Effect of antiepileptic drug polytherapy on crystalluria

Sulthiame monotherapy for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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 We contacted the manufacturers of STM and researchers in the field to ask about ongoing and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Drug-Induced Urolithiasis in Pediatric Patients

Drug-induced nephrolithiasis is a rare condition in children. The involved drugs may be divided into two different categories according to the mechanism involved in calculi formation. The first one includes poorly soluble drugs that favor the crystallization and calculi formation. The second category includes drugs that enhance calculi formation through their metabolic effects. The diagnosis of these specific calculi depends on a detailed medical history, associated comorbidities and the patient's history of drug consumption. There are several risk factors associated with drug-induced stones, such as high dose of consumed drugs and long duration of treatment. Moreover, there are some specific risk factors, including urinary pH and the amount of fluid consumed by children. There are limited data regarding pediatric lithogenic drugs, and hence, our aim was to perform a comprehensive review of the literature to summarize these drugs and identify the possible mechanisms involved in calculi formation and discuss the management and preventive measures for these calculi.

Sulthiame add-on therapy for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 10. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people respond to conventional antiepileptic drugs, however, around 30% will continue to experience seizures, despite treatment with multiple antiepileptic drugs. Sulthiame, also known as sultiame, is a widely used antiepileptic drug in Europe and Israel. We present a summary of the evidence for the use of sulthiame as add-on therapy in epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of sulthiame as add-on therapy for people with epilepsy of any aetiology compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL (17 January 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to January 16, 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP Search Portal (17 January 2019). We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of sulthiame, and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of add-on sulthiame, with any level of blinding (single, double or unblinded) in people of any age, with epilepsy of any aetiology.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, and extracted relevant data. We assessed these outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency between baseline and end of follow-up; (2) complete cessation of seizures during follow-up; (3) mean seizure frequency; (4) time-to-treatment withdrawal; (5) adverse effects; and (6) quality of life. We used intention-to-treat for primary analyses. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). However, due to the paucity of trials, we mainly conducted a narrative analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one placebo-controlled trial that recruited 37 infants with newly diagnosed West syndrome. This trial was funded by DESITIN Pharma, Germany. During the study, sulthiame was given as an add-on therapy to pyridoxine. No data were reported for the outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency between baseline and end of follow-up; mean seizure frequency; or quality of life. For complete cessation of seizures during a nine-day follow-up period for add-on sulthiame versus placebo, the RR was 11.14 (95% CI 0.67 to 184.47; very low-certainty evidence), however, this difference was not shown to be statistically significant (P = 0.09). The number of infants experiencing one or more adverse events was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.64; very low-certainty evidence; P = 0.63). Somnolence was more prevalent amongst infants randomised to add-on sulthiame compared to placebo, but again, the difference was not statistically significant (RR 3.40, 95% CI 0.42 to 27.59; very low-certainty evidence; P = 0.25). We were unable to conduct meaningful analysis of time-to-treatment withdrawal and adverse effects due to incomplete data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sulthiame may lead to a cessation of seizures when used as an add-on therapy to pyridoxine in infants with West syndrome, however, we are very uncertain about the reliability of this finding. The included study was small and had a significant risk of bias, largely due to the lack of details regarding blinding and the incomplete reporting of outcomes. Both issues negatively impacted the certainty of the evidence. No conclusions can be drawn about the occurrence of adverse effects, change in quality of life, or mean reduction in seizure frequency. No evidence exists for the use of sulthiame as an add-on therapy in people with epilepsy outside West syndrome.Large, multi-centre randomised controlled trials are needed to inform clinical practice, if sulthiame is to be used as an add-on therapy for epilepsy.

Drug-Induced Kidney Stones and Crystalline Nephropathy: Pathophysiology, Prevention and Treatment

Drug-induced calculi represent 1-2% of all renal calculi. The drugs reported to produce calculi may be divided into two groups. The first one includes poorly soluble drugs with high urine excretion that favour crystallisation in the urine. Among them, drugs used for the treatment of patients with human immunodeficiency, namely atazanavir and other protease inhibitors, and sulphadiazine used for the treatment of cerebral toxoplasmosis, are the most frequent causes. Besides these drugs, about 20 other molecules may induce nephrolithiasis, such as ceftriaxone or ephedrine-containing preparations in subjects receiving high doses or long-term treatment. Calculi analysis by physical methods including infrared spectroscopy or X-ray diffraction is needed to demonstrate the presence of the drug or its metabolites within the calculi. Some drugs may also provoke heavy intra-tubular crystal precipitation causing acute renal failure. Here, the identification of crystalluria or crystals within the kidney tissue in the case of renal biopsy is of major diagnostic value. The second group includes drugs that provoke the formation of urinary calculi as a consequence of their metabolic effects on urinary pH and/or the excretion of calcium, phosphate, oxalate, citrate, uric acid or other purines. Among such metabolically induced calculi are those formed in patients taking uncontrolled calcium/vitamin D supplements, or being treated with carbonic anhydrase inhibitors such as acetazolamide or topiramate. Here, diagnosis relies on a careful clinical inquiry to differentiate between common calculi and metabolically induced calculi, of which the incidence is probably underestimated. Specific patient-dependent risk factors also exist in relation to urine pH, volume of diuresis and other factors, thus providing a basis for preventive or curative measures against stone formation.

Sulthiame add-on therapy for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition characterised by recurrent seizures. Most patients respond to conventional antiepileptic drugs, however, around 30% will continue to experience seizures despite multiple antiepileptic drugs. Sulthiame, also known as sultiame, is a widely used antiepileptic drug in Europe and Israel. We present a summary of the evidence for the use of sulthiame as add-on therapy in epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and side-effect profile of sulthiame as add-on therapy compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP Search Portal on 11 August 2015. No language restrictions were imposed. We contacted the manufacturers of sulthiame and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled add-on trials of sulthiame in people of any age with epilepsy of any aetiology.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted relevant data. The following outcomes were assessed: 1) reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or greater between baseline and end of follow-up; 2) complete cessation of seizures during follow-up; 3) mean seizure frequency; 4) time to treatment withdrawal; 5) adverse drug effects; and 6) quality of life scoring. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We present a narrative analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one trial with 37 participants with a new diagnosis of West syndrome. Sulthiame was given as an add-on therapy to pyridoxine. No data were reported for outcomes 1), 3) or 6). Overall risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for complete cessation of seizures during a nine-day follow-up period versus placebo was 0.71 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.96). Meaningful analysis of time to treatment withdrawal and adverse drug effects was not possible due to incomplete data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sulthiame may lead to a cessation of seizures when used as an add-on therapy to pyridoxine in patients with West syndrome. The included study was small and had a significant risk of bias which limits the impact of the evidence. No conclusions can be drawn about the occurrence of adverse drug effects, change in quality of life or mean reduction in seizure frequency. No evidence exists for the use of sulthiame as an add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy outside West syndrome. Large, multi-centre randomized controlled trials are necessary to inform clinical practice if sulthiame is to be used as an add-on therapy for epilepsy.

Safety of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

Carbonic anhydrase (CA) inhibitors have an impressive safety record despite the multiple functions that CA isozymes serve because they are not fully inhibited with most dosing. While reducing the targeted CA-dependent process sufficiently for disease control, residual activity and uncatalyzed rates in combination with compensations are adequate to avoid lethal consequences. Some drugs have in vitro selectivity differences against the 13 active isozymes, but none are convincingly selective in vivo or clinically. Efforts to synthesize selective inhibitors should result in safer drugs with fewer side effects.

AREAS COVERED

This review will focus on approved drugs with CA-inhibiting activity, whether used directly for this purpose or others. Side effects are discussed in relation to various organ systems and the disease being treated. Causes of side effects are considered, and strategies for symptom reduction are given.

EXPERT OPINION

Common side effects of paresthesias, dyspepsia, lassitude and fatigue in 30 - 40% of patients are generally tolerable or abate, but if not can be partially relieved by bicarbonate supplementation. The most important safety concerns are severe acidosis, respiratory failure and encephalopathy in patients with renal, pulmonary and hepatic disease where caution is critical, as is also the case in persons with sulfa drug allergies.

Sulthiame monotherapy for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition characterised by recurrent seizures. Sulthiame (STM) is widely used as an antiepileptic drug in Europe and Israel. In this review, we present a summary of evidence for the use of STM as monotherapy in epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (24 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 October 2013), SCOPUS (1823 to 24 October 2013), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (28 October 2013) and ClinicalTrials.gov (28 October 2013). We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of STM and researchers in the field to ask about ongoing and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data.The following outcomes were assessed: (1) time to treatment failure; (2) time to 12-month remission; (3) proportion seizure free at 12 months; (4) adverse effects; and (5) quality of life scoring. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat when possible. A narrative analysis of the data was presented.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies representing 100 participants with a diagnosis of benign epilepsy of childhood with centrotemporal spikes (BECTS) and one study representing 146 participants with a diagnosis of generalised tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) were included. STM was given as monotherapy compared with placebo in the BECTS studies and compared with phenytoin in the GTCS study. An English translation of the full text of one of the BECTS studies could not be found, and analysis of this study was based solely on the English translation of the abstract. No data were reported for outcome (1), (2), (3) or (5). Reporting of adverse effects was incomplete. Participants receiving STM were significantly less likely to develop gingival hyperplasia than were participants receiving phenytoin in the GTCS study (risk ratio (RR) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.58). No further statistically significant adverse events were noted when STM was compared with phenytoin or placebo. Two ongoing studies comparing STM monotherapy versus placebo or levetiracetam in BECTS were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Small sample size, poor methodological quality and lack of data on important outcome measures prevent any meaningful conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of sulthiame as monotherapy in epilepsy.

Zonisamide Induces Crystalluria without Urinary pH Changes in Children and Young Adults

Purpose. Adjunctive zonisamide therapy was demonstrated to be beneficial for multiple-disabled patients with refractory childhood-onset epilepsy. Zonisamide is well tolerated, but urolithiasis and calcium sludge in the bladder were sometimes described in patients treated with antiepileptic drug polytherapy including zonisamide. In previous studies, alkaline urine and crystalluria were shown to be risk factors for urolithiasis. Therefore, the effects of zonisamide addition and withdrawal on the urinary pH and crystalluria were investigated in patients treated with antiepileptic drug polytherapy to clarify the cause of urolithiasis induced by zonisamide. Methods. The urinary pH and the degree of crystalluria were retrospectively studied in epilepsy patients one month after the addition or withdrawal of zonisamide as part of their antiepileptic drug treatment regimen over the previous three years. Results. A total of 27 zonisamide-on patients and 16 zonisamide-off patients were enrolled in the study. The urinary pH did not change after the addition or withdrawal of zonisamide. However, the degree of crystalluria significantly increased after the addition (P < 0.001) of zonisamide and decreased after its withdrawal (P < 0.01). Conclusions. Zonisamide induces crystalluria without alkalinization of the urine. Crystalluria should be carefully monitored in patients treated with zonisamide to prevent urolithiasis.

Sulthiame add-on therapy for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition characterised by recurrent seizures. Most patients respond to conventional antiepileptic drugs, however, around 30% will continue to experience seizures despite multiple antiepileptic drugs. Sulthiame is a widely used antiepileptic drug in Europe and Israel. We present a summary of the evidence for the use of sulthiame as add-on therapy in epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and side-effect profile of sulthiame as add-on therapy compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and the WHO IRCTRP Search Portal on 28th August 2012. No language restrictions were imposed. We contacted the manufacturers of sulthiame and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised placebo-controlled add-on trials of sulthiame in people of any age with epilepsy of any aetiology.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted relevant data. The following outcomes were assessed: (1) reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or greater between baseline and end of follow-up (2) complete cessation of seizures during follow-up (3) mean seizure frequency (4) time to treatment withdrawal (5) adverse drug effects (6) quality of life scoring. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. Narrative analysis is presented.

MAIN RESULTS

One trial was included representing 37 patients with a new diagnosis of West syndrome. Sulthiame was given as an add-on therapy to pyridoxine. No data were reported for outcomes (1), (3) or (6). Overall risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for complete cessation of seizures during a nine-day follow-up period versus placebo was 0.71 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.96). Meaningful analysis of time to treatment withdrawal and adverse drug effects was impossible due to incomplete data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sulthiame may lead to a cessation of seizures when used as an add-on therapy to pyridoxine in patients with West syndrome. The included study was small and had a significant risk of bias which limits the impact of the evidence. No conclusions can be drawn on the occurrence of adverse drug effects, change in quality of life or mean reduction in seizure frequency. No evidence exists for the use of sulthiame as an add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy outside West syndrome. Large, multi-centre randomised controlled trials are necessary to inform clinical practice if sulthiame is to be used as an add-on therapy for epilepsy.

Urolithiasis on the ketogenic diet with concurrent topiramate or zonisamide therapy

Children with refractory epilepsy who are co-treated with the ketogenic diet (KD) and carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (CA-I) anti-epileptic medications including topiramate (TPM) and zonisamide (ZNS) are at risk for urolithiasis. Retrospective chart review of all children treated with ketogenic therapy at our institution was performed in order to estimate the minimal risk of developing signs or symptoms of stone disease. Children (N=93) were classified into groups according to KD+/-CA-I co-therapy. Fourteen patients had occult hematuria or worse, including 6 with radiologically confirmed stones. Three of 6 calculi developed in the KD+ZNS group of 17 patients who were co-treated for a cumulative total of 97 months (3.1 stones per 100 patient months). One confirmed stone was in the KD+TPM group of 22 children who were co-treated for a cumulative total of 263 months (0.4 stones per 100 patient months). All six patients had at least three of five biochemical risk factors including metabolic acidosis, concentrated urine, acid urine, hypercalciuria and hypocitraturia. Standard of care interventions to minimize hypercalciuria, crystalluria and stone formation used routinely by pediatric nephrologists should also be prescribed by neurologists treating patients with combination anti-epileptic therapy. Non-fasting KD initiation, fluid liberalization, potassium citrate prophylaxis as well as regular laboratory surveillance are indicated in this high risk population.

Preoperative indications for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in 2009

Abstract Since the first description of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNL) over 30 years ago, the indications for this procedure in the management of upper tract urinary stones has greatly expanded. Despite recent advances in shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic technologies, PNL maintains a dominant role in the management of complex and large volume upper tract stones. The contemporary indications for PNL are reviewed herein.

Urolithiasis with topiramate in nonambulatory children and young adults

Urolithiasis occurs infrequently in the pediatric population, where metabolic factors play a primary role in the pathogenesis of stone formation. Topiramate, an antiepileptic drug, is associated with a kidney stone in 1.5% of patients in published clinical trials. However, this risk may be much higher in certain populations with multiple preexisting risk factors. We performed a retrospective review of all nonambulatory and neurologically impaired individuals in a long-term care facility. Three groups were involved: those with no exposure to antiepileptic drugs, those on antiepileptic drugs other than topiramate, and those who had been treated with topiramate. Thirteen of 24 (54%) individuals on topiramate monotherapy or polytherapy developed clinical evidence of urolithiasis after a mean duration of 36.4 months. Our results suggest that nonambulatory and neurologically impaired individuals in a long-term care facility appear to be at higher risk of developing kidney stones with topiramate than previously reported.

Effect of antiepileptic drug polytherapy on urinary pH in children and young adults

OBJECTS

The relationship between antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) polytherapy and urinary pH was studied to demonstrate the effect and difference of AED polytherapy compared to monotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 271 urine samples from patients receiving AED polytherapy aged from 7 months to 35 years were enrolled. Two AEDs were co-administered to 215 patients, three AEDs to 45 patients, four AEDs to ten patients, and five AEDs to one patient.

RESULTS

The distribution of urinary pH shifted to the alkaline range with increasing numbers of co-administered AEDs (p < 0.0001). The distribution of urinary pH shifted to the alkaline side with AED polytherapy that included valproate (p < 0.05) or acetazolamide (p < 0.03). The distribution of urinary pH did not change with or without zonisamide, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, or clonazepam.

CONCLUSIONS

Urinary pH should be monitored in patients receiving AED polytherapy, particularly those receiving valproate, acetazolamide, or various AEDs in combination.

Increased propensity for calcium phosphate kidney stones with topiramate use

Topiramate (TPM) is a neuromodulatory agent that was initially approved as an antiepileptic drug and is increasingly used in the treatment of a number of neurological and metabolic disorders. Among its various pharmacological actions, TPM has been shown to inhibit the activity of specific carbonic anhydrase enzymes in the kidney. This action is associated with the development of metabolic acidosis, hypocitraturia, hypercalciuria and elevated urine pH, leading to an increased risk of kidney stone disease. Despite the cautionary note in the package insert of TPM, the extent of these complications has not been fully explored. Few prescribing physicians are aware of these complications, underscoring the need for improved surveillance. Because the drug is among the most frequently prescribed agents in the US, more controlled studies are required to determine the prevalence of kidney stone disease among TPM users, and the optimal approach to prevent and treat nephrolithiasis in these individuals.

Effect of antiepileptic drug monotherapy on urinary pH in children and young adults

OBJECTS

Since alkaline urine is a risk factor for urolithiasis, the relationship between antiepileptic drugs and urinary pH was retrospectively studied in epilepsy patients treated with antiepileptic drug monotherapy for more than 1 month.

METHODS

A total of 913 urinary samples from antiepileptic drug-treated patients were compared with 780 age-matched control samples, and with 112 samples from epilepsy patients who had not been treated with antiepileptic drugs. The antiepileptic drugs administered were carbamazepine, valproate, phenobarbital, zonisamide, sulthiame, and phenytoin.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of the acid urine in the valproate-treated patients was lower than that in controls. The proportion of the alkaline urine in the valproate-treated patients was higher than that in controls. This effect was independent of age, sex, and the serum valproate concentration. There was no significant difference in urinary pH among the epilepsy patients treated with other antiepileptic drugs, the epilepsy patients who had not been treated with antiepileptic drugs, and the controls.