech dysfunction, and ataxia. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is one of the common therapies for DS. Here, we aim to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review of the efficacy of VNS in DS patients.

Methods

We systematically searched four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and CNKI) to identify potentially eligible studies from their inception to January 2024. These studies provided the effective rate of VNS in treating patients with DS. The proportions of DS patients achieving ≥50% reduction of seizure frequency were extracted from these studies. Meta-analyses were performed to respectively evaluate the efficacy of VNS for DS after 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months.

Results

Sixteen trials with a total of 173 patients were included. Meta-analyses showed that the pooled efficiency was 0.54 (95% CI 0.43-0.65) in the DS patients treated with VNS (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the pooled efficiency respectively was 0.42 (95% CI 0.25-0.61), 0.54 (95% CI 0.39-0.69), 0.51 (95% CI 0.39-0.66), and 0.49 (95% CI 0.36-0.63) in the DS patients treated with VNS after 3, 6, 12 and 24 months (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

This study suggests that VNS is effective in the treatment of DS. However, few studies have focused on VNS for DS, and there is a lack of high-quality evidence. Thus, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of VNS in DS.

Vagus Nerve Stimulation Therapy for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy in Children-A Literature Review

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a palliative treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) that has been in use for over two decades. VNS suppresses epileptic seizures, prevents emotional disorders, and improves cognitive function and sleep quality, a parallel effect associated with the control of epileptic seizures. The seizure suppression rate with VNS increases monthly to annually, and the incidence of side effects reduces over time. This method is effective in treating DRE in children as well as adults, such as epilepsy associated with tuberous sclerosis, Dravet syndrome, and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. In children, it has been reported that seizures decreased by >70% approximately 8 years after initiating VNS, and the 50% responder rate was reported to be approximately 70%. VNS regulates stimulation and has multiple useful systems, including self-seizure suppression using magnets, additional stimulation using an automatic seizure detection system, different stimulation settings for day and night, and an automatic stimulation adjustment system that reduces hospital visits. VNS suppresses seizures and has beneficial behavioral effects in children with DRE. This review describes the VNS system, the mechanism of the therapeutic effect, the specific stimulation adjustment method, antiepileptic effects, and other clinical effects in patients with childhood DRE.

Callosotomy vs Vagus Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a severe drug-resistant epileptic syndrome. Palliative treatments such as corpus callosotomy (CC) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) have emerged as treatments to reduce the number of seizures in patients. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of CC and VNS in patients with LGS studied in the last 30 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and collected papers from PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovidsp, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library data bases. The articles analyzed were published between January 1990 and December 2020. Keywords were chosen based on internal and external validation in the PubMed data base (the analysis is available in the Supplementary Data Supplementary Appendix). Prospective or retrospective case reports (n ≥ 2), case series, cohort studies, or case-control studies involving patients with LGS were included in the analysis. We selected studies that had no age or sex restriction and that provided data on seizures before and after treatments. Studies not written in English, published without peer review, or not indexed in the data bases were excluded. Other exclusion criteria were the absence of seizure data and the impossibility of extracting this information from the studies. To analyze the results, we used the random-effects model based on the assessment of heterogeneity (I² statistics) in two scenarios. In scenario 1, we assessed the incidence of patients with a seizure reduction ≥ 50%; in scenario 2, we assessed the incidence of patients with a seizure reduction > 0%.

RESULTS

Of the 7418 articles found using the keywords, 32 were considered eligible. Of these, 18 articles were on VNS (175 patients) and 14 on CC (107 patients). For scenario 1 (seizure reduction ≥ 50%), CC had an incidence of 65% (95% CI, 37%-94%), with an I² value of 82.7%; VNS had an incidence of 34% (95% CI, 11%-57%), with an I² value of 80.7%. For scenario 2 (seizure reduction > 0%), CC had an incidence of 80% (95% CI, 58%-100%), with an I² value of 84.7%; VNS had an incidence of 64% (95% CI, 38%-89%), with an I² value of 90.8%. There was an overlap of confidence intervals, with no statistical difference between the treatments in both scenarios.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis of LGS showed that the CC and VNS treatments are significantly beneficial to reducing seizures, without superiority between them.

Up to What Extent Does Dravet Syndrome Benefit From Neurostimulation Techniques?

Background

Dravet syndrome (DS) is a refractory developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (EE) with a variety of comorbidities, including cognitive impairment, autism-like behavior, speech dysfunction, and ataxia, which can seriously affect the quality of life of patients and impose a great burden on society and their families. Currently, the pharmacological therapy is patient dependent and may work or not. Neuromodulation techniques, including vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and chronic subthreshold cortical stimulation (CSCS), have become common adjuvant therapies for neurological diseases, but their efficacy in the treatment of DS is unknown.

Methods

We searched Web of Science, PubMed, and SpringerLink for all published cases related to the neuromodulation techniques of DS until January 15, 2022. The systematic review was supplemented with relevant articles from the references. The results reported by each study were summarized narratively.

Results

The Web of science, PubMed and SpringerLink search yielded 258 items. A total of 16 studies published between 2016 and 2021 met the final inclusion criteria. Overall, 16 articles (109 cases) were included in this study, among which fifteen (107 patients) were involved VNS, and one (2 patients) was involved DBS. After VNS implantation, seizures were reduced to ≥50% in 60 cases (56%), seizure free were found in 8 cases (7.5%). Only two DS patients received DBS treatment, and the initial outcomes of DBS implantation were unsatisfactory. The seizures significantly improved over time for both DBS patients after the addition of antiepileptic drugs.

Conclusion

More than half of the DS patients benefited from VNS, and VNS may be effective in the treatment of DS. However, it is important to note that VNS does not guarantee improvement of seizures, and there is a risk of infection and subsequent device failure. Although DBS is a safe and effective strategy for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, the role of DBS in DS needs further study, as the sample size was small. Thus far, there is no strong evidence for the role of DBS in DS.

Vagus nerve stimulation in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome: A meta-analysis

Objectives

Lennox‐Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is among the most severe epileptic and developmental encephalopathies. A meta‐analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of adjunctive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS Therapy) in patients with LGS.

Materials & Methods

PubMed database was queried (January 1997 to September 2018) to identify publications reporting on the efficacy of VNS Therapy in patients with LGS, with or without safety findings. Primary endpoint of the meta‐analysis was the proportion of responders (≥50% reduction in seizure frequency). Random‐effects analysis was used to calculate weighted mean estimates and confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was evaluated by statistical tests including I².

Results

Of 2752 citations reviewed, 17 articles (480 patients) were eligible including 10 retrospective studies and seven prospective studies. A random‐effects model produced a pooled proportion of 54% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 45%, 64%) of patients with LGS who responded to adjunctive VNS Therapy (p for heterogeneity <0.001, I²=72.9%). Per an exploratory analysis, the calculated incidence of serious adverse events associated with VNS Therapy was 9% (95% CI: 5%, 14%); the rate was higher than in long‐term efficacy studies of heterogeneous cohorts with drug‐resistant epilepsy and likely attributed to variable definitions of serious adverse events across studies.

Conclusions

The meta‐analysis of 480 patients with LGS suggests that 54% of patients responded to adjunctive VNS Therapy and that the treatment option was safe and well‐tolerated. The response in patients with LGS was comparable to heterogeneous drug‐resistant epilepsy populations. A clinical and surgical overview has been included to facilitate the use of VNS in LGS.

Impact of Cardiac-Based Vagus Nerve Stimulation Closed-Loop Stimulation on the Seizure Outcome of Patients With Generalized Epilepsy: A Prospective, Individual-Control Study

OBJECTIVES

We designed a prospective, individual-controlled study to evaluate the effect of cardiac-based VNS (cbVNS) in a cohort of patients with generalized epilepsy (GE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients were included. They were followed up for six months under regular VNS (rVNS) and subsequently for six months during cbVNS. Stimulation parameters were 500 μsec, 30 Hz, and up to 2.5 mA. Seizure frequency was documented after two, four, and six months during the rVNS and cbVNS phases. Patients with at least 50% seizure frequency reduction were considered responders. The total and relative amount of stimulation cycles generated by both rVNS and cbVNS activation were documented. Findings during rVNS were compared to baseline and cbVNS data were compared to those during rVNS.

RESULTS

There was a significant decrease in mean seizure frequency (61% [95% CI, 48-74]; p < 0.001) during the rVNS phase compared to baseline. There was no additional significant (16% [95% CI, 4-35]; p = 0.097) mean seizure frequency reduction during cbVNS compared to the rVNS phase. Fifteen patients (75%) were considered responders after rVNS. Four patients (20%) were considered responders after six months of cbVNS. During the cbVNS phase, the mean total number of cycles/day was 346, 354, and 333 for months two, four, and six, respectively; the cycles generated by rVNS were 142, 138, and 146 for months two, four, and six, respectively; and cycles generated by cbVNS were 204, 215, and 186 for months two, four, and six, respectively. There was no relationship between the mean total number of cycles (-6[95% CI, -85 to 72]; p = 0.431), the mean number of auto-stimulation cycles (27[95% CI,-112 to 166]; p = 0.139), the mean number of regular cycles (-33[95% CI,-123 to 57]; p = 0.122), or the mean percentage of auto-stimulation cycles (13[95% CI,19- 45]; p = 0.109) and outcome during the cbVNS phase. Eight patients showed some decrease in seizure frequency during cbVNS.

CONCLUSIONS

rVNS was effective in reducing seizure frequency in patients with generalized epilepsy, but activation of the cbVNS feature did not add significantly to rVNS efficacy. On the other hand, although not statistically significant, 40% of the patients showed some reduction in seizure frequency, which might prove useful at an individual level.

Vagus Nerve Stimulation in children: A focus on intellectual disability

INTRODUCTION

Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) can be an efficacious add-on treatment in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, who are not eligible for surgery. Evidence of VNS efficacy in children with intellectual disability (ID) is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to review all available VNS data in the pediatric population (≤18 years old) and focus on the subpopulation with ID since appropriate treatment of these children is often challenging and complex.

METHODS

Cochrane, EMBASE, PubMed and MEDLINE were used to collect all research associated to VNS and ID (or synonyms) leading to a total of 37 studies. Seven studies showed the results of patients with ID and those without separately; thereby only these studies were included in the VNS meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis showed that VNS was less effective in pediatric epilepsy patients with ID compared to those without ID (Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis; p = 0.028, OR 0.18 (CI 95% 0.039-0.84)). However, there were no prospective controlled studies. Numerous studies reported quality of life (QoL) improvements in this subpopulation. The most common adverse events were transient and well tolerated. Side effects on cognition and behavior were not reported.

DISCUSSION

These results might be a reason to consider VNS early on in the treatment of this subgroup. The significantly greater amount of retrospective studies, differences in follow-up (FU), lack of control data, heterogeneous series and limited number of patients could have biased the outcome measurements. Hence, current data do not exclude VNS for children with drug-resistant epilepsy and ID but should be interpreted with caution.

Summary of recommendations for the management of infantile seizures: Task Force Report for the ILAE Commission of Pediatrics

Evidence-based guidelines, or recommendations, for the management of infants with seizures are lacking. A Task Force of the Commission of Pediatrics developed a consensus document addressing diagnostic markers, management interventions, and outcome measures for infants with seizures. Levels of evidence to support recommendations and statements were assessed using the American Academy of Neurology Guidelines and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The report contains recommendations for different levels of care, noting which would be regarded as standard care, compared to optimal care, or "state of the art" interventions. The incidence of epilepsy in the infantile period is the highest of all age groups (strong evidence), with epileptic spasms the largest single subgroup and, in the first 2 years of life, febrile seizures are the most commonly occurring seizures. Acute intervention at the time of a febrile seizure does not alter the risk for subsequent epilepsy (class 1 evidence). The use of antipyretic agents does not alter the recurrence rate (class 1 evidence), and there is no evidence to support initiation of regular antiepileptic drugs for simple febrile seizures (class 1 evidence). Infants with abnormal movements whose routine electroencephalography (EEG) study is not diagnostic, would benefit from video-EEG analysis, or home video to capture events (expert opinion, level U recommendation). Neuroimaging is recommended at all levels of care for infants presenting with epilepsy, with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) recommended as the standard investigation at tertiary level (level A recommendation). Genetic screening should not be undertaken at primary or secondary level care (expert opinion). Standard care should permit genetic counseling by trained personal at all levels of care (expert opinion). Genetic evaluation for Dravet syndrome, and other infantile-onset epileptic encephalopathies, should be available in tertiary care (weak evidence, level C recommendation). Patients should be referred from primary or secondary to tertiary level care after failure of one antiepileptic drug (standard care) and optimal care equates to referral of all infants after presentation with a seizure (expert opinion, level U evidence). Infants with recurrent seizures warrant urgent assessment for initiation of antiepileptic drugs (expert opinion, level U recommendation). Infantile encephalopathies should have rapid introduction and increment of antiepileptic drug dosage (expert opinion, level U recommendation). There is no high level evidence to support any particular current agents for use in infants with seizures. For focal seizures, levetiracetam is effective (strong evidence); for generalized seizures, weak evidence supports levetiracetam, valproate, lamotrigine, topiramate, and clobazam; for Dravet syndrome, strong evidence supports that stiripentol is effective (in combination with valproate and clobazam), whereas weak evidence supports that topiramate, zonisamide, valproate, bromide, and the ketogenic diet are possibly effective; and for Ohtahara syndrome, there is weak evidence that most antiepileptic drugs are poorly effective. For epileptic spasms, clinical suspicion remains central to the diagnosis and is supported by EEG, which ideally is prolonged (level C recommendation). Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) is preferred for short-term control of epileptic spasms (level B recommendation), oral steroids are probably effective in short-term control of spasms (level C recommendation), and a shorter interval from the onset of spasms to treatment initiation may improve long-term neurodevelopmental outcome (level C recommendation). The ketogenic diet is the treatment of choice for epilepsy related to glucose transporter 1 deficiency syndrome and pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency (expert opinion, level U recommendation). The identification of patients as potential candidates for epilepsy surgery should be part of standard practice at primary and secondary level care. Tertiary care facilities with experience in epilepsy surgery should undertake the screening for epilepsy surgical candidates (level U recommendation). There is insufficient evidence to conclude if there is benefit from vagus nerve stimulation (level U recommendation). The key recommendations are summarized into an executive summary. The full report is available as Supporting Information. This report provides a comprehensive foundation of an approach to infants with seizures, while identifying where there are inadequate data to support recommended practice, and where further data collection is needed to address these deficits.

Drug-resistant epilepsy: definition and treatment alternatives

INTRODUCTION

Drug-resistant epilepsy affects 25% of all epileptic patients, and quality of life decreases in these patients due to their seizures. Early detection is crucial in order to establish potential treatment alternatives and determine if the patient is a surgical candidate.

DEVELOPMENT

PubMed search for articles, recommendations published by major medical societies, and clinical practice guidelines for drug-resistant epilepsy and its medical and surgical treatment options. Evidence and recommendations are classified according to the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2001) and the European Federation of Neurological Societies (2004) for therapeutic actions.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying patients with drug-resistant epilepsy is important for optimising drug therapy. Experts recommend rational polytherapy with antiepileptic drugs to find more effective combinations with fewer adverse effects. When adequate seizure control is not achieved, a presurgical evaluation in an epilepsy referral centre is recommended. These evaluations explore how to resect the epileptogenic zone without causing functional deficits in cases in which this is feasible. If resective surgery is not achievable, palliative surgery or neurostimulation systems (including vagus nerve, trigeminal nerve, or deep brain stimulation) may be an option. Other treatment alternatives such as ketogenic diet may also be considered in selected patients.

The long-term effect of vagus nerve stimulation on quality of life in patients with pharmacoresistant focal epilepsy: the PuLsE (Open Prospective Randomized Long-term Effectiveness) trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) as adjunct to best medical practice (VNS + BMP) is superior to BMP alone in improving long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

PuLsE (Open Prospective Randomized Long-term Effectiveness) was a prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, and long-term effectiveness study (conducted at 28 sites in Europe and Canada). Adults with pharmacoresistant focal seizures (n = 112) received VNS + BMP or BMP (1:1 ratio). Medications and VNS parameters could be adjusted as clinically indicated for optimal seizure control while minimizing adverse effects. Primary endpoint was mean change from baseline HRQoL (using Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-89 total score; QOLIE-89). Secondary endpoints included changes in seizure frequency, responder rate (≥50% decrease in seizure frequency), Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D), Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory-Epilepsy scale (NDDI-E), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I), Adverse Event Profile (AEP), and antiepileptic drug (AED) load. The study was prematurely terminated due to recruitment difficulties prior to completing the planned enrollment of n = 362. Results for n = 96 who had baseline and at least one follow-up QOLIE-89 assessment (from months 3-12) were included in this analysis. Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance was performed on change from baseline for the primary and secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Significant between-group differences in favor of VNS + BMP were observed regarding improvement in HRQoL, seizure frequency, and CGI-I score (respective p-values < 0.05, 0.03, and 0.01). More patients in the VNS + BMP group (43%) reported adverse events (AEs) versus BMP group (21%) (p = 0.01), a difference reflecting primarily mostly transient AEs related to VNS implantation or stimulation. No significant difference between treatment groups was observed for changes in CES-D, NDDI-E, AEP, and AED load.

SIGNIFICANCE

VNS therapy as a treatment adjunct to BMP in patients with pharmacoresistant focal seizures was associated with a significant improvement in HRQoL compared with BMP alone. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here.

Evidence-based guideline update: vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy: report of the guideline development subcommittee of the american academy of neurology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence since the 1999 assessment regarding efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for epilepsy, currently approved as adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in patients >12 years.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature and identified relevant published studies. We classified these studies according to the American Academy of Neurology evidence-based methodology.

RESULTS

VNS is associated with a >50% seizure reduction in 55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50%-59%) of 470 children with partial or generalized epilepsy (13 Class III studies). VNS is associated with a >50% seizure reduction in 55% (95% CI 46%-64%) of 113 patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) (4 Class III studies). VNS is associated with an increase in ≥50% seizure frequency reduction rates of ~7% from 1 to 5 years postim-plantation (2 Class III studies). VNS is associated with a significant improvement in standard mood scales in 31 adults with epilepsy (2 Class III studies). Infection risk at the VNS implantation site in children is increased relative to that in adults (odds ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.0-11.2). VNS is possibly effective for seizures (both partial and generalized) in children, for LGS-associated seizures, and for mood problems in adults with epilepsy. VNS may have improved efficacy over time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

VNS may be considered for seizures in children, for LGS-associated seizures, and for improving mood in adults with epilepsy (Level C). VNS may be considered to have improved efficacy over time (Level C). Children should be carefully monitored for site infection after VNS implantation. Neurology® 2013;81:1-7.

Evidence-based guideline update: vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy: report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence since the 1999 assessment regarding efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for epilepsy, currently approved as adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in patients >12 years.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature and identified relevant published studies. We classified these studies according to the American Academy of Neurology evidence-based methodology.

RESULTS

VNS is associated with a >50% seizure reduction in 55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50%-59%) of 470 children with partial or generalized epilepsy (13 Class III studies). VNS is associated with a >50% seizure reduction in 55% (95% CI 46%-64%) of 113 patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) (4 Class III studies). VNS is associated with an increase in ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction rates of ≈ 7% from 1 to 5 years postimplantation (2 Class III studies). VNS is associated with a significant improvement in standard mood scales in 31 adults with epilepsy (2 Class III studies). Infection risk at the VNS implantation site in children is increased relative to that in adults (odds ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.0-11.2). VNS is possibly effective for seizures (both partial and generalized) in children, for LGS-associated seizures, and for mood problems in adults with epilepsy. VNS may have improved efficacy over time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

VNS may be considered for seizures in children, for LGS-associated seizures, and for improving mood in adults with epilepsy (Level C). VNS may be considered to have improved efficacy over time (Level C). Children should be carefully monitored for site infection after VNS implantation.

Behavioural and cognitive effects during vagus nerve stimulation in children with intractable epilepsy - a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In addition to effects on seizure frequency in intractable epilepsy, multiple studies report benefits of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) on behavioural outcomes and quality of life. The present study aims to investigate the effects of VNS on cognition, mood in general, depression, epilepsy-related restrictions and psychosocial adjustment in children with intractable epilepsy, as well as the relation between these effects and seizure reduction.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded, add-on study in 41 children (age 4-18) with medically refractory epilepsy. We performed cognitive and behavioural testing at baseline (12 weeks), at the end of the blinded phase (20 weeks) in children receiving either high-output or low-output (active control) stimulation, and at the end of the open label phase (19 weeks) with all children receiving high-output stimulation. Seizure frequency was recorded using seizure diaries.

RESULTS

VNS did not have a negative effect on cognition nor on psychosocial adjustment. At the end of the follow-up phase we noted an improvement of mood in general and the depression subscale for the entire group, unrelated to a reduction of seizure frequency. At the end of the blinded phase a ≥50% reduction of seizure frequency occurred in 16% of the high-stimulation group and 21% of the low-stimulation group. At the end of the open-label follow-up phase, 26% of the children experienced a seizure frequency reduction of 50% or more (responders).

CONCLUSIONS

VNS has additional beneficial effects in children with intractable epilepsy. As opposed to anti-epileptic drugs, there are no negative effects on cognition. Moreover, we observed an improvement of mood in general and depressed feelings in particular, irrespective of a reduction in seizure frequency. These beneficial effects should be taken into account when deciding whether to initiate or continue VNS treatment in these children.

Vagus nerve stimulation vs. corpus callosotomy in the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is an epileptogenic disorder that arises in childhood and is typically characterized by multiple seizure types, slow spike-and-wave complexes on EEG and cognitive impairment. If medical treatment fails, patients can proceed to one of two palliative surgeries, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) or corpus callosotomy (CC). Their relative seizure control rates in LGS have not been well studied. The purpose of this paper is to compare seizure reduction rates between VNS and CC in LGS using meta-analyses of published data.

METHODS

A systematic search of Pubmed, Ovidsp, and Cochrane was performed to find articles that met the following criteria: (1) prospective or retrospective study, (2) at least one patient diagnosed with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, and (3) well-defined measure of seizure frequency reduction. Seizure reduction rates were divided into seizure subtypes, as well as total seizures, and categorized as 100%, >75%, and >50%. Patient groups were compared using chi-square tests for categorical variables and t-test for continuous measures. Pooled proportions with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of seizure outcomes were estimated for total seizures and seizure subtypes using random effects methods.

RESULTS

17 VNS and 9 CC studies met the criteria for inclusion. CC had a significantly better outcome than VNS for >50% atonic seizure reduction (80.0% [67.0-90.0%] vs. 54.1% [32.1-75.4%], p<0.05) and for >75% atonic seizure reduction (70.0% [48.05-87.0%] vs. 26.3% [5.8-54.7%], p<0.05). All other seizure types, as well as total number of seizures, showed no statistically significant difference between VNS and CC.

CONCLUSIONS

CC may be more beneficial for LGS patients whose predominant disabling seizure type is atonic. For all other seizure types, VNS offers comparable rates to CC.

Long-term results of vagal nerve stimulation for adults with medication-resistant epilepsy who have been on unchanged antiepileptic medication

PURPOSE

Several studies suggest that vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) is an effective treatment for medication-resistant epileptic patients, although patients' medication was usually modified during the assessment period. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the long-term effects of VNS, at 18 months of follow-up, on epileptic patients who have been on unchanged antiepileptic medication.

METHODS

Forty-three patients underwent a complete epilepsy preoperative evaluation protocol, and were selected for VNS implantation. After surgery, patients were evaluated on a monthly basis, increasing stimulation 0.25mA at each visit, up to 2.5mA. Medication was unchanged for at least 18 months since the stimulation was started. The outcome was analysed in relation to patients' clinical features, stimulation parameters, epilepsy type, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results, and history of prior brain surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 43 operated patients, 63% had a similar or greater than 50% reduction in their seizure frequency. Differences in the responder rate according to stimulation intensity, age at onset of epilepsy, duration of epilepsy before surgery, previous epilepsy surgery and seizure type, did not reach statistical significance. Most side effects were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

62.8% of our series of 43 medication-resistant epileptic patients experienced a significant long-term seizure reduction after VNS, even in a situation of on unchanged medical therapy. Patient characteristics predictive of VNS responsiveness remain subject to investigation. Controlled studies with larger sample sizes, on VNS for patients with medication-resistant epilepsy on unchanged medication, are necessary to confirm VNS efficacy for drug-resistant epilepsy, and to identify predictive factors.

Efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation for epilepsy by patient age, epilepsy duration, and seizure type

Medically refractory epilepsy is a morbid condition, and many patients are poor candidates for surgical resection because of multifocal seizure origin or eloquence near epileptic foci. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) was approved in 1997 by the US Food and Drug Administration as an adjunctive treatment of intractable epilepsy for individuals aged 12 years and more with partial epilepsy. Controversy persists regarding the efficacy of VNS for epilepsy and about which patient populations respond best to therapy. In this article, the authors retrospectively studied a patient outcome registry and report the largest, to their knowledge, analysis of VNS outcomes in epilepsy.

Vagus nerve stimulation for epilepsy: a meta-analysis of efficacy and predictors of response

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) was approved by the US FDA in 1997 as an adjunctive treatment for medically refractory epilepsy. It is considered for use in patients who are poor candidates for resection or those in whom resection has failed. However, disagreement regarding the utility of VNS in epilepsy continues because of the variability in benefit reported across clinical studies. Moreover, although VNS was approved only for adults and adolescents with partial epilepsy, its efficacy in children and in patients with generalized epilepsy remains unclear. The authors performed the first meta-analysis of VNS efficacy in epilepsy, identifying 74 clinical studies with 3321 patients suffering from intractable epilepsy. These studies included 3 blinded, randomized controlled trials (Class I evidence); 2 nonblinded, randomized controlled trials (Class II evidence); 10 prospective studies (Class III evidence); and numerous retrospective studies. After VNS, seizure frequency was reduced by an average of 45%, with a 36% reduction in seizures at 3-12 months after surgery and a 51% reduction after > 1 year of therapy. At the last follow-up, seizures were reduced by 50% or more in approximately 50% of the patients, and VNS predicted a ≥ 50% reduction in seizures with a main effects OR of 1.83 (95% CI 1.80-1.86). Patients with generalized epilepsy and children benefited significantly from VNS despite their exclusion from initial approval of the device. Furthermore, posttraumatic epilepsy and tuberous sclerosis were positive predictors of a favorable outcome. In conclusion, VNS is an effective and relatively safe adjunctive therapy in patients with medically refractory epilepsy not amenable to resection. However, it is important to recognize that complete seizure freedom is rarely achieved using VNS and that a quarter of patients do not receive any benefit from therapy.

Vagus nerve stimulation protects against ventricular fibrillation independent of muscarinic receptor activation

AIMS

The role of the vagus in the ventricle is controversial, although the vagus can protect against ventricular fibrillation (VF) via nitric oxide (NO). This study aims to determine whether the mechanisms involved are dependent on post-ganglionic release and muscarinic receptor activation. For this purpose, NO release and electrophysiological effects of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) were evaluated in relation to acetylcholine and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP). In addition, the role of the coronary endothelium and afferent nerves was tested.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using the isolated innervated rabbit heart, we measured ventricular NO release using 4,5-diaminofluorescein (DAF-2) fluorescence and ventricular fibrillation threshold (VFT) during VNS after muscarinic, ganglionic, and VIP inhibition [atropine, hexamethonium, and VIP (6-28), respectively] and after Triton-X endothelial functional dysfunction. The vagal-mediated increases in NO and VFT were not significantly affected (P> 0.05) during (i) atropine perfusion [increase in NO: 196.8 ± 35.2 mV (control) vs. 156.1 ± 20.3 mV (atropine) and VFT 3.1 ± 0.5 mA (control) vs. 2.7 ± 0.4 mA (atropine)], (ii) VIP inhibition-increase in NO: 243.0 ± 42.4 mV (control) vs. 203.9 ± 28.5 mV [VIP(6-28)] and VFT 3.3 ± 0.3 mA (control) vs. 3.9 ± 0.6 mA [VIP(6-28)], or (iii) after endothelial functional dysfunction [increase in NO: 127.7 ± 31.7 mV (control) vs. 172.1 ± 31.5 mV (Triton-X) and VFT 2.6 ± 0.4 mA (control) vs. 2.5 ± 0.5 mA (Triton-X)]. However, the vagal effects were inhibited during ganglionic blockade [increase in NO: 175.1 ± 38.1 mV (control) vs. 0.6 ± 25.3 mV (hexamethonium) and VFT 3.3 ± 0.5 mA (control) vs. -0.3 ± 0.3 mA (hexamethonium)].

CONCLUSIONS

We show that the vagal anti-fibrillatory action in the rabbit ventricle occurs via post-ganglionic efferent nerve fibres, independent of muscarinic receptor activation, VIP, and the endothelium. Together with our previous publications, our data support the possibility of a novel ventricular nitrergic parasympathetic innervation and highlight potential for new therapeutic targets to treat ventricular dysrhythmias.