Anterior temporal lobectomy combined with anterior corpus callosotomy in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy and mental retardation

Does Stereoelectroencephalography Add Value in Patients with Lesional Epilepsy?

OBJECTIVE

Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) has gained popularity as an invasive monitoring modality for epileptogenic zone (EZ) localization. The need and indications for SEEG in patients with evident brain lesions or associated abnormalities on imaging is debated. We report our experience with SEEG as a presurgical evaluation tool for patients with lesional epilepsy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed of 131 patients with lesional or magnetic resonance imaging abnormality-associated medically refractory focal epilepsy who underwent resections from 2010 to 2017. Seventy-one patients had SEEG followed by resection, and 60 had no invasive recordings. Volumetric analysis of resection cavities from 3T magnetic resonance imaging was performed.

RESULTS

Mean lesion and resection volumes for SEEG and non-SEEG were 16.2 (standard deviation [SD] = 29) versus 23.7 cm3 (SD = 38.4) and 28.1 (SD = 23.2) versus 43.6 cm3 (SD = 43.5), respectively (P = 0.009). Comparing patients with seizure recurrence and patients who remained seizure free, significantly associated variables with seizure recurrence included mean number of failed antiseizure medications (6.86 [SD = 0.32] vs. 5.75 [SD = 0.32]; P = 0.01) and in SEEG patients the mean number of electrodes implanted (8.1 [SD = 0.8] vs. 5.0 [SD = 0.8]; P = 0.005). After multivariate analysis, only failed numbers of medication remained significantly associated with seizure recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Seizure outcomes did not correlate with final resection volume after SEEG evaluation. SEEG evaluation presurgically can be used to maintain the efficacy of resection and decrease the volume and subsequent risk of extensive tissue removal. We believe that this technology allows resective surgery to proceed in a subpopulation of patients with lesional epilepsy who may otherwise not have been considered surgical candidates.

A historical cohort of temporal lobe surgery for medically refractory epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis to guide future nonrandomized controlled trial studies

OBJECTIVE

Recent trials for temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) highlight the challenges of investigating surgical outcomes using randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although several reviews have examined seizure-freedom outcomes from existing data, there is a need for an overall seizure-freedom rate estimated from level I data as investigators consider other methods besides RCTs to study outcomes related to new surgical interventions.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the 3 RCTs of TLE in adults and report an overall surgical seizure-freedom rate (Engel class I) composed of level I data. An overall seizure-freedom rate was also collected from level II data (prospective cohort studies) for validation. Eligible studies were identified by filtering a published Cochrane meta-analysis of epilepsy surgery for RCTs and prospective studies, and supplemented by searching indexed terms in MEDLINE (January 1, 2012-April 1, 2018). Retrospective studies were excluded to minimize heterogeneity in patient selection and reporting bias. Data extraction was independently reverified and pooled using a fixed-effects model. The primary outcome was overall seizure freedom following surgery. The historical benchmark was applied in a noninferiority study design to compare its power to a single-study cohort.

RESULTS

The overall rate of seizure freedom from level I data was 72.4% (55/76 patients, 3 RCTs), which was nearly identical to the overall seizure-freedom rate of 71.7% (1325/1849 patients, 18 studies) from prospective cohorts (z = 0.134, p = 0.89; z-test). Seizure-freedom rates from level I and II studies were consistent over the years of publication (R2 < 0.01, p = 0.73). Surgery resulted in markedly improved seizure-free outcomes compared to medical management (RR 10.82, 95% CI 3.93-29.84, p < 0.01; 2 RCTs). Noninferiority study designs in which the historical benchmark was used had significantly higher power at all difference margins compared to using a single cohort alone (p < 0.001, Bonferroni's multiple comparison test).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall rate of seizure freedom for temporal lobe surgery is approximately 70% for medically refractory epilepsy. The small sample size of the RCT cohort underscores the need to move beyond standard RCTs for epilepsy surgery. This historical seizure-freedom rate may serve as a useful benchmark to guide future study designs for new surgical treatments for refractory TLE.

Surgery for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review, published in 2015.Focal epilepsies are caused by a malfunction of nerve cells localised in one part of one cerebral hemisphere. In studies, estimates of the number of individuals with focal epilepsy who do not become seizure-free despite optimal drug therapy vary between at least 20% and up to 70%. If the epileptogenic zone can be located, surgical resection offers the chance of a cure with a corresponding increase in quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective is to assess the overall outcome of epilepsy surgery according to evidence from randomised controlled trials.Secondary objectives are to assess the overall outcome of epilepsy surgery according to non-randomised evidence, and to identify the factors that correlate with remission of seizures postoperatively.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 11 March 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to March 08, 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included at least 30 participants in a well-defined population (age, sex, seizure type/frequency, duration of epilepsy, aetiology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis, surgical findings), with an MRI performed in at least 90% of cases and an expected duration of follow-up of at least one year, and reporting an outcome related to postoperative seizure control. Cohort studies or case series were included in the previous version of this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three groups of two review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed study quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. Outcomes were proportions of participants achieving a good outcome according to the presence or absence of each prognostic factor of interest. We intended to combine data with risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 182 studies with a total of 16,855 included participants investigating outcomes of surgery for epilepsy. Nine studies were RCTs (including two that randomised participants to surgery or medical treatment (99 participants included in the two trials received medical treatment)). Risk of bias in these RCTs was unclear or high. Most of the remaining 173 non-randomised studies followed a retrospective design. We assessed study quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool and determined that most studies provided moderate or weak evidence. For 29 studies reporting multivariate analyses, we used the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and determined that very few studies were at low risk of bias across domains.In terms of freedom from seizures, two RCTs found surgery (n = 97) to be superior to medical treatment (n = 99); four found no statistically significant differences between anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) with or without corpus callosotomy (n = 60), between subtemporal or transsylvian approach to selective amygdalohippocampectomy (SAH) (n = 47); between ATL, SAH and parahippocampectomy (n = 43) or between 2.5 cm and 3.5 cm ATL resection (n = 207). One RCT found total hippocampectomy to be superior to partial hippocampectomy (n = 70) and one found ATL to be superior to stereotactic radiosurgery (n = 58); and another provided data to show that for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, no significant differences in seizure outcomes were evident between those treated with resection of the epileptogenic zone and those treated with resection of the epileptogenic zone plus corpus callosotomy (n = 43). We judged evidence from the nine RCTs to be of moderate to very low quality due to lack of information reported about the randomised trial design and the restricted study populations.Of the 16,756 participants included in this review who underwent a surgical procedure, 10,696 (64%) achieved a good outcome from surgery; this ranged across studies from 13.5% to 92.5%. Overall, we found the quality of data in relation to recording of adverse events to be very poor.In total, 120 studies examined between one and eight prognostic factors in univariate analysis. We found the following prognostic factors to be associated with a better post-surgical seizure outcome: abnormal pre-operative MRI, no use of intracranial monitoring, complete surgical resection, presence of mesial temporal sclerosis, concordance of pre-operative MRI and electroencephalography, history of febrile seizures, absence of focal cortical dysplasia/malformation of cortical development, presence of tumour, right-sided resection, and presence of unilateral interictal spikes. We found no evidence that history of head injury, presence of encephalomalacia, presence of vascular malformation, and presence of postoperative discharges were prognostic factors of outcome.Twenty-nine studies reported multi-variable models of prognostic factors, and showed that the direction of association of factors with outcomes was generally the same as that found in univariate analyses.We observed variability in many of our analyses, likely due to small study sizes with unbalanced group sizes and variation in the definition of seizure outcome, the definition of prognostic factors, and the influence of the site of surgery AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Study design issues and limited information presented in the included studies mean that our results provide limited evidence to aid patient selection for surgery and prediction of likely surgical outcomes. Future research should be of high quality, follow a prospective design, be appropriately powered, and focus on specific issues related to diagnostic tools, the site-specific surgical approach, and other issues such as extent of resection. Researchers should investigate prognostic factors related to the outcome of surgery via multi-variable statistical regression modelling, where variables are selected for modelling according to clinical relevance, and all numerical results of the prognostic models are fully reported. Journal editors should not accept papers for which study authors did not record adverse events from a medical intervention. Researchers have achieved improvements in cancer care over the past three to four decades by answering well-defined questions through the conduct of focused RCTs in a step-wise fashion. The same approach to surgery for epilepsy is required.

Outcome after individualized stereoelectroencephalography (sEEG) implantation and navigated resection in patients with lesional and non-lesional focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Refined localization of the epileptogenic zone (EZ) in patients with pharmacoresistant focal epilepsy proceeding to resective surgery might improve postoperative outcome. We here report seizure outcome after stereo EEG (sEEG) evaluation with individually planned stereotactically implanted depth electrodes and subsequent tailored resection.

METHODS

A cohort of consecutive patients with pharmacoresistant focal epilepsy, evaluated with a non-invasive evaluation protocol and invasive monitoring with personalized, stereotactically implanted depth electrodes for sEEG was analyzed. Co-registration of post-implantation CT scan to presurgical MRI data was used for 3D reconstructions of the patients' brain surface and mapping of neurophysiology data. Individual multimodal 3D maps of the EZ were used to guide subsequent tailored resections. The outcome was rated according to the Engel classification.

RESULTS

Out of 914 patients who underwent non-invasive presurgical evaluation, 85 underwent sEEG, and 70 were included in the outcome analysis. Median follow-up was 31.5 months. Seizure-free outcome (Engel class I A-C, ILAE class 1-2) was achieved in 83% of the study cohort. Patients exhibiting lesional and non-lesional (n = 42, 86% vs. n = 28, 79%), temporal and extratemporal (n = 45, 80% vs. n = 25, 84%), and right- and left-hemispheric epilepsy (n = 44, 82% vs. n = 26, 85%) did similarly well. This remains also true for those with an EZ adjacent to or distant from eloquent cortex (n = 21, 86% vs. n = 49, 82%). Surgical outcome was independent of resected tissue volume.

CONCLUSION

Favourable post-surgical outcome can be achieved in patients with resistant focal epilepsy, using individualized sEEG evaluation and tailored navigated resection, even in patients with non-lesional or extratemporal focal epilepsy.

Resective surgery combined with corpus callosotomy for children with non-focal lesional Lennox-Gastaut syndrome

BACKGROUND

The first prospective trial for resective surgery combined with corpus callosotomy (CCT) was performed to investigate the outcomes of the combined surgery in children with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) without focal lesion on brain MRI.

METHODS

This study enrolled 68 children with LGS and without focal lesion on brain MRI, of which 25 received medicine (medicine group) and 43 underwent surgery (surgery group), including 20 with exclusively resective surgery (exclusively resection subgroup) and 23 with resective surgery combined with CCT (combined CCT subgroup). All patients were followed for 3-5 years.

RESULTS

Significant differences in seizure control were observed between the medicine group and the exclusively resection subgroup and combined CCT subgroup at the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year follow-ups. There was a trend that the children with resection combined with CCT had better seizure control than those with exclusively resection at the three follow-ups, but this could not be verified by the statistical method used. Furthermore, significant differences were not observed in seizure control between children with different MRI findings, age at surgery, or pathology in the surgery group. The percentage of long-term seizure-free did not remain as high as the percentage of early stage seizure-free at 1-year follow-up. However, the children with combined CCT surgery demonstrated more postoperative improvement than the children with resective surgery alone based on the mean QOL score (10.78 vs. 5.75, p = 0.0152) and full-scale IQ (7.91 vs. 4.55, p = 0.0446).

CONCLUSIONS

Resective surgery combined with CCT can provide favorable seizure control and obvious improvements in QOL and IQ in children with LGS. This combined approach can be performed in carefully selected LGS children without focal lesions and can localize the epileptogenic zone following a comprehensive preoperative evaluation.

Not all that glitters is gold: A guide to surgical trials in epilepsy

Epilepsy surgery is often the only effective treatment in appropriately selected patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy, a disease affecting about 30% of those with epilepsy. We review the evidence supporting the use of epilepsy surgery, with a focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Second, we identify gaps in knowledge about the benefits of epilepsy surgery for certain populations, the challenges of individualizing the choice of surgery, and our lack of understanding of the mechanisms of surgical outcomes. We conducted a search (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Clinicaltrials.gov) on March 2, 2016, to identify epilepsy surgery RCTs, systematic reviews, or health technology assessments (HTAs). Abstracts were screened to identify resective, palliative (e.g., corpus callosotomy, multiple subpial transection [MST]), ablative (e.g., Laser interstitial thermal therapy [LITT], gamma knife radiosurgery [RS]), and neuromodulation (e.g., cerebellar stimulation [CS], hippocampal stimulation [HS], repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS], responsive neurostimulation [RNS], thalamic stimulation [TS], trigeminal nerve stimulation [TNS], and vagal nerve stimulation [VNS]) RCTs. Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted. Knowledge gaps were identified. Of 1,205 abstracts, 20 RCTs were identified (resective surgery including corpus callosotomy [n = 7], MST [n = 0], RS [n = 1, 3 papers], LITT [n = 0], CS [n = 1], HS [n = 2], RNS [n = 1], rTMS [n = 1], TNS [n = 1], TS [n = 1], and VNS [n = 5]). Most studies targeted patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) and none examined the effectiveness of resective surgical therapies in patients with extra‐TLE (ETLE) or with specific lesions aside from mesial temporal lobe sclerosis. No pediatric surgical RCTs were identified except for VNS. Few RCTs address the effectiveness of surgery in epilepsy and most are of limited generalizability. Future studies are needed to compare the effectiveness of different surgical strategies, better understand the mechanisms of surgical outcomes, and define the ideal surgical approaches, particularly for patients with high or very low cognitive function, normal imaging, or ETLE.

Non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30% of patients with epilepsy remain refractory to drug treatment and continue to experience seizures whilst taking one or more antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Several non-pharmacological interventions that may be used in conjunction with or as an alternative to AEDs are available for refractory patients. In view of the fact that seizures in people with intellectual disabilities are often complex and refractory to pharmacological interventions, it is evident that good quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to assess the efficacy of alternatives or adjuncts to pharmacological interventions.This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review (Beavis 2007) published in The Cochrane Library (2007, Issue 4).

OBJECTIVES

To assess data derived from randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities.Non-pharmacological interventions include, but are not limited to, the following.• Surgical procedures.• Specialised diets, for example, the ketogenic diet, or vitamin and folic acid supplementation.• Psychological interventions for patients or for patients and carers/parents, for example, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), electroencephalographic (EEG) biofeedback and educational intervention.• Yoga.• Acupuncture.• Relaxation therapy (e.g. music therapy).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (19 August 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via CRSO (19 August 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 August 2014) and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 to 19 August 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted study data.

MAIN RESULTS

One study is included in this review. When two surgical procedures were compared, results indicated that corpus callosotomy with anterior temporal lobectomy was more effective than anterior temporal lobectomy alone in improving quality of life and performance on IQ tests among people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities. No evidence was found to support superior benefit in seizure control for either intervention. This is the only study of its kind and was rated as having an overall unclear risk of bias. The previous update (December 2010) identified one RCT in progress. The study authors have confirmed that they are aiming to publish by the end of 2015; therefore this study (Bjurulf 2008) has not been included in the current review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the need for well-designed randomised controlled trials conducted to assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on seizure and behavioural outcomes in people with intellectual disabilities and epilepsy.

Surgery for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Focal epilepsies are caused by a malfunction of nerve cells localised in one part of one cerebral hemisphere. In studies, estimates of the number of individuals with focal epilepsy who do not become seizure-free despite optimal drug therapy vary according to the age of the participants and which focal epilepsies are included, but have been reported as at least 20% and in some studies up to 70%. If the epileptogenic zone can be located surgical resection offers the chance of a cure with a corresponding increase in quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective is to assess the overall outcome of epilepsy surgery according to evidence from randomised controlled trials.The secondary objectives are to assess the overall outcome of epilepsy surgery according to non-randomised evidence and to identify the factors that correlate to remission of seizures postoperatively.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE (Ovid) (2001 to 4 July 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for relevant trials up to 4 July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or case series, with either a prospective and/or retrospective design, including at least 30 participants, a well-defined population (age, sex, seizure type/frequency, duration of epilepsy, aetiology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis, surgical findings), an MRI performed in at least 90% of cases and an expected duration of follow-up of at least one year, and reporting an outcome relating to postoperative seizure control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three groups of two review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed study quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. Outcomes were proportion of participants achieving a good outcome according to the presence or absence of each prognostic factor of interest. We intended to combine data with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 177 studies (16,253 participants) investigating the outcome of surgery for epilepsy. Four studies were RCTs (including one that randomised participants to surgery or medical treatment). The risk of bias in the RCTs was unclear or high, limiting our confidence in the evidence that addressed the primary review objective. Most of the remaining 173 non-randomised studies had a retrospective design; they were of variable size, were conducted in a range of countries, recruited a wide demographic range of participants, used a wide range of surgical techniques and used different scales used to measure outcomes. We performed quality assessment using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool and determined that most studies provided moderate or weak evidence. For 29 studies reporting multivariate analyses we used the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and determined that very few studies were at low risk of bias across the domains.In terms of freedom from seizures, one RCT found surgery to be superior to medical treatment, two RCTs found no statistically significant difference between anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) with or without corpus callosotomy or between 2.5 cm or 3.5 cm ATL resection, and one RCT found total hippocampectomy to be superior to partial hippocampectomy. We judged the evidence from the four RCTs to be of moderate to very low quality due to the lack of information reported about the randomised trial design and the restricted study populations.Of the 16,253 participants included in this review, 10,518 (65%) achieved a good outcome from surgery; this ranged across studies from 13.5% to 92.5%. Overall, we found the quality of data in relation to the recording of adverse events to be very poor.In total, 118 studies examined between one and eight prognostic factors in univariate analysis. We found the following prognostic factors to be associated with a better post-surgical seizure outcome: an abnormal pre-operative MRI, no use of intracranial monitoring, complete surgical resection, presence of mesial temporal sclerosis, concordance of pre-operative MRI and electroencephalography (EEG), history of febrile seizures, absence of focal cortical dysplasia/malformation of cortical development, presence of tumour, right-sided resection and presence of unilateral interictal spikes. We found no evidence that history of head injury, presence of encephalomalacia, presence of vascular malformation or presence of postoperative discharges were prognostic factors of outcome. We observed variability between studies for many of our analyses, likely due to the small study sizes with unbalanced group sizes, variation in the definition of seizure outcome, definition of the prognostic factor and the influence of the site of surgery, all of which we observed to be related to postoperative seizure outcome. Twenty-nine studies reported multivariable models of prognostic factors and the direction of association of factors with outcome was generally the same as found in the univariate analyses. However, due to the different multivariable analysis approaches and selective reporting of results, meaningful comparison of multivariate analysis with univariate meta-analysis is difficult.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The study design issues and limited information presented in the included studies mean that our results provide limited evidence to aid patient selection for surgery and prediction of likely surgical outcome. Future research should be of high quality, have a prospective design, be appropriately powered and focus on specific issues related to diagnostic tools, the site-specific surgical approach and other issues such as the extent of resection. Prognostic factors related to the outcome of surgery should be investigated via multivariable statistical regression modelling, where variables are selected for modelling according to clinical relevance and all numerical results of the prognostic models are fully reported. Protocols should include pre- and postoperative measures of speech and language function, cognition and social functioning along with a mental state assessment. Journal editors should not accept papers where adverse events from a medical intervention are not recorded. Improvements in the development of cancer care over the past three to four decades have been achieved by answering well-defined questions through the conduct of focused RCTs in a step-wise fashion. The same approach to surgery for epilepsy is required.

Alterations in regional homogeneity of resting-state brain activity in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to identify abnormal areas of regional synchronization in patients with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy and hippocampus sclerosis (mTLE-HS) compared to healthy controls, by applying a relatively novel method, the Regional Homogeneity (ReHo) method to resting state fMRI (RS-fMRI) data.

METHODS

Eyes closed RS-fMRI data were acquired from 10 mTLE-HS patients (four right-side, six left-side) and 15 age- and gender-matched healthy subjects, and were analyzed by using ReHo. For group analysis, four right-side MTLE-HS patients' functional images were flipped, in order to make a homogeneous left MTLE-HS group (10 cases) and increase the sample size.

KEY FINDINGS

Compared to the healthy control group, patients showed significantly increased ReHo in ipsilateral parahippocampal gyrus, midbrain, insula, corpus callosum, bilateral sensorimotor cortex, and frontoparietal subcortical structures, whereas decreased ReHo was observed mainly in default mode network (DMN) (including precuneus and posterior cingulate gyrus, bilateral inferior lateral parietal, and mesial prefrontal cortex) and cerebellum in patients relative to the control group.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study identified that ReHo pattern in mTLE-HS patients was altered compared to healthy controls. We consider decreased ReHo in DMN to be responsible for wide functional impairments in cognitive processes. We propose that the increased ReHo in specific regions may form a network that might be responsible for seizure genesis and propagation.

Non-pharmacological interventions for epilepsy in people with intellectual disabilities

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30% of epilepsy patients remain refractory to drug treatment and continue to experience seizures whilst taking one or more antiepileptic drugs. There are a number of non-pharmacological interventions available to refractory patients which may be used in conjunction with or as an alternative to antiepileptic medication. In view of the fact that seizures in intellectually disabled people are often complex and refractory to pharmacological interventions it is evident that good quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of alternatives or adjuncts to pharmacological interventions are needed in this population.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to assess the data available from randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions in patients with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE OVID (1966 to October 2006) and PsychInfo OVID (1806 to October 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs were found for this study population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has highlighted the need for well-designed randomised controlled trials to assess the effect of non-pharmacological interventions on seizure and behavioural outcomes in an intellectually disabled epilepsy population.