Efficacy and safety of add-on antiseizure medications for focal epilepsy: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several antiseizure medications (ASMs) have been approved for the treatment of focal epilepsy. However, there is a paucity of evidence on direct comparison of ASMs. We evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of all approved add-on ASMs for the treatment of focal epilepsy using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Data through extensive literature search was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrial.gov databases using predefined search terms from inception through March 2023. PRISMA reporting guidelines (CRD42023403450) were followed in this study. Efficacy outcomes assessed were ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% responder rates. Patient retention rate and safety outcomes such as overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and individual TEAEs were assessed. "Gemtc" 4.0.4 package was used to perform Bayesian analysis. Outcomes are reported as relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Literature search retrieved 5807 studies of which, 75 studies were included in the analysis. All ASMs showed significantly higher ≥50% responder rate compared with placebo. Except the ≥75% seizure frequency reduction for zonisamide (2.23; 95% CI: 1.00-5.70) and 100% for rufinamide (2.03; 95% CI: 0.54-11.00), all other interventions showed significantly higher ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared with placebo. Among treatments, significantly higher 100% responder rate was observed with cenobamate compared to eslicarbazepine (10.71; 95% CI: 1.56-323.9) and zonisamide (10.63; 95% CI: 1.37-261.2). All ASMs showed a lower patient retention rate compared to placebo, with the least significant value observed for oxcarbazepine (0.77; 95% CI: 0.7-0.84). Levetiracetam showed a lower risk of incidence (1.0; 95%CI: 0.94-1.1; SUCRA: 0.885067) for overall TEAE compared with other medications.

SIGNIFICANCE

All approved ASMs were effective as add-on treatment for focal epilepsy. Of the ASMs included, cenobamate had the greatest likelihood of allowing patients to attain seizure freedom.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

This article compares the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs) currently available to neurologists in the treatment of epileptic patients. Several newer generation ASMs that have been developed may be as effective or better than the older medications. We included 75 studies in the analysis. In comparison, all drugs improved ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared to control, except for Zonisamide and Rufinamide in the ≥75% and 100% responder rate categories. Retention of patients undergoing treatment was lower in drugs than placebo. All drugs were tolerated, the levetiracetam showed the best tolerability. Cenobamate more likely help completely to reduce seizures.

Cenobamate in refractory epilepsy: Overview of treatment options and practical considerations

Management of drug resistant epilepsy (DRE) represents a challenge to the treating clinician. This manuscript addresses DRE and provides an overview of treatment options, medical, surgical, and dietary. It addresses treatment strategies in polytherapy, then focuses on the role cenobamate (CNB) may play in reducing the burden of DRE while providing practical advice for its introduction. CNB is a recently approved, third generation, anti-seizure medication (ASM), a tetrazole-derived carbamate, thought to have a dual mechanism of action, through its effect on sodium channels as well as on GABAA receptors at a non-benzodiazepine site. CNB, having a long half-life, is an effective add-on ASM in refractory focal epilepsy with a higher response rate and a higher seizure-freedom rate than is usually seen in regulatory clinical trials. Experience post-licensing, though still limited, supports the findings of clinical trials and is encouraging. Its spectrum of action in relation to generalized epilepsies and seizures remains to be established, and there are no data on its efficacy in monotherapy. At the time of writing, CNB has been prescribed for some 50 000 individuals with DRE and focal epilepsy. A larger number is needed to fully establish its safety profile. It should at all times be introduced slowly to minimize the risk of serious allergic drug reactions. It has clinically meaningful interactions which must be anticipated and managed to maximize tolerability and likelihood of successful treatment. Despite the above, it may well prove to be of major benefit in the treatment of many patients with drug resistant epilepsy.

Pregabalin Add-On vs. Dose Increase in Levetiracetam Add-On Treatment: A Real-Life Trial in Dogs With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder affecting 0.6–0.75% of dogs in veterinary practice. Treatment is frequently complicated by the occurrence of drug-resistant epilepsy and cluster seizures in dogs with idiopathic epilepsy. Only few studies are available to guide treatment choices beyond licensed veterinary drugs. The aim of the study was to compare antiseizure efficacy and tolerability of two add-on treatment strategies in dogs with drug-resistant idiopathic epilepsy. The study design was a prospective, open-label, non-blinded, comparative treatment trial. Treatment success was defined as a 3-fold extension of the longest baseline interseizure interval and to a minimum of 3 months. To avoid prolonged adherence to a presumably ineffective treatment strategy, dog owners could leave the study after the third day with generalized seizures if the interseizure interval failed to show a relevant increase. Twenty-six dogs (mean age 5.5 years, mean seizure frequency 4/month) with drug-resistant idiopathic epilepsy and a history of cluster seizures were included. Dogs received either add-on treatment with pregabalin (PGB) 4 mg/kg twice daily (14 dogs) or a dose increase in levetiracetam (LEV) add-on treatment (12 dogs). Thirteen dogs in the PGB group had drug levels within the therapeutic range for humans. Two dogs in the PGB group (14.3%; 2/14) and one dog in the LEV group (8.3%; 1/12) achieved treatment success with long seizure-free intervals from 122 to 219 days but then relapsed to their early seizure frequency 10 months after the study inclusion. The overall low success rates with both treatment strategies likely reflect a real-life situation in canine drug-resistant idiopathic epilepsy in everyday veterinary practice. These results delineate the need for research on better pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment strategies in dogs with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review last published in Issue 7, 2019; it includes two additional studies. Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one-third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs that has been developed to improve outcomes. In this review we summarised the current evidence regarding pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the following databases on 16 November 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 16 November 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of pregabalin and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add-on for people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Double-blind and single-blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT). We presented summary risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 randomised controlled trials (3949 participants). Nine trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.72, 9 trials, 2663 participants, low-certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose-response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.60; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.64; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared pregabalin to three active-control drugs: lamotrigine, eventrate and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12; 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to eventrate (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine for seizure freedom (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83). However, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add-on pregabalin compared to eventrate (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We detected no significant differences in treatment withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse effects, specifically, during either pooled analysis or subgroup analysis. Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, headache and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin than in active control. We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We assessed all the studies to be at a high risk of funding bias as they were all sponsored by Pfizer. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment was significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, although there were issues with tolerability at higher doses. However, the trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision-making. This review focused on the use of pregabalin in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of pregabalin when used as monotherapy.

Blinded sample size reestimation for negative binomial regression with baseline adjustment

In randomized clinical trials, it is standard to include baseline variables in the primary analysis as covariates, as it is recommended by international guidelines. For the study design to be consistent with the analysis, these variables should also be taken into account when calculating the sample size to appropriately power the trial. Because assumptions made in the sample size calculation are always subject to some degree of uncertainty, a blinded sample size reestimation (BSSR) is recommended to adjust the sample size when necessary. In this article, we introduce a BSSR approach for count data outcomes with baseline covariates. Count outcomes are common in clinical trials and examples include the number of exacerbations in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, relapses, and scan lesions in multiple sclerosis and seizures in epilepsy. The introduced methods are based on Wald and likelihood ratio test statistics. The approaches are illustrated by a clinical trial in epilepsy. The BSSR procedures proposed are compared in a Monte Carlo simulation study and shown to yield power values close to the target while not inflating the type I error rate.

Immediate and controlled-release pregabalin for the treatment of epilepsy

Introduction: Epilepsy is a common neurological disease requiring complex therapies, which are unable to achieve seizure control in 30% of patients. Poor adherence has been recognized as a possible determinant of drug-resistance. Prolonged-release formulations of antiepileptic drugs might help increase adherence and minimize side effects.Areas covered: Pregabalin (PGB) has peculiar pharmacodynamics and almost ideal pharmacokinetics, except for a short half-life and therefore requiring multiple daily dosing. PGB immediate-release (IR) is effective in focal-onset epilepsy (FOE), neuropathic pain, generalized anxiety disorder, and fibromyalgia, despite some tolerability issues, especially at higher doses. The controlled-release formulation (CR) shares PGB IR advantages and requires slight dose adjustments to guarantee bioavailability. In 2014, PGB CR (165 and 330 mg/day) failed to prove superior to placebo in a randomized placebo-controlled trial on 323 subjects with drug-resistant FOE, although it was just as tolerable. Therefore, PGB CR is not currently licensed for epilepsy.Expert opinion: Considering the disappointing results of the only controlled trial, PGB CR is unlikely to become an established epilepsy treatment anytime soon. Nevertheless, given its peculiar properties and potential advantages, PGB (in either formulation) should be further evaluated in specific populations of patients, especially fragile subjects with several comorbidities and complex polytherapies.

Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one-third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs which have been developed to improve outcomes.This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2014, and includes three new studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), on 5 July 2018, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 5 July 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (5 July 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 5 July 2018), and contacted Pfizer Ltd, manufacturer of pregabalin, to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add-on for people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Double-blind and single-blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected and assessed trials for eligibility and extracted data. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Two review authors assessed the included studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine industry-sponsored randomised controlled trials (3327 participants) in the review. Seven trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.42, 7 trials, 2193 participants, low-certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose-response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.65, 7 trials, 2193 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.88 to 3.74, 7 trials, 2193 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).Three trials compared pregabalin to three active-control drugs: lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12, 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to levetiracetam (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11, 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12, 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) for seizure freedom, however, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add-on pregabalin compared to levetiracetam (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52), levetiracetam (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49), or gabapentin (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.07) for treatment withdrawal due to any reason or due to adverse effects (pregabalin versus lamotrigine: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.48; versus levetiracetam: RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.54; versus gabapentin: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.11). Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin.We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin, when used as an add-on drug for treatment-resistant focal epilepsy, is significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, however issues with tolerability were noted at higher doses. The trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision making.

Levetiracetam for epilepsy: an evidence map of efficacy, safety and economic profiles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and economics of levetiracetam (LEV) for epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, OpenGrey.eu and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case reports and economic studies published from January 2007 to April 2018. We used a bubble plot to graphically display information of included studies and conducted meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesize the evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 14,803 records were obtained. We included 30 SRs/meta-analyses, 34 RCTs, 18 observational studies, 58 case reports and 2 economic studies after the screening process. The included SRs enrolled patients with pediatric epilepsy, epilepsy in pregnancy, focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy and refractory focal epilepsy. Meta-analysis of the included RCTs indicated that LEV was as effective as carbamazepine (CBZ; treatment for 6 months: 58.9% vs 64.8%, OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.50-1.16; 12 months: 54.9% vs 55.5%, OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.79-1.93), oxcarbazepine (57.7% vs 59.8%, OR=1.34, 95% CI: 0.34-5.23), phenobarbital (50.0% vs 50.9%, OR=1.20, 95% CI: 0.51-2.82) and lamotrigine (LTG; 61.5% vs 57.7%, OR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.90-1.66). SRs and observational studies indicated a low malformation rate and intrauterine death rate for pregnant women, as well as low risk of cognitive side effects. But psychiatric and behavioral side effects could not be ruled out. LEV decreased discontinuation due to adverse events compared with CBZ (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.65), while no difference was found when LEV was compared with placebo and LTG. Two cost-effectiveness evaluations for refractory epilepsy with decision-tree model showed US$ 76.18 per seizure-free day gained in Canada and US$ 44 per seizure-free day gained in Korea.

CONCLUSION

LEV is as effective as CBZ, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital and LTG and has an advantage for pregnant women and in cognitive functions. Limited evidence supports its cost-effectiveness.

REGISTERED NUMBER

PROSPERO (No CRD 42017069367).

Reducing placebo exposure in trials: Considerations from the Research Roundtable in Epilepsy

The randomized controlled trial is the unequivocal gold standard for demonstrating clinical efficacy and safety of investigational therapies. Recently there have been concerns raised about prolonged exposure to placebo and ineffective therapy during the course of an add-on regulatory trial for new antiepileptic drug approval (typically ∼6 months in duration), due to the potential risks of continued uncontrolled epilepsy for that period. The first meeting of the Research Roundtable in Epilepsy on May 19-20, 2016, focused on "Reducing placebo exposure in epilepsy clinical trials," with a goal of considering new designs for epilepsy regulatory trials that may be added to the overall development plan to make it, as a whole, safer for participants while still providing rigorous evidence of effect. This topic was motivated in part by data from a meta-analysis showing a 3- to 5-fold increased rate of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy in participants randomized to placebo or ineffective doses of new antiepileptic drugs. The meeting agenda included rationale and discussion of different trial designs, including active-control add-on trials, placebo add-on to background therapy with adjustment, time to event designs, adaptive designs, platform trials with pooled placebo control, a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic approach to reducing placebo exposure, and shorter trials when drug tolerance has been ruled out. The merits and limitations of each design were discussed and are reviewed here.

Adjunctive pregabalin vs gabapentin for focal seizures: Interpretation of comparative outcomes

Objective:

To evaluate the comparative safety and adjunctive efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency in patients with partial-onset seizures based on prestudy modeling showing superior efficacy for pregabalin.

Methods:

The design of this comparative efficacy and safety study of pregabalin and gabapentin as adjunctive treatment in adults with refractory partial-onset seizures was randomized, flexible dose, double blind, and parallel group. The study included a 6-week baseline and a 21-week treatment phase. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate to the treatment phase.

Results:

A total of 484 patients were randomized to pregabalin (n = 242) or gabapentin (n = 242). Of these, 359 patients (187 pregabalin, 172 gabapentin) completed the treatment phase. The observed median and mean in percentage change from baseline was −58.65 and −47.7 (SD 48.3) for pregabalin and −57.43 and −45.28 (SD 60.6) for gabapentin. For the primary endpoint, there was no significant difference between treatments. The Hodges-Lehman estimated median difference was 0.0 (95% confidence interval −6.0 to 7.0). Safety profiles were comparable and consistent with prior trials.

Conclusions:

The absence of the anticipated efficacy difference based on modeling of prior, nearly identical trials and the larger-than-expected response rates of the 2 antiepileptic drugs were unexpected. These findings raise questions that are potentially important to consider in future comparative efficacy trials.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:

NCT00537940.

Classification of evidence:

This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with partial seizures enrolled in this study, pregabalin is not superior to gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency. Because of the atypical response rates, the results of this study are poorly generalizable to other epilepsy populations.

Not all that glitters is gold: A guide to the critical interpretation of drug trials in epilepsy

Clinical trials represent the best source of evidence on which to base treatment decisions. For such evidence to be utilized meaningfully, however, it is essential that results are interpreted correctly. This requires a good understanding of strengths and weaknesses of the adopted design, the clinical relevance of the outcome measures, and the many factors that could affect such outcomes. As a general rule, uncontrolled studies tend to provide misleading evidence as a result of the impact of confounders such as regression to the mean, patient‐related bias, and observer bias. On the other hand, although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are qualitatively superior, aspects of their execution may still decrease their validity. Bias and decreased validity in RCTs may occur by chance alone (for example, treatment groups may not necessarily be balanced for important variables despite randomization) or because of specific features of the trial design. In the case of industry‐driven studies, bias often influences the outcome in favor of the sponsor's product. Factors that need to be carefully scrutinized include (1) the purpose for which the trial is conducted; (2) potential bias due to unblinding or lack of blinding; (3) the appropriateness of the control group; (4) the power of the study in detecting clinically relevant differences; (5) the extent to which eligibility criteria could affect outcomes and be representative of routine clinical practice; (6) whether the treatments being compared are used optimally in terms of dosing, duration of treatment, and other variables; (7) the appropriateness of the statistical comparisons; (8) the clinical relevance of the outcome measures and whether all key outcome information is reported (for example, responder rates in completers); and (9) potential bias in the way results are presented and discussed. This article discusses each of these aspects and illustrates the discussion with examples taken from published antiepileptic drug trials.

Justification for conducting neurological clinical trials as part of patient care within private practice

The aim of this review was to assess the benefits and drawbacks of conducting neurological clinical trials and research in private practice for the patients, clinician, Practice Manager, sponsors/Clinical Research Organisations (CROs) and Clinical Trial Coordinator (CTC) to determine if this is justified for all involved. A combination of literature reviews, original research articles and books were selected from 2005 to 2015. Provided that the practice has sufficient number of active trials to prevent financial loss, support staff, adequate facilities and equipment and time, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Clinical trials provide patients with more thorough monitoring, re-imbursement of trial-related expenses and the opportunity to try an innovative treatment at no charge when other options have failed. For the clinician, clinical trials provide more information to ensure better care for their patients and improved treatment methods, technical experience and global recognition. Trials collect detailed and up-to-date information on the benefits and risks of drugs, improving society's confidence in clinical research and pharmaceuticals, allow trial sponsors to explore new scientific questions and accelerate innovation. For the CTC, industry-sponsored clinical trials allow potential entry for a career in clinical research giving CTCs the opportunity to become Clinical Research Associates (CRAs), Study Start-Up Managers or Drug Safety Associates.

The effects of antiepileptic drugs on cognitive functional magnetic resonance imaging

The cognitive dysfunction caused by antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) has been extensively described, although the mechanisms underlying such collateral effects are still poorly understood. The combination of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies with pharmacological intervention (pharmaco-MRI or ph-MRI) offers the opportunity to investigate the effect of drugs such as AEDs on brain activity, including cognitive tasks. Here we review the studies that investigated the effects of AEDs [topiramate (TPM), lamotrigine (LMT), carbamazepine (CBZ), pregabalin (PGB), valproate (VPA) and levetiracetam (LEV)] on cognitive fMRI tasks. Despite the scarcity of fMRI studies focusing on the impact of AEDs on cognitive task, the results of recent work have provided important information about specific drug-related changes of brain function.