New generation antiepileptic drugs: what do they offer in terms of improved tolerability and safety?

Over the last two decades a total of 11 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been introduced to the US market. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials have yielded information about each drug's efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile; however, few studies have compared the newer generation AEDs directly with the older generation. Comparative studies are not always straightforward in their interpretation, as many characteristics of drugs, both favorable and unfavorable, may not be highlighted by such studies. In general, findings from the literature suggest that the newer generation AEDs (including vigabatrin, felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, tiagabine, topiramate, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, zonisamide, pregabalin, rufinamide, and lacosamide) enjoy both improved tolerability and safety compared with older agents such as phenobarbital, phenytoin, carbamazepine, and valproate. This is partially supported by some of the findings of the QSS and the TTA Committee of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), whose review of four AEDs (gabapentin, lamotrigine, topiramate, and tiagabine) is discussed. Briefly, when compared with carbamazepine, lamotrigine was better tolerated; topiramate adverse events (AEs) were fairly comparable to carbamazepine and valproate; and tiagabine compared with placebo was associated with a higher discontinuation rate due to AEs. The findings of the SANAD trial are also presented; when administered to patients with partial epilepsy, carbamazepine was most likely to fail due to AEs, and lamotrigine and gabapentin were least likely to fail due to AEs. When administered to patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy, topiramate was most frequently associated with AE-related discontinuation, followed by valproate; and while valproate was the most efficacious drug in this arm of the study, lamotrigine was more tolerable. What makes the SANAD study valuable and somewhat unique is its head-to-head comparison of one drug with another. Such comparative trials are overall lacking for new AEDs, although some conclusions can be drawn from the available data. In the end, however, AED selection must be based on individual patient and drug characteristics.

Forensic antiepileptic drug levels in autopsy cases of epilepsy

A 1-year retrospective coroner-based forensic examination of causes of death among persons with a history of epilepsy was conducted at the Allegheny County Coroner's Office to evaluate the phenomenon of sudden unexplained/unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), a diagnosis of exclusion. All cases at the Coroner's Office from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, were examined. Review of a total of 1200 autopsied deaths revealed 12 cases with a past medical history of seizure disorder on the death certificate, which listed seizure disorder as the immediate cause of death or contributory cause of the death. Of the 7 men with seizure disorders, 5 were categorized as definite SUDEP and 2 as possible SUDEP. Of the 5 women with seizure disorders, 2 were listed as definite SUDEP, 2 as possible, and 1 as non-SUDEP because the convulsive seizures developed from a grade II glial tumor. Postmortem findings were evaluated for 11 cases; 1 body was decomposed. Toxicological screens were carried out on blood, bile, urine, and eye fluid for all 12. Antiepileptic drug (AED) levels detected in postmortem toxicological analysis were examined. AED levels were determined in 7 cases. Four of 7 had subtherapeutic AED levels, 2 had therapeutic levels, and only 1 victim of SUDEP had levels above the therapeutic range. Five cases had no detectable AED levels. AED levels at autopsy were either absent or subtherapeutic in 9 of 10 SUDEP cases, findings consistent with the likelihood of poor AED compliance. Subtherapeutic levels of AEDs may be a risk factor for SUDEP that could contribute to increased interictal and/or ictal epileptiform activity with associated autonomic dysfunction leading to disturbance of heart rate, heart rhythm, and/or blood pressure.

Epilepsy and sudden death: personal reflections and call for global action

To solve the mystery of sudden unexpected death in persons with epilepsy (SUDEP), a global focus is needed to identify persons at risk, develop treatment regimens, and prevent its occurrence. A world wide network of professionals must focus on basic scientific research programs and clinical and epidemiology studies. Team work among different multidisciplinary professionals in clinical settings and within and among laboratories should address the global issues of SUDEP. If the correct term 'SUDEP' is used on autopsy reports and if verbal autopsies postmortem are conducted when needed, the true incidence of SUDEP may be found to be much higher than previously thought and the market for new antiepileptics and other drugs to prevent SUDEP will be larger. Symposia should discuss new data and lessons learned from the last 20 to 30 years to be applied by scientists and clinicians worldwide to gain a better understanding of SUDEP. 'Think out of the box' when evaluating an established animal model with potential for modification(s) to study mechanism(s) of SUDEP. Multiple relevant animal models are needed to understand the pathophysiology of SUDEP, hypothesize about effective treatments, develop small pilot studies in persons with epilepsy, and conduct confirmatory large-scale clinical trials. The fields of pharmacology, clinical pharmacology, and cardiology have much to offer as we work to improve compliance, develop new antiepileptic drugs, and apply different categories of drugs to resolve the mystery of SUDEP. Ambulatory simultaneous EKG and EEG telemetry monitoring of patients at risk for sudden death will help identify cardiac vs. brain epileptogenic triggers for treatment to decrease risk of SUDEP. Respiratory function monitoring is also needed. Academic fellowships and competitions for medical students, postdoctoral fellows, residents and faculty will attract medical and graduate trainees to work on SUDEP. Grant funding is essential to move the SUDEP knowledge base forward. Leaders must solve the global mystery of SUDEP using a leadership philosophy foundation that provides innovative vision and approaches for SUDEP research and teaching programs. The interaction of teaching and research is essential: while a student is learning how to conduct research he must simultaneously learn to become a teacher. Medical and graduate leaders must provide vision and a fertile environment to teach students of today to become the self learners and leaders of tomorrow to find solutions for SUDEP.

Comparative cognitive effects of levetiracetam and topiramate in intractable epilepsy

AIM

Anti-epileptic drugs (AED) may cause cognitive impairment. Because intractable epilepsy (IE) represents a distinct group, the purpose of the present study was to study the comparative cognitive effects of the two efficacious AED, levetiracetam (LEV) and topiramate (TPM), on IE.

METHODS

This was a non-randomized, blinded cognitive assessment and parallel design. The cognitive effects of LEV and TPM on 79 demographically comparable patients with IE were assessed at baseline (T1) and after 1 year of treatment (T2) using the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument.

RESULTS

Forty patients took TPM and 39 took LEV. At T1, seizure frequency, number of AED, and epilepsy duration were not significantly different. There were no significant differences in cognition between the two groups at T1 or T2. T2 orientation scores were lower than T1 scores in the TPM group (P < 0.05). In the TPM subgroup with T1 cognitive abnormalities, T2 scores for recent memory improved (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with IE, LEV might preserve cognition, TPM's effects for patients with baseline cognitive abnormalities are worth observation.

The mystery of sudden death: mechanisms for risks

This review addresses the possible overlapping mechanisms that may apply to the risk of sudden unexpected death occurring in epilepsy and in cardiac disease. It explores the interaction between the central and peripheral autonomic nervous systems and the cardiopulmonary systems. Included is a discussion of the potential interactive role of genetically determined subtle cardiac risk factors for arrhythmias with a predisposition for seizure-related cardiac arrhythmias. We address the possible mechanisms that are operant in producing both epileptogenic and cardiogenic arrhythmias. Finally, we speculate about potential preventive measures to minimize the risk of both sudden unexpected death in epilepsy and sudden cardiac death.

Comparative retention rates and long-term tolerability of new antiepileptic drugs

OBJECTIVE

Retention rates of five new anti-epileptic medications (AEDs) were compared in order to evaluate their long-term tolerability and efficacy.

METHOD

We acquired the retention data on levetiracetam (LEV), lamotrigine (LTG), oxcarbazepine (OXC), topiramate (TPM), and zonisamide (ZNS) from the electronic database. The data included patient's age, gender, seizure type, current and previous medications, dosage, main reasons for discontinuation, and duration of therapy. The retention rates of these AEDs were evaluated at 4, 12, 24, 52, and 104 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 828 new AED exposures were obtained (LEV=196, LTG=251, OXC=97, TPM=156, ZNS=128) from patients with partial or generalized epilepsy. At 2 years, retention rate was highest with LTG (74.1%), followed by ZNS (60.2%), OXC (58.8%), LEV (53.6%), and TPM (44.2%). When these AEDs were discontinued, it was mainly due to inefficacy (29.5%) and sedating side-effects (20.5%), and commonly within 6 months into therapy. Several important AED specific side-effects leading to discontinuation were identified, including behavioral or irritability from LEV, rash from LTG and OXC, nausea from OXC and ZNS, hyponatremia from OXC, and kidney stones from TPM and ZNS.

CONCLUSION

Comparing retention rates of new AEDs can provide useful insight into their tolerability and efficacy. This study showed highest retention rate with LTG, which was significantly different from ZNS (p=0.0025), LEV (p<0.0001), OXC (p=0.0024), and TPM (p<0.0001). Beside ineffectiveness, other leading causes of discontinuation were adverse behavioral effects with LEV, rash with LTG and OXC, and sedation for TPM and ZNS.

Effects of topiramate on methamphetamine-induced changes in attentional and perceptual-motor skills of cognition in recently abstinent methamphetamine-dependent individuals

Methamphetamine-dependent individuals often cite the need to maintain enhanced cognitive performance and attention as a reason for continuing or relapsing to drug-taking. Further, methamphetamine addicts might not comply with taking a potentially therapeutic medication if it had a profound effect on these cognitive processes. Topiramate, a sulfamate-substituted fructopyranose derivative, has been suggested as a putative therapeutic medication for treating methamphetamine dependence. Examination of topiramate's effects on cognitive performance and attention is a clinically and scientifically important component of understanding its potential therapeutic profile. In 10 male and female individuals who met DSM-IV criteria for methamphetamine dependence, we examined the effects of low (50 mg b.i.d.)- and high (100 mg b.i.d.)-dose topiramate - in both the presence and absence of low (15 mg)- and high (30 mg)-dose intravenous methamphetamine--on cognitive performance, attention, and concentration on the rapid visual information processing task and the digit symbol substitution test. Intravenous methamphetamine enhanced cognitive performance, attention, and concentration among recently withdrawn methamphetamine addicts--an effect that hitherto had not been well characterized. Topiramate's cognitive effects were mixed and rather paradoxical, with a tendency to improve attention and concentration both alone and in the presence of methamphetamine while worsening psychomotor retardation. No deleterious interaction occurred between topiramate and methamphetamine on any of these cognitive processes. While clinical studies with topiramate should prepare participants for possible psychomotor retardation, the cognitive effects profile observed would not likely present an important obstacle to compliance in motivated patients. Topiramate's complicated cognitive effects among methamphetamine addicts need more comprehensive examination.

Prescribing antiepileptic drugs: should patients be switched on the basis of cost?

To assess the costs of switching from one antiepileptic drug (AED) to another, all associated direct and indirect costs, not only drug acquisition costs, must be considered. The perspective of the healthcare system evaluated in cost-effectiveness analysis is of crucial importance. Multiple clinical factors can influence clinical decisions regarding switching AEDs. The economic cost of poorly controlled epilepsy is enormous and the most cost-effective intervention is an AED that provides total seizure control. Cost-minimisation studies have evaluated costs associated with various medications. If only efficacy and adverse events were considered, then the 'older' AEDs were generally more cost effective than the 'newer' AEDs. Most studies only examine very specific clinical situations and are not suitable for establishing general clinical recommendations. The pharmacoeconomics of AED choice is highly country specific. While switching to generic formulations is, in general, cost effective, some changes may be detrimental and more costly than remaining on the trade name preparation. For example, as a result of differences in bioavailability and possible loss of seizure control, changing patients to generic phenytoin and carbamazepine can be problematic. Fosphenytoin may only be cost effective in certain clinical situations compared with intravenous phenytoin. Seizure control should not be sacrificed on the basis of costs alone, as the major endpoint in treating epilepsy with AEDs is seizure control without adverse effects. Switching AEDs in clinical practice still depends on the individual clinical situation and choosing AED therapy solely on the basis of initial acquisition costs is unlikely to be cost effective in the long-term care of patients with epilepsy.

Management of epileptic seizures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acquired epileptic seizures are common in cancer patients. They heavily impact on the quality of life and may affect survival. Most patients are medically treated, but the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in neuro-oncology is complicated by serious specific side effects and interference of AEDs with other commonly prescribed drugs such as chemotherapeutic agents and corticosteroids. The main purpose of this review is to help the clinician to select the most appropriate drug or drug combination, and to minimize drug side effects and drug interactions in epilepsy treatment of cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Considerable progress has been achieved recently in epileptology. They include the development of new AEDs and better understanding of their subcellular mechanism of action and of drug interactions. Most studies concerning the efficacy of AEDs have not been performed specifically in neuro-oncological patients, and the extrapolation of their results to tumor-related epilepsy requires some caution. The most significant findings specific to tumor-related epilepsy are (a) the indication that their pathogenesis may be due to a decrease of focal GABA-ergic inhibition, and (b) the guidelines for prophylaxis based on a report by a subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

SUMMARY

The quality of life of epileptic patients has been improved by both a better control of seizures and the use of drugs with fewer side effects. Cancer patients probably benefit from this progress. However, treatment of tumor-related epilepsy faces several specific problems, and there is a real need for conducting clinical trials restricted to cancer patients.