Anthony G Marson

De novo mutations in epileptic encephalopathies

Epileptic encephalopathies are a devastating group of severe childhood epilepsy disorders for which the cause is often unknown. Here we report a screen for de novo mutations in patients with two classical epileptic encephalopathies: infantile spasms (n = 149) and Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (n = 115). We sequenced the exomes of 264 probands, and their parents, and confirmed 329 de novo mutations. A likelihood analysis showed a significant excess of de novo mutations in the ∼4,000 genes that are the most intolerant to functional genetic variation in the human population (P = 2.9 × 10−3). Among these are GABRB3, with de novo mutations in four patients, and ALG13, with the same de novo mutation in two patients; both genes show clear statistical evidence of association with epileptic encephalopathy. Given the relevant site-specific mutation rates, the probabilities of these outcomes occurring by chance are P = 4.1 × 10−10 and P = 7.8 × 10−12, respectively. Other genes with de novo mutations in this cohort include CACNA1A, CHD2, FLNA, GABRA1, GRIN1, GRIN2B, HNRNPU, IQSEC2, MTOR and NEDD4L. Finally, we show that the de novo mutations observed are enriched in specific gene sets including genes regulated by the fragile X protein (P < 10−8), as has been reported previously for autism spectrum disorders.

The SANAD study of effectiveness of carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate for treatment of partial epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Carbamazepine is widely accepted as a drug of first choice for patients with partial onset seizures. Several newer drugs possess efficacy against these seizure types but previous randomised controlled trials have failed to inform a choice between these drugs. We aimed to assess efficacy with regards to longer-term outcomes, quality of life, and health economic outcomes. METHODS SANAD was an unblinded randomised controlled trial in hospital-based outpatient clinics in the UK. Arm A recruited 1721 patients for whom carbamazepine was deemed to be standard treatment, and they were randomly assigned to receive carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate. Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure, and time to 12-months remission, and assessment was by both intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN38354748. FINDINGS For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was significantly better than carbamazepine (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95% CI 0.63-0.97]), gabapentin (0.65 [0.52-0.80]), and topiramate (0.64 [0.52-0.79]), and had a non-significant advantage compared with oxcarbazepine (1.15 [0.86-1.54]). For time to 12-month remission carbamazepine was significantly better than gabapentin (0.75 [0.63-0.90]), and estimates suggest a non-significant advantage for carbamazepine against lamotrigine (0.91 [0.77-1.09]), topiramate (0.86 [0.72-1.03]), and oxcarbazepine (0.92 [0.73-1.18]). In a per-protocol analysis, at 2 and 4 years the difference (95% CI) in the proportion achieving a 12-month remission (lamotrigine-carbamazepine) is 0 (-8 to 7) and 5 (-3 to 12), suggesting non-inferiority of lamotrigine compared with carbamazepine. INTERPRETATION Lamotrigine is clinically better than carbamazepine, the standard drug treatment, for time to treatment failure outcomes and is therefore a cost-effective alternative for patients diagnosed with partial onset seizures.

The SANAD study of effectiveness of valproate, lamotrigine, or topiramate for generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Valproate is widely accepted as a drug of first choice for patients with generalised onset seizures, and its broad spectrum of efficacy means it is recommended for patients with seizures that are difficult to classify. Lamotrigine and topiramate are also thought to possess broad spectrum activity. The SANAD study aimed to compare the longer-term effects of these drugs in patients with generalised onset seizures or seizures that are difficult to classify. METHODS SANAD was an unblinded randomised controlled trial in hospital-based outpatient clinics in the UK. Arm B of the study recruited 716 patients for whom valproate was considered to be standard treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to valproate, lamotrigine, or topiramate between Jan 12, 1999, and Aug 31, 2004, and follow-up data were obtained up to Jan 13, 2006. Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure, and time to 1-year remission, and analysis was by both intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN38354748. FINDINGS For time to treatment failure, valproate was significantly better than topiramate (hazard ratio 1.57 [95% CI 1.19-2.08]), but there was no significant difference between valproate and lamotrigine (1.25 [0.94-1.68]). For patients with an idiopathic generalised epilepsy, valproate was significantly better than both lamotrigine (1.55 [1.07-2.24] and topiramate (1.89 [1.32-2.70]). For time to 12-month remission valproate was significantly better than lamotrigine overall (0.76 [0.62-0.94]), and for the subgroup with an idiopathic generalised epilepsy 0.68 (0.53-0.89). But there was no significant difference between valproate and topiramate in either the analysis overall or for the subgroup with an idiopathic generalised epilepsy. INTERPRETATION Valproate is better tolerated than topiramate and more efficacious than lamotrigine, and should remain the drug of first choice for many patients with generalised and unclassified epilepsies. However, because of known potential adverse effects of valproate during pregnancy, the benefits for seizure control in women of childbearing years should be considered.

Immediate versus deferred antiepileptic drug treatment for early epilepsy and single seizures: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND The relative risks and benefits of starting or withholding antiepileptic drug treatment in patients with few or infrequent seizures are unclear. We sought to compare policies of immediate versus deferred treatment in such patients and to assess the effects of these policies on short-term recurrence and long-term outcomes. METHODS We undertook an unmasked, multicentre, randomised study of immediate and deferred antiepileptic drug treatment in 1847 patients with single seizures and early epilepsy. Outcomes comprised time to first, second, and fifth seizures; time to 2-year remission; no seizures between years 1 and 3 and between years 3 and 5 after randomisation; and quality of life. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS 404 patients invited to join the trial did not consent to randomisation; 722 were subsequently assigned immediate treatment with antiepileptic drugs and 721 were assigned deferred treatment. Immediate treatment increased time to first seizure (hazard ratio 1.4 [95% CI 1.2 to 1.7]), second seizure (1.3 [1.1 to 1.6]), and first tonic-clonic seizure (1.5 [1.2 to 1.8]). It also reduced the time to achieve 2-year remission of seizures (p=0.023). At 5-years follow-up, 76% of patients in the immediate treatment group and 77% of those in the deferred treatment group were seizure free between 3 and 5 years after randomisation (difference -0.2% [95% CI -5.8% to 5.5%]). The two policies did not differ with respect to quality of life outcomes or serious complications. INTERPRETATION Immediate antiepileptic drug treatment reduces the occurrence of seizures in the next 1-2 years, but does not affect long-term remission in individuals with single or infrequent seizures.

New antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of their efficacy and tolerability

Abstract Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the newly developed antiepileptic drugs gabapentin, lamotrigine, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, and zonisamide in patients with refractory partial epilepsy. Design: Systematic review of published and unpublished randomised controlled trials of add-on treatment with new antiepileptic drugs. Subjects: 20 published and eight unpublished trials representing 3883 patients with refractory partial epilepsy. Main outcome measures: Proportion of patients who (a) showed 50% or greater reduction in frequency of seizures (50% responders) and (b) withdrew from each study for any reason. Results: Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) relative to placebo for 50% responders were 2.29 (1.53 to 3.43) for gabapentin, 2.32 (1.47 to 3.68) for lamotrigine, 3.03 (2.01 to 4.58) for tiagabine, 4.22 (2.80 to 6.35) for topiramate, 3.68 (2.45 to 5.51) for vigabatrin, and 2.47 (1.36 to 4.47) for zonisamide. Odds ratios for withdrawal were 1.36 (0.75 to 2.49) for gabapentin, 1.19 (0.79 to 1.79) for lamotrigine, 1.81 (1.21 to 2.70) for tiagabine, 2.42 (1.43 to 4.11) for topiramate, 2.58 (1.26 to 5.27) for vigabatrin, and 5.70 (1.76 to 18.49) for zonisamide. Comparing results for each drug showed that all of the 95% confidence intervals overlapped, indicating that they were not significantly different in terms of efficacy and tolerability. Conclusions: All six drugs were significantly better than placebo at reducing frequency of seizures. These results do not allow an evidence based choice between these drugs as we have no conclusive indication of differences in efficacy or tolerability. Key messages At present there is insufficient evidence to guide a choice between these new treatments We systematically reviewed randomised placebo controlled studies of supplementary gabapentin, lamotrigine, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, and zonisamide Each drug was significantly better than placebo at preventing seizures, but none was significantly different from the others in terms of efficacy or tolerability, though the confidence intervals were wide Randomised trials comparing active treatments are needed to further evaluate these drugs

Prediction of risk of seizure recurrence after a single seizure and early epilepsy: further results from the MESS trial

BACKGROUND The MRC Multicentre trial for Early Epilepsy and Single Seizures (MESS) showed a reduced risk of further seizures in patients, for whom treatment with antiepileptic drugs was uncertain, who were randomly assigned immediate treatment compared with delayed treatment. However, there was no evidence of an effect on [corrected] long-term remission rates. This study was undertaken to assess the role of patient characteristics and treatment in the prediction of seizure recurrence. This will enable decision-making on the basis of the perceived risk of treatment compared with the benefit of reducing the risk of further seizures in the initial years after diagnosis. METHODS A prognostic model was developed based on individual patient data from MESS to enable identification of patients at low, medium, or high risk of seizure recurrence. A split-sample approach was used in which the model was developed on a subsample of the full data and validated on the remainder of the sample. Distinction of the prognostic groups and predictive accuracy of the model were assessed. FINDINGS Number of seizures of all types at presentation, presence of a neurological disorder, and an abnormal electroencephalogram (EEG) were significant factors in indicating future seizures. Individuals with two or three seizures, a neurological disorder, or an abnormal EEG were identified as the medium-risk group, those with two of these features or more than three seizures as the high-risk group, and those with a single seizure only as the low-risk group. INTERPRETATION The model shows that there is little benefit to immediate treatment in patients at low risk of seizure recurrence, but potentially worthwhile benefits are seen in those at medium and high risk.

Patients with epilepsy: Cognitively compromised before the start of antiepileptic drug treatment?

Purpose:  To compare the cognitive profile of newly diagnosed untreated epilepsy patients with healthy volunteers using a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery.

HLA genotype and carbamazepine-induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions: a systematic review.

Carbamazepine (CBZ) therapy is associated with cutaneous adverse reactions in up to 10% of patients. Predisposition to these hypersensitivity reactions has been linked to the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotype. This systematic review determines the strength of these associations and accuracy of proposed genetic screening. We determined that carriage of HLA‐B*1502 in Asian patients was associated with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 113.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 51.2–251.0, P < 1 × 10−5) for CBZ‐induced Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). A total of 461 patients would need to be screened for HLA‐B*1502 to prevent one episode of SJS/TEN. HLA‐A*3101 is significantly associated with all phenotypes of CBZ hypersensitivity in multiple ethnicities with a pooled OR of 9.5 (95% CI = 6.4–13.9, P < 1 × 10−5). Between 47 and 67 patients would need to be tested for HLA‐A*3101 to prevent one episode of hypersensitivity. Our findings suggest that HLA testing before carbamazepine therapy would be effective at identifying individuals at risk of hypersensitivity and applicable to multiple populations providing hope for prevention in the future.

Prevalence of visual field loss following exposure to vigabatrin therapy: A systematic review

Purpose:  Vigabatrin is an efficacious antiepileptic drug licensed as add‐on therapy in refractory epilepsy and used in infantile spasms. Eight years after licensing, there emerged a strong and possibly causative association with bilateral visual field loss. We report a systematic review ascertaining the magnitude of risk of vigabatrin associated visual field loss (VAVFL) and any clinical predictors of risk.

Valproate in the treatment of epilepsy in girls and women of childbearing potential

This document provides guidance on the use of valproate in girls and women of childbearing age from a joint Task Force of the Commission on European Affairs of the International League Against Epilepsy (CEA‐ILAE) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN), following strengthened warnings from the Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures‐Human (CMDh) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which highlight the risk of malformations and developmental problems in infants who are exposed to valproate in the womb. To produce these recommendations, the Task Force has considered teratogenic risks associated with use of valproate and treatment alternatives, the importance of seizure control and of patient and fetal risks with seizures, and the effectiveness of valproate and treatment alternatives in the treatment of different epilepsies. The Task Forces recommendations include the following: (1) Where possible, valproate should be avoided in women of childbearing potential. (2) The choice of treatment for girls and women of childbearing potential should be based on a shared decision between clinician and patient, and where appropriate, the patients representatives. Discussions should include a careful risk–benefit assessment of reasonable treatment options for the patients seizure or epilepsy type. (3) For seizure (or epilepsy) types where valproate is the most effective treatment, the risks and benefits of valproate and other treatment alternatives should be discussed. (4) Valproate should not be prescribed as a first‐line treatment for focal epilepsy. (5) Valproate may be offered as a first‐line treatment for epilepsy syndromes where it is the most effective treatment, including idiopathic (genetic) generalized syndromes associated with tonic–clonic seizures. (6) Valproate may be offered as a first‐line treatment in situations where pregnancy is highly unlikely (e.g., significant intellectual or physical disability). (7) Women and girls taking valproate require regular follow‐up for ongoing consideration of the most appropriate treatment regimen.