Adjunctive therapy versus alternative monotherapy in patients with partial epilepsy failing on a single drug: a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic controlled trial

The pharmacological treatment of epilepsy in adults

The pharmacological treatment of epilepsy entails several critical decisions that need to be based on an individual careful risk-benefit analysis. These include when to initiate treatment and with which antiseizure medication (ASM). With more than 25 ASMs on the market, physicians have opportunities to tailor the treatment to individual patients´ needs. ASM selection is primarily based on the patient's type of epilepsy and spectrum of ASM efficacy, but several other factors must be considered. These include age, sex, comorbidities, and concomitant medications to mention the most important. Individual susceptibility to adverse drug effects, ease of use, costs, and personal preferences should also be taken into account. Once an ASM has been selected, the next step is to decide on an individual target maintenance dose and a titration scheme to reach this dose. When the clinical circumstances permit, a slow titration is generally preferred since it is associated with improved tolerability. The maintenance dose is adjusted based on the clinical response aiming at the lowest effective dose. Therapeutic drug monitoring can be of value in efforts to establish the optimal dose. If the first monotherapy fails to control seizures without significant adverse effects, the next step will be to gradually switch to an alternative monotherapy, or sometimes to add another ASM. If an add-on is considered, combining ASMs with different modes of action is usually recommended. Misdiagnosis of epilepsy, non-adherence and suboptimal dosing are frequent causes of treatment failure and should be excluded before a patient is regarded as drug-resistant. Other treatment modalities, including epilepsy surgery, neuromodulation, and dietary therapies, should be considered for truly drug-resistant patients. After some years of seizure freedom, the question of ASM withdrawal often arises. Although successful in many, withdrawal is also associated with risks and the decision needs to be based on careful risk-benefit analysis.

Perampanel outcomes at different stages of treatment in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice: Evidence from the PERMIT study

Introduction

The PERMIT study is the largest pooled analysis of perampanel (PER) clinical practice data conducted to date.

Methods

This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT investigated the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of PER when used as early add-on therapy (after failure of one or two previous antiseizure medications) in comparison with late add-on therapy (after failure of three or more previous antiseizure medications). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness was assessed by seizure type (total seizures, focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS]) and assessments included seizure freedom rate and responder rate. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs.

Results

The Full Analysis Set included 1184 and 2861 PWE treated with PER as early and late add-on therapy, respectively. Compared to the late add-on subgroup, the early add-on subgroup was characterized by later mean age at epilepsy onset, shorter mean duration of epilepsy, lower rates of intellectual disability and psychiatric comorbidity, and lower frequency of seizures per month, suggesting a less severe form of epilepsy in this subgroup. After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in the early versus late add-on subgroup (67.7% vs. 62.4%; p = 0.004). At the last visit, responder rates in the early versus late add-on subgroup were significantly higher for total seizures (68.2% vs. 39.3%; p < 0.001), focal seizures (65.0% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.001) and GTCS (83.7% vs. 67.2%; p < 0.001), as were seizure freedom rates (total seizures, 35.9% vs. 11.9% [p < 0.001]; focal seizures, 29.4% vs. 8.7% [p < 0.001]; GTCS, 69.0% vs. 48.1% [p < 0.001]). Incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the early versus late add-on subgroup (42.1% vs. 54.7%; p < 0.001), as was the rate of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months (15.0% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.031).

Discussion

This study demonstrated that PER was effective and generally well tolerated when initiated as early or late add-on therapy, but it was significantly more effective and better tolerated when initiated early. These findings support PER's use as a broad-spectrum, early add-on therapy for use in PWE with focal and generalized seizures.

Should substitution monotherapy or combination therapy be used after failure of the first antiseizure medication? Observations from a 30-year cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the temporal trends in the use of second antiseizure (ASM) regimens and compare the efficacy of substitution monotherapy and combination therapy after failure of initial monotherapy in people with epilepsy.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal observational cohort study conducted at the Epilepsy Unit of the Western Infirmary in Glasgow, Scotland. We included patients who were newly treated for epilepsy with ASMs between July 1982, and October 2012. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Seizure freedom was defined as no seizure for at least 1 year on unchanged medication at the last follow up.

RESULTS

During the study period, 498 patients were treated with a second ASM regimen after failure of the initial ASM monotherapy, of whom 346 (69%) were prescribed combination therapy and 152 (31%) were given substitution monotherapy. The proportion of patients receiving second regimen as combination therapy increased during the study period from 46% in first epoch (1985-1994) to 78% in the last (2005-2015) (RR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.17-2.36, corrected-p = .010). Overall, 21% (104/498) of the patients achieved seizure freedom on the second ASM regimen, which was less than half of the seizure-free rate on the initial ASM monotherapy (45%, p < .001). Patients who received substitution monotherapy had similar seizure-free rate compared with those who received combination therapy (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.81-1.69, p = .41). Individual ASMs used, either alone or in combination, had similar efficacy. However, the subgroup analysis was limited by small sample sizes.

SIGNIFICANCE

The choice of second regimen used based on clinical judgment was not associated with treatment outcome in patients whose initial monotherapy failed due to poor seizure control. Alternative approaches such as machine learning should be explored to aid individualized selection of the second ASM regimen.

Comparative antiseizure medications of adjunctive treatment for children with drug-resistant focal-onset seizures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Purpose: In this study, we intended to compare and rank the efficacy and acceptability of antiseizure medications (ASMs) for adjunctive treatment of children with drug-resistant focal-onset seizures. Method: We conducted a computerized search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before 31 May 2022. We included studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of antiseizure medications for children with drug-resistant focal-onset seizures. The efficacy and safety were reported in terms of responder and dropout rate along with serious adverse events, the outcomes were ranked with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: A total of 14 studies (16 trials) with 2,464 patients were included, involving 10 active antiseizure medications. For the primary endpoint of at least 50% reduction in focal-onset seizures, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve ranking suggested that lamotrigine and levetiracetam were more effective as compared with other antiseizure medications; moreover, levetiracetam had the highest probability of rank first for achieving seizure freedom. Concerning tolerability, oxcarbazepine and eslicarbazepine acetate were associated with higher dropout rates relative to other antiseizure medications and placebo, and topiramate was associated with higher occurrence of side effects. No significant differences were found between active antiseizure medications concerning dropout for side effects. Conclusion: According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve ranking, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and oxcarbazepine were more efficacious than other active antiseizure medications in terms of responder rate. Concerning tolerability, oxcarbazepine was more likely to lead to dropout and topiramate was associated with higher occurrence of side effects.

Response to subsequent antiseizure medications after first antiseizure medication failure in newly diagnosed epilepsy

Objective

There is a lack of studies using the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) recommendation to define drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). This study evaluated the seizure freedom rates of substitution or add-on and subsequent antiseizure medication (ASM) therapies using different proposed definitions of DRE or ASM trials in patients with a failed first ASM. We also identified prognostic factors for 1-year seizure freedom.

Methods

This study included 459 patients with epilepsy of whom 151 were not seizure-free after the first ASM. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was used to examine the correlation between observations from the same patient.

Results

The overall seizure freedom rate with the first and subsequent ASMs was 88.0% (404/459). The rate of DRE when defined as the failure of two ASMs for any reason was 20.0%, and according to the ILAE definition of DRE, it was 16.3%. After failing the first ASM, 63.6% of patients (96/151) became seizure free with subsequent ASMs and tried an average of 1.9 ASMs (range 1–5). Of the patients who achieved 1-year seizure freedom, 10.1% (41/404) were taking polytherapy and there was no difference between substitution and add-on. All the patients with generalized epilepsy were seizure-free. A favorable prognostic factor was age >60 years and an EEG without epileptiform activity. The efficacies of the different ASMs were largely similar, but drugs that enhanced GABA-mediated inhibitory neurotransmission had the lowest seizure freedom rate.

Significance

In adults with newly-diagnosed epilepsy, 1-year seizure freedom was achieved for almost 90% of the patients. After failing the first ASM, two-thirds of the patients responded to subsequent ASM regimens. Our results support the feasibility and applicability of the ILAE concept of an adequate ASM trial and the failure of two ASMs as a definition of DRE.

Evaluation of one-year effectiveness of clobazam as an add-on therapy to anticonvulsant monotherapy in participants with epilepsy having uncontrolled seizure episodes: An Indian experience

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively study the effectiveness and safety of clobazam as an add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy whose seizures are not adequately controlled with antiseizure medicine (ASM) monotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, observational study at 28 neurology outpatient clinics in India from June 2017 to October 2019. Consecutive patients with epilepsy (older than 3 years) with inadequate seizure control with ASM monotherapy were initiated on clobazam. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Seizure control and adverse events were assessed through personal interviews and seizure diaries.

RESULTS

Out of 475 eligible patients, data of 429 patients (men: 65.5%) were evaluated (46 excluded due to protocol deviations). The median age was 25 (range, 3-80 years) years and the median duration of epilepsy was 3 (0.1-30) years. The majority of patients had focal epilepsy (55.0%) and genetic generalized epilepsy (40.1%). The one-year follow-up was completed by 380 (88.5%) patients. At one-year follow-up, 317 (83.4%; N = 380) patients in the study remained seizure free. These 317 patients who were seizure free at 12 months comprised 73.9% of the evaluable population (N = 429). In 98.8% of patients, the primary reason for adding clobazam was inadequate control of seizures with treatment. During one-year follow-up, a total of 113 (22.6%) patients experienced at least one adverse event which included 103 (20.6%) patients who experienced 386 episodes of seizures.

CONCLUSION

The study provides preliminary evidence that clobazam is effective and well-tolerated as add-on therapy for a period of one year among patients with epilepsy inadequately stabilized with monotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2017/12/010906.

Approach to the Medical Treatment of Epilepsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article discusses the use of antiseizure medications in the treatment of focal and generalized epilepsies using an evidence-based approach.

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent years, several new antiseizure medications with differing mechanisms of action have been introduced in clinical practice, and their efficacy and safety has been evaluated in randomized controlled clinical trials. Currently, all antiseizure medications can prevent seizure occurrence, but they have no proven disease-modifying or antiepileptogenic effects in humans. The choice of therapy should integrate the best available evidence of efficacy, tolerability, and effectiveness derived from clinical trials with other pharmacologic considerations, the clinical expertise of the treating physicians, and patient values and preferences. After the failure of a first antiseizure medication, inadequate evidence is available to inform policy. An alternative monotherapy (especially if the failure is because of adverse effects) or a dual therapy (especially if failure is because of inadequate seizure control) can be used.

SUMMARY

Currently, several antiseizure medications are available for the treatment of focal or generalized epilepsies. They differ in mechanisms of action, frequency of administration, and pharmacologic properties, with a consequent risk of pharmacokinetic interactions. Major unmet needs remain in epilepsy treatment. A substantial proportion of patients with epilepsy continue to experience seizures despite two or more antiseizure medications, with a negative impact on quality of life. Therefore, more antiseizure medications that could provide higher seizure control with good tolerability and that could positively affect the underlying disease are needed.

The importance of drug titration in the management of patients with epilepsy

The variable response to antiseizure medication (ASM) treatment and the numerous drug- and patient-related factors that must be considered when initiating therapy make drug titration to an optimal and tolerable dose an essential component in the pharmacologic treatment of patients with epilepsy. When initiating a new ASM, a "start low, go slow" titration approach is generally recommended and has been shown to reduce the risk of severe idiosyncratic reactions with certain medications and improve tolerability with regard to many frequently occurring central nervous system-related adverse effects (e.g., somnolence, dizziness). Many patients with epilepsy will require medication changes due to lack of efficacy or intolerability of the initial regimen. When this occurs, patients may be switched from one monotherapy to another or receive adjunctive therapy. When transitioning a patient from one ASM to another (referred to as monotherapy conversion or transitional polytherapy), there are several strategies for tapering the baseline ASM depending on the clinical scenario. Regardless of the particular strategy, the goal should be to discontinue the baseline ASM in order to prevent increased toxicity due to drug load. When adding on ASM therapy, flexible titration of the new ASM and adjustment of concomitant ASMs to achieve disease control with the lowest possible drug load (lowest numbers and lowest doses) may help improve tolerability of the add-on therapy. Communication with patients during the initiation of a new therapy may help patients adhere to the titration schedule, allowing them to reach their optimal maintenance dose.

Single-Target Versus Multi-Target Drugs Versus Combinations of Drugs With Multiple Targets: Preclinical and Clinical Evidence for the Treatment or Prevention of Epilepsy

Rationally designed multi-target drugs (also termed multimodal drugs, network therapeutics, or designed multiple ligands) have emerged as an attractive drug discovery paradigm in the last 10-20 years, as potential therapeutic solutions for diseases of complex etiology and diseases with significant drug-resistance problems. Such agents that modulate multiple targets simultaneously are developed with the aim of enhancing efficacy or improving safety relative to drugs that address only a single target or to combinations of single-target drugs. Although this strategy has been proposed for epilepsy therapy >25 years ago, to my knowledge, only one antiseizure medication (ASM), padsevonil, has been intentionally developed as a single molecular entity that could target two different mechanisms. This novel drug exhibited promising effects in numerous preclinical models of difficult-to-treat seizures. However, in a recent randomized placebo-controlled phase IIb add-on trial in treatment-resistant focal epilepsy patients, padsevonil did not separate from placebo in its primary endpoints. At about the same time, a novel ASM, cenobamate, exhibited efficacy in several randomized controlled trials in such patients that far surpassed the efficacy of any other of the newer ASMs. Yet, cenobamate was discovered purely by phenotype-based screening and its presumed dual mechanism of action was only described recently. In this review, I will survey the efficacy of single-target vs. multi-target drugs vs. combinations of drugs with multiple targets in the treatment and prevention of epilepsy. Most clinically approved ASMs already act at multiple targets, but it will be important to identify and validate new target combinations that are more effective in drug-resistant epilepsy and eventually may prevent the development or progression of epilepsy.

Perampanel as first add-on antiseizure medication: Italian consensus clinical practice statements

Background

When use of a single antiseizure medication (ASM) fails to induce seizure remission, add-on therapy is justified. Perampanel (PER) is approved in Europe as adjunctive therapy for focal, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Aim of the study was to establish whether PER is suitable for first add-on use.

Methods

A Delphi methodology was adopted to assess consensus on a list of 39 statements produced by an Expert Board of 5 epileptologists. Using an iterative process, statements were finalized by a Delphi Panel of 84 Italian pediatric and adult neurologists. Each statement was rated anonymously to determine level of agreement on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was established as agreement by at least 80% of the panelists. The relevance of each statement was also assessed on a 3-point scale.

Results

Consensus was achieved for 37 statements. Characteristics of PER considered to justify its use as first add-on include evidence of a positive impact on quality of life based on long term retention data, efficacy, tolerability, and ease of use; no worsening of cognitive functions and sleep quality; a low potential for drug interactions; a unique mechanism of action. Potential unfavorable factors are the need for a relatively slow dose titration; the potential occurrence of behavioral adverse effects; lack of information on safety when used in pregnancy; limited access to plasma PER levels.

Conclusion

Perampanel has many features which justify its use as a first add-on. Choice of an ASM as first add-on should be tailored to individual characteristics.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-021-02450-y.

Selection of antiseizure medications for first add-on use: A consensus paper

INTRODUCTION

When monotherapy used alone or sequentially fails to achieve seizure control, a trial of combination therapy may be considered.

OBJECTIVE

To define optimal criteria to guide choice of an antiseizure medication (ASM) for use as first add-on.

METHODS

A standardized Delphi procedure was applied to produce a list of consensus statements. First, an Expert Board consisting of 5 epileptologists agreed on a set of 46 statements relevant to the objective. The statements were then finalized through an iterative process by a Delphi Panel of 84 Italian pediatric and adult neurologists with expertise in the management of epilepsy. Panel members provided anonymous ratings of their level of agreement with each statement on a 9-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Consensus, defined as agreement by at least 80% of Panel members, was reached for 36 statements. Medication-related factors considered to be important for drug selection included efficacy, tolerability and safety, interaction potential, mechanism of action, and ease of use. The need to optimize adherence and to tailor drug selection to individual characteristics was emphasized.

CONCLUSIONS

Choice of an ASM for first add-on requires consideration of many factors, many of which also apply to choose initial treatment. Factors more specifically relevant to add-on use include drug interaction potential and the preference for an ASM with a different mechanism of action.

Lacosamide as first add-on or conversion monotherapy: A retrospective real-life study

PURPOSE

Lacosamide (LCM), the R-enantiomer of 2-acetamido-N-benzyl-3-methoxypropionamide, is a newer approved antiseizure medication characterized by a novel pharmacodynamic and favorable pharmacokinetic profile that was approved as adjunctive treatment for adults with focal onset and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures in 2008, and recently also for monotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of LCM as first add-on or conversion monotherapy in adult subjects with focal epilepsy.

METHODS

We retrospectively included all adult patients who received LCM as first add-on regimen or as substitution monotherapy at least 12 months before starting the chart review, with a historical baseline of 6 months prior to day of the first administration of LCM. The choice of treatment was made independently by the epilepstologists, according to routine clinical practice. Clinical data were obtained at 3, 6, and 12 months after subjects started LCM and then analyzed to assess retention rate, seizure freedom, and adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients (58 men) with a mean age of 44 years and a median epilepsy duration of 6.6 years (range 1-53) were included in the study. At 12 months 72 patients retained LCM, 54 (75%) of them were seizure free, 44 (81.5%) in monotherapy and 10 (18.5%) in add-on LCM treatment. Among all subjects, 31 (57.4%) were free from seizure under LCM monotherapy throughout the entire observation period. Thirty one out of 72 (43%) PwE who retained LCM at 12 months, were free from seizures throughout the entire observation period. The maintenance median dosage of LCM was 200 mg/day. Ten (10%) subjects reported mild to moderate AE, most commonly drowsiness and dizziness. No serious AE were documented.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-life study confirms that LCM is an effective and well tolerated treatment option as first add-on or conversion monotherapy for focal seizures.

Which treatment strategy in patients with epilepsy with focal seizures uncontrolled by the first anti-seizure medication?

There is no definite proven or accepted strategy in the management of patients with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by the first anti-seizure medication (ASM). Clinical studies failed to find a significant difference in efficacy or tolerability between alternative monotherapy and/or adjunctive therapy in these patients. A second ASM is often added, the efficacy of the combination is assessed, and the dose of the first drug can be gradually reduced and withdrawn. If seizures recur, the effective combination therapy can be reinstated. In this review, we discussed experimental and clinical data about the efficacy and tolerability of the most frequently used combinations of ASMs. Animal studies suggested that the most favorable combinations are those between ASMs with different or multiple mechanisms of action, whereas combining drugs with similar pharmacodynamic properties is often associated with additive or infra-additive efficacy and additive or synergistic toxicity. Clinical studies have shown that levetiracetam (LEV) can be favorably combined with the sodium channel blockers (SCBs) lacosamide (LCM) and lamotrigine (LTG). Lamotrigine is particularly effective when associated with valproate (VPA) and possibly with LEV and topiramate (TPM). Carbamazepine (CBZ) has negative pharmacokinetic interactions with several ASMs and should not be combined with other SCBs; it could be effectively and safely combined with gabapentin (GBP) and LEV. Valproic acid has enzyme inhibiting properties and can be cautiously used with SCBs; its combination with TPM or zonisamide (ZNS) may be associated with higher toxicity.

Clinical Management of Drug Resistant Epilepsy: A Review on Current Strategies

Drug resistant epilepsy (DRE) is defined as the persistence of seizures despite at least two syndrome-adapted antiseizure drugs (ASD) used at efficacious daily dose. Despite the increasing number of available ASD, about a third of patients with epilepsy still suffer from drug resistance. Several factors are associated with the risk of evolution to DRE in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy, including epilepsy onset in the infancy, intellectual disability, symptomatic epilepsy and abnormal neurological exam. Pharmacological management often consists in ASD polytherapy. However, because quality of life is driven by several factors in patients with DRE, including the tolerability of the treatment, ASD management should try to optimize efficacy while anticipating the risks of drug-related adverse events. All patients with DRE should be evaluated at least once in a tertiary epilepsy center, especially to discuss eligibility for non-pharmacological therapies. This is of paramount importance in patients with drug resistant focal epilepsy in whom epilepsy surgery can result in long-term seizure freedom. Vagus nerve stimulation, deep brain stimulation or cortical stimulation can also improve seizure control. Lastly, considering the effect of DRE on psychologic status and social integration, comprehensive care adaptations are always needed in order to improve patients' quality of life.

Starting a new anti-seizure medication in drug-resistant epilepsy: Add-on or substitute?

OBJECTIVES

Randomized studies in drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) typically involve addition of a new anti-seizure medication (ASM). However, in clinical practice, if the patient is already taking multiple ASMs, then substitution of one of the current ASMs commonly occurs, despite little evidence supporting this approach.

METHODS

Longitudinal prospective study of seizure outcome after commencing a previously untried ASM in patients with DRE. Multivariable time-to-event and logistic regression models were used to evaluate outcomes by whether the new ASM was introduced by addition or substitution.

RESULTS

A total of 816 ASM changes in 436 adult patients with DRE between 2010 and 2018 were analyzed. The new ASM was added on 407 (50.1%) occasions and substituted on 409 (49.9%). Mean patient follow-up was 3.2 years. Substitution was more likely if the new ASM was enzyme-inducing or in patients with a greater number of concurrent ASMs. ASM add-on was more likely if a γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonist was introduced or if the patient had previously trialed a higher number of ASMs. The rate of discontinuation due to lack of tolerability was similar between the add-on and substitution groups. No difference between the add-on and substitution ASM introduction strategies was observed for the primary outcome of ≥50% seizure reduction at 12 months.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adding or substituting a new ASM in DRE has the same influence on seizure outcomes. The findings confirm that ASM alterations in DRE can be individualized according to concurrent ASM therapy and patient characteristics.

Risk of hospitalization among patients with epilepsy using long versus short half-life adjunctive antiepileptic drugs

INTRODUCTION

While antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) remain the primary treatment for epilepsy, many patients continue to have seizures. Uncontrolled seizures may be related to AED half-life, since short half-life (SHL) AEDs require more frequent dosing compared with the simplified regimens of long half-life (LHL) AEDs. Long half-life AEDs may also improve seizure control by extending missed dose forgiveness periods. The value of LHL AEDs may be assessed as reduced healthcare utilization. The study's objective was to examine the impact of adding an LHL versus SHL adjunctive AED on the risk of hospitalizations in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study using the Symphony Health Solution Patient Integrated Dataverse. Patients ≥12 years old with uncontrolled epilepsy (≥2 medical claims ≥30 days apart) were identified during a study period (8/1/2012-7/31/2017). Patients were selected if they were subsequently initiated an adjunctive AED (excluding modified release formulations), and the prescription date served as the index. Patients were stratified into two mutually exclusive cohorts based on the index AED half-life (≤20 versus >20 h). Poisson regressions with robust error variances were performed for the relative risks (RRs) of all-cause, epilepsy-related, and injury-related hospitalizations.

RESULTS

A total of 4984 patients were identified (2705 in the LHL and 2279 in the SHL cohort). Compared with those in the SHL cohort, patients in the LHL cohort were significantly younger [mean (SD, years): 43.9 (18.5) versus 49.2 (17.2), p < 0.001] and were less comorbid [mean (SD) of Charlson comorbidity index: 1.2 (1.8) versus 1.8 (2.2), p < 0.001]. In the one-year postindex date, adjusting for group differences, the risks of both all-cause and epilepsy-related hospitalizations were significantly lower in the LHL cohort than in the SHL cohort [all-cause: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76-0.93), p = 0.0006; epilepsy-related: 0.83 (0.73-0.94), p = 0.0046].Injury-related hospitalizations did not differ between LHL and SHL cohorts.

CONCLUSION

In patients with uncontrolled epilepsy who were initiated on an adjunctive AED, the choice of an LHL versus SHL was associated with significantly lower risks of all-cause and epilepsy-related hospitalizations.

Clinical opinion: Earlier employment of polytherapy in sequential pharmacotherapy of epilepsy

Modern pharmacotherapy for epilepsy consists of orderly, sequential drug trials, in which antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are chosen under the concept of individual patient-oriented (or - tailored) pharmacotherapy. Although monotherapy has been established as the preferred mode of AEDs therapy in both newly diagnosed and drug resistant epilepsies, there are still lack of evidence to favor either monotherapy or polytherapy in epilepsy, which has generated continuing controversies on the preferred mode of pharmacotherapy. However, each mode of pharmacotherapy may have both advantages and disadvantages, which are different and variable related to individual case scenario. We conducted a brief comparative overview between monotherapy and polytherapy to provide clues for earlier employment of polytherapy in each steps of sequential drug trials. Previous claims about the advantages of monotherapy over polytherapy are not supported but gradually losing its ground by the introduction of a large number of drugs carrying pharmacological advantages for combination therapy. Current evidence stresses the importance of combining drugs having synergistic interactions for better outcome of polytherapy, which has not been considered in previous clinical investigations comparing monotherapy and polytherapy. It is likely that a significant improvement in the outcome of current AEDs therapy is feasible by earlier employment of polytherapy as well as identification of combination drug regimens carrying synergistic interactions. At present, lamotrigine(LTG) and valproate(VPA) combination regimen is the only well documented synergistic regimen, but there are a long-list of candidate regimens requiring future trials in appropriate designs.

Paediatric antiepileptic polytherapy: systematic review of efficacy and neurobehavioural effects and a tertiary centre experience

AIM

This paper presents the prevalence of antiepileptic polytherapy at a single tertiary institution and systematically reviews the evidence base for its efficacy and neurobehavioural safety in children.

METHOD

Prevalence of antiepileptic polypharmacy was determined from pharmacy dispensing records at a paediatric tertiary hospital and neurobehavioural comorbidities quantified through casenote review; comparison is made with studies evaluating the neurobehavioural safety of antiepileptic polytherapy, identified via systematic literature review.

RESULTS

Amongst 262 patients at the hospital, 117 (44.7%) were prescribed polytherapy; with patients having an intellectual disability statistically more likely to be prescribed polytherapy than those without (70.5% vs 40.6%; p < 0.0001). Systematic review identified no trials addressing the efficacy or neurobehavioural outcomes of polytherapy as a primary outcome. Several observational studies identified associations between polytherapy and neurobehavioural adverse outcomes such as anxiety and behavioural disturbance. Observational studies also suggest that a reduction in polytherapy load is generally not associated with worsening seizure control.

CONCLUSION

Whilst antiepileptic polytherapy is common practice within paediatric epilepsy cohorts attending tertiary care institutions, evidence is lacking to support its efficacy. There are significant practical difficulties to undertaking randomised controlled trials within this population. Nonetheless, clinicians must consider that adverse neurobehavioural consequences of polytherapy might outweigh benefits to seizure control.

A viewpoint on rational and irrational fixed-drug combinations

INTRODUCTION

Considering that there are around 30% of patients with epilepsy resistant to monotherapy, the use of synergistic combinations of antiepileptic drugs is of particular importance. This review shows most beneficial as well as irrational combined treatments both from an experimental and clinical point of view. Areas covered: Preferably, experimental data derived from studies evaluating synergy, additivity, or antagonism by relevant methods, in terms of anticonvulsant or neurotoxic effects and pharmacokinetic data have been considered. Although there have been no randomized clinical trials on this issue, the clinical data have been analyzed from studies on considerable numbers of patients. Case-report studies have been not considered. Expert commentary: The experimental data provide a strong support that co-administration of lamotrigine with carbamazepine is negative, considering the anticonvulsant and neurotoxic effects. Clinical reports do not entirely support this conclusion. Other experimentally documented negative combinations comprise lamotrigine+ oxcarbazepine and oxcarbazepine+ phenytoin. From the experimental and clinical point of view, a combination of lamotrigine+ valproate may deserve recommendation. Other most positive experimental and clinical combinations include carbamazepine+valproate, phenytoin+phenobarbital, carbamazepine+gabapentin, carbamazepine+topiramate, levetiracetam+valproate, levetiracetam+carbamazepine. Certainly, experimental data have some limitations (non-epileptic animals, acute administration of antiepileptic drugs) so all experimental recommendations need a careful clinical evaluation.

Unblinded, randomized multicenter trial comparing lamotrigine and valproate combination with controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy as initial drug regimen in untreated epilepsy

PURPOSE

To compare controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy (CBZ-CR) with lamotrigine and valproate combination therapy (LTG + VPA) in equivalent total drug load, as initial drug regimen in untreated patients with partial and/or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS).

METHODS

This unblinded, randomized, 60-week superiority trial recruited patients having two or more unprovoked seizures with at least one seizure during previous three months. After randomization into CBZ-CR or LTG + VPA, patients entered into eight-week titration phase (TP), followed by 52-week maintenance phase (MP). Median doses of CBZ-CR and LTG + VPA were 600 mg/day and 75 mg/day + 500 mg/day, respectively. Primary outcome measure was completion rate (CR), a proportion of patients who have completed the 60-week study as planned. Secondary efficacy measures included seizure-free rate (SFR) for 52-week of MP and time to first seizure (TTFS) during MP.

RESULTS

Among 207 randomized patients, 202 underwent outcome analysis (104 in CBZ-CR, 98 in LTG + VPA). CR was 62.5% in CBZ-CR and 65.3% in LTG + VPA (p = 0.678). SFR during MP was higher in LTG + VPA (64.1%) than CBZ-CR (47.8%) (P = 0.034). TTFS was shorter with CBZ-CR (p = 0.041). Incidence of adverse effects (AEs) were 57.7% in CBZ-CR and 60.2% in LTG + VPA and premature drug withdrawal rates due to AEs were 12.5% and 7.1%, respectively, which were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

CR was comparable between LTG + VPA and CBZ-CR, however, both SFR for 52-week MP and TTFS during MP were in favor of LTG + VPA than CBZ-CR. The study suggested that LTG + VPA can be an option as initial drug regimen for untreated patients with partial seizures and/or GTCS except for women of reproductive age.

Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Levetiracetam in Pediatric and Adult Patients With Epilepsy by Using Routinely Monitored Data

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam, a second-generation antiepileptic drug, is frequently used for managing partial-onset seizures. About 70% of the administered dose is excreted in urine unchanged, and dosage adjustment is recommended based on the individual's renal function. In this study, a population pharmacokinetic model of levetiracetam was developed using routinely monitored serum concentration data for individualized levetiracetam therapy.

METHODS

Patients whose serum concentrations of levetiracetam at steady-state were routinely monitored at Kyoto University Hospital from April 2012 to March 2013 were enrolled. The influence of patient characteristics on levetiracetam pharmacokinetics was evaluated using the nonlinear mixed-effects modeling (NONMEM) program.

RESULTS

A total of 583 steady-state concentrations from 225 patients were used for the analysis. The median patient age and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were 38 (range: 1-89) years and 98 (15-189) mL·min·1.73 m, respectively. Serum concentration-time data of levetiracetam were well described by a 1-compartment model with first-order absorption. Oral clearance was allometrically related to the individual body weight and eGFR. An increase in the dose significantly increased oral clearance. No improvement in model fit was observed by including the covariate of any concomitant antiepileptic drugs. The population mean clearance for an adult weighing 70 kg and with a normal renal function was 4.8 and 5.9 L/h for 500 mg bis in die (bid) and 1500 mg bid, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral clearance allometrically related with body weight and eGFR can well predict the routine therapeutic drug monitoring data from pediatric to aged patients with varying renal function. Dosage adjustments based on renal function are effective in controlling the trough and peak concentrations in similar ranges.

Selecting Rational Drug Combinations in Epilepsy

Monotherapy remains the standard initial therapy of epilepsy, but when the first antiepileptic drug (AED) fails, combination therapy may be considered. The choice of combination therapy should take into consideration pharmacokinetic interactions, as well as pharmacodynamic interactions related to mechanism of action. There is evidence that an AED combination with different mechanisms of action is more likely to be successful than a combination with the same mechanisms. The combination of lamotrigine and valproate has been demonstrated to be synergistic in its efficacy. However, there are limited data to support other synergistic AED combinations.

Epilepsy: new advances

Epilepsy affects 65 million people worldwide and entails a major burden in seizure-related disability, mortality, comorbidities, stigma, and costs. In the past decade, important advances have been made in the understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms of the disease and factors affecting its prognosis. These advances have translated into new conceptual and operational definitions of epilepsy in addition to revised criteria and terminology for its diagnosis and classification. Although the number of available antiepileptic drugs has increased substantially during the past 20 years, about a third of patients remain resistant to medical treatment. Despite improved effectiveness of surgical procedures, with more than half of operated patients achieving long-term freedom from seizures, epilepsy surgery is still done in a small subset of drug-resistant patients. The lives of most people with epilepsy continue to be adversely affected by gaps in knowledge, diagnosis, treatment, advocacy, education, legislation, and research. Concerted actions to address these challenges are urgently needed.

Risk of a lamotrigine-related skin rash: current meta-analysis and postmarketing cohort analysis

PURPOSE

We systematically reviewed studies to provide current evidence on the incidence and risk of skin rash in patients with LTG therapy.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus databases, up to 15 March 2014 were searched to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies included prospective studies, retrospective studies and postmarketing reports, which included data of skin rash in patients with LTG therapy.

RESULTS

Forty-one articles met the entry criteria. A total of 4447 patients with LTG therapy from 26 prospective studies, 2977 patients from 8 retrospective studies, and 26,126 patients from 5/7 postmarketing reports were included. The overall incidence of skin rash with LTG therapy was 9.98% (444/4447) from prospective studies, 7.19% (214/2977) from retrospective studies, and 2.09% (547/26,126) from postmarketing reports. A meta-analysis of the risk of skin rash in 21 prospective studies, did not show a significant difference between patients with LTG and other drugs, including placebo, other ADEs or lithium (OR 0.99-2.41). In 6 respective studies, there was a significantly higher OR in patients with LTG compared with those with non-aromatic AEDs. However, there was no significant difference in rash risk between patients with LTG and aromatic AEDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that LTG significantly increased the risk of developing a skin rash compared to non-aromatic AEDs. Our results support the need for large prospective population-based studies and clinical trials to determine whether LTG increases the risk of developing a skin rash than compared to other drugs.

Antiepileptic efficacy of lamotrigine in phenobarbital-resistant and -responsive epileptic rats: a pilot study

About 25% of patients with epilepsy are refractory to treatment, so that new, more effective antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are urgently needed. Animal models that simulate the clinical situation with individuals responding and not responding to treatment are important to determine mechanisms of AED resistance and develop novel more effective treatments. We have previously developed and characterized such a model in which spontaneous recurrent seizures (SRS) develop after a status epilepticus induced by sustained electrical stimulation of the basolateral amygdala. In this model, prolonged treatment of epileptic rats with phenobarbital (PB) results in two subgroups, PB responders and PB nonresponders. When PB nonresponders were treated in previous experiments with phenytoin (PHT), 83% of the PB-resistant rats were also resistant to PHT. In the present study we examined if rats with PB resistant seizures are also resistant to lamotrigine (LTG), using continuous EEG/video recording of spontaneous seizures over 10 consecutive weeks. For this purpose, a new group of epileptic rats was produced and selected by treatment with PB into responders and nonresponders. As in previous studies, PB nonresponders had a significantly higher seizure frequency before onset of treatment. During subsequent treatment with LTG, all PB nonresponders and 60% of the PB responders exhibited >75% reduction of seizure frequency and were therefore considered as LTG responders. Plasma levels of LTG did not differ significantly between responders and nonresponders. The data of this pilot study indicate that LTG is more effective than PHT to suppress seizures in PB nonresponders in this model, but that not all PB responders also respond to LTG. Overall, our data provide further evidence that AED studies in post-SE TLE models are useful in determining and comparing AED efficacy and investigating predictors and mechanisms of pharmacoresistance.

Prognosis in epilepsy: initiating long-term drug therapy

INTRODUCTION

Prognosis in epilepsy refers to the probability of either achieving seizure remission (SR), whether spontaneously or using antiepileptic drugs (AED), or failing to achieve control of epileptic seizures (ES) despite appropriate treatment. Use of AED is recommended after a second unprovoked ES. For a first episode, the decision of whether or not to start drug treatment depends on the risk of recurrence and the advantages or disadvantages of the antiepileptic drug. The main goal of treatment is achieving absence of ES without adverse effects (AE). AED is selected according to epilepsy type and the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patient.

DEVELOPMENT

A PubMed search located articles and recommendations by the most relevant scientific societies and clinical practice guidelines concerning epilepsy prognosis and treatment. Evidence and recommendations are classified according to the prognostic criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2001) and the European Federation of Neurological Societies (2004) for therapeutic actions.

CONCLUSIONS

Most newly diagnosed epileptic patients achieve good control over their ES. The majority of the AEDs available at present provide effective control over all types of ES, and choice therefore depends on the patient's individual characteristics. Treatment should be initiated as monotherapy at the lowest effective dose, which in half of all patients provides ES control and is well tolerated. In cases in which the first AED is not effective, alternative therapy should be started, and monotherapy should be employed before combination therapy where possible. The probability of achieving good control over ES decreases with each successive treatment failure.

Drug utilization profile in adult patients with refractory epilepsy at a tertiary referral center

Objective To evaluate the utilization profile of antiepileptic drugs in a population of adult patients with refractory epilepsy attending a tertiary center. Method Descriptive analyses of data were obtained from the medical records of 112 patients. Other clinical and demographic characteristics were also registered. Results Polytherapies with ≥3 antiepileptic drugs were prescribed to 60.7% of patients. Of the old agents, carbamazepine and clobazam were the most commonly prescribed (72.3% and 58.9% of the patients, respectively). Among the new agents, lamotrigine was the most commonly prescribed (36.6% of the patients). At least one old agent was identified in 103 out of the 104 polytherapies, while at least one new agent was prescribed to 70.5% of the population. The most prevalent combination was carbamazepine + clobazam + lamotrigine. The mean AED load found was 3.3 (range 0.4–7.7). Conclusion The pattern of use of individual drugs, although consistent with current treatment guidelines, is strongly influenced by the public health system.

Alternative monotherapy or add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy whose seizures do not respond to the first monotherapy: an Italian multicenter prospective observational study

A prospective multicenter observational study was undertaken on children and adults with epilepsy in whom first monotherapy failed, to assess indications and effects of alternative monotherapy vs. polytherapy. Patients were followed until 12-month remission, drug withdrawal, or up to 18months. Monotherapy and polytherapy were compared for patients' baseline features, indication, retention time, remission, adverse events (AE), quality of life, and direct and indirect costs. Included were 157 men and 174 women, aged 2-86years. Of the patients, 72.2% were switched to alternative monotherapy. Baseline treatment was changed for lack of efficacy (73.9%) or adverse events (26.1%). Two hundred forty-three completed the study (remission: 175; 72.0%). Retention time, hospital admissions, days off-work and off-school, and quality of life did not differ between the two treatment groups. Patients were followed for 365.3person-years. Three hundred eighty-three incident AEs were reported by 46.4% of patients in monotherapy and 40.2% in polytherapy (serious AEs: 9.6% vs. 8.7%, mostly nondrug-related).

Pharmacotherapy of focal epilepsy in children: a systematic review of approved agents

BACKGROUND

Partial-onset seizures contribute the bulk of seizure burden in childhood epilepsy. The therapeutic decision making involves consideration of factors specific to drug, patient and socioeconomic situation.

OBJECTIVES

This paper systematically reviews the available efficacy/effectiveness evidence for various anti-epileptic drugs (AED) as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in children.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified by a structured PubMed search, supplemented by an additional hand search of reference lists and authors' files.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Eligible studies were reviewed and data extracted into tables. Included RCTs were classified based on accepted published criteria.

OUTCOMES

Only efficacy and effectiveness outcome measures were evaluated since there is little scientifically rigorous comprehensive AED adverse effects data.

RESULTS

Oxcarbazepine is the only AED with Class I evidence for efficacy/effectiveness as initial monotherapy for partial-onset seizures in children. Carbamazepine, clobazam, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, topiramate, valproate, vigabatrin and zonisamide have, at best, Class III efficacy/effectiveness evidence for monotherapy of partial-onset seizures in children. For adjunctive therapy, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine and topiramate have Class I efficacy/effectiveness evidence for treatment of pediatric partial-onset seizures.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

This efficacy/effectiveness analysis must not be used in isolation when selecting therapy. AED selection for a specific child needs to integrate a drug's efficacy/effectiveness data with its safety and tolerability profile, pharmacokinetic properties, available formulations, and patient specific characteristics. It is critical that physicians and patients incorporate all these relevant variables when choosing AED therapy.

Synergistic GABA-enhancing therapy against seizures in a mouse model of Dravet syndrome

Seizures remain uncontrolled in 30% of patients with epilepsy, even with concurrent use of multiple drugs, and uncontrolled seizures result in increased morbidity and mortality. An extreme example is Dravet syndrome (DS), an infantile-onset severe epilepsy caused by heterozygous loss of function mutations in SCN1A, the gene encoding the brain type-I voltage-gated sodium channel NaV1.1. Studies in Scn1a heterozygous knockout mice demonstrate reduced excitability of GABAergic interneurons, suggesting that enhancement of GABA signaling may improve seizure control and comorbidities. We studied the efficacy of two GABA-enhancing drugs, clonazepam and tiagabine, alone and in combination, against thermally evoked myoclonic and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Clonazepam, a positive allosteric modulator of GABA-A receptors, protected against myoclonic and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Tiagabine, a presynaptic GABA reuptake inhibitor, was protective against generalized tonic-clonic seizures but only minimally protective against myoclonic seizures and enhanced myoclonic seizure susceptibility at high doses. Combined therapy with clonazepam and tiagabine was synergistic against generalized tonic-clonic seizures but was additive against myoclonic seizures. Toxicity determined by rotorod testing was additive for combination therapy. The synergistic actions of clonazepam and tiagabine gave enhanced seizure protection and reduced toxicity, suggesting that combination therapy may be well tolerated and effective for seizures in DS.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy versus polytherapy: pursuing seizure freedom and tolerability in adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the availability of many new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), only around 50% of people with epilepsy will become seizure free on their first drug. This article explores treatment options and issues influencing whether AEDs should be substituted or combined in the remainder of the patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prior to the introduction of novel AEDs, it was generally opined that combining traditional agents did not necessarily lead to an improvement in seizure control and might increase the propensity for side effects. Newer AEDs, many with different mechanisms of action, have increased the potential for polytherapy regimens, although robust data to support or refute this therapeutic strategy are sparse. It seems sensible to substitute rather than combine when the first AED produces an idiosyncratic reaction, is poorly tolerated at a low/moderate dose or shows no efficacy. Polytherapy may be preferred if the patient tolerates their first or second AED well, but with a suboptimal response, particularly when there is an identifiable anatomical substrate for the seizures. AED selection requires consideration of many factors some of which are discussed in this study.

SUMMARY

There are no definitive answers on whether to combine or substitute AEDs. Different strategies are required for different scenarios in different patients.

Antiepileptic drug therapy: does mechanism of action matter?

This article represents a synthesis of presentations made by the authors during a scientific meeting held in London on 7 June 2010 and organized by GlaxoSmithKline. Each speaker produced a short précis of his lecture to answer a specific question, resulting in an overview of what we know about the relevance of the mechanisms of action of antiepileptic drugs in determining appropriate combination therapies for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy.

Treating epilepsy across its different stages

Epilepsy is a chronic condition requiring long-term treatment with drugs that have intrinsic limitations. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are effective in suppressing seizures but do not alter the disease process. They have a suboptimal tolerability profile and can be teratogenic. Second-generation compounds may be better tolerated but no more effective than traditional AEDs. In this light, as drug therapy is purely symptomatic, acute symptomatic seizures (i.e. seizures occurring in close temporal relationship with acute CNS insults) may require treatment only until recovery or stabilization of the injury. Treatment of the first unprovoked seizure may be considered in patients with abnormal EEG and imaging findings and in those in whom the relapse has severe social, emotional and personal implications. In these cases and in patients with epilepsy (i.e. repeated unprovoked seizures), drugs for partial seizures supported by class I regulatory trials or pragmatic trials are oxcarbazepine in children, carbamazepine or lamotrigine in adults, and lamotrigine or gabapentin in the elderly. Pragmatic trials support use of valproate for generalized seizures, except for women of childbearing age for whom the drug should be tailored to the individual patient. The lowest maintenance dose should be chosen, based on the efficacy and tolerability of the assigned drug. If the first monotherapy fails, the safety profile of a drug is important when opting for another monotherapy or for an add-on therapy. The epilepsy syndrome and the social, psychological and emotional profile of the patient all contribute to the individualization of treatment discontinuation after long-term seizure remission.

Strategies for improving adherence to antiepileptic drug treatment in patients with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Poor adherence to antiepileptic medications is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. In this review we focus on interventions designed to assist patients with adherence to antiepileptic medications.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving adherence to antiepileptic medications in adults and children with epilepsy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (24 June 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2) and electronic databases: MEDLINE (OVID) (1950 to June 2010); EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 2010 Week 24); CINAHL (1982 to June 2010) and PsycINFO (22 June 2010), and the reference lists of relevant articles. 

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of adherence-enhancing interventions aimed at patients with clinical diagnosis of epilepsy (as defined in individual studies), of any age and of either gender, treated with antiepileptic drugs in a primary care, outpatient or other community setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed each study according to the Cochrane criteria. The studies differed widely according to intervention and measures of adherence, therefore combining data was not appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials met our inclusion criteria: five targeted adult epileptic patients with a combined patient number of 222 and one targeted parents of children with epilepsy (n = 51). Follow-up time was generally short: from one to six months. Two main types of intervention were examined: educational and behavioural modification. Each study compared treatment with no intervention 'usual care'. None compared one intervention with another. Due to heterogeneity between studies in terms of interventions and the methods used to measure adherence, we did not pool the results. Education and counselling of patients with epilepsy have shown mixed success. Behavioural interventions such as the use of intensive reminders and 'implementation intention' interventions provided more positive effects on adherence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intensive reminders and 'implementation intention' interventions appear promising in enhancing adherence to antiepileptic mediations, however we need more reliable evidence on their efficacy from carefully designed randomised controlled trials before a firm conclusion can be reached.