Martin J. Brodie

Early Identification of Refractory Epilepsy

BACKGROUND More than 30 percent of patients with epilepsy have inadequate control of seizures with drug therapy, but why this happens and whether it can be predicted are unknown. We studied the response to antiepileptic drugs in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy to identify factors associated with subsequent poor control of seizures. METHODS We prospectively studied 525 patients (age, 9 to 93 years) who were given a diagnosis, treated, and followed up at a single center between 1984 and 1997. Epilepsy was classified as idiopathic (with a presumed genetic basis), symptomatic (resulting from a structural abnormality), or cryptogenic (resulting from an unknown underlying cause). Patients were considered to be seizure-free if they had not had any seizures for at least one year. RESULTS Among the 525 patients, 333 (63 percent) remained seizure-free during antiepileptic-drug treatment or after treatment was stopped. The prevalence of persistent seizures was higher in patients with symptomatic or cryptogenic epilepsy than in those with idiopathic epilepsy (40 percent vs. 26 percent, P=0.004) and in patients who had had more than 20 seizures before starting treatment than in those who had had fewer (51 percent vs. 29 percent, P<0.001). The seizure-free rate was similar in patients who were treated with a single established drug (67 percent) and patients who were treated with a single new drug (69 percent). Among 470 previously untreated patients, 222 (47 percent) became seizure-free during treatment with their first antiepileptic drug and 67 (14 percent) became seizure-free during treatment with a second or third drug. In 12 patients (3 percent) epilepsy was controlled by treatment with two drugs. Among patients who had no response to the first drug, the percentage who subsequently became seizure-free was smaller (11 percent) when treatment failure was due to lack of efficacy than when it was due to intolerable side effects (41 percent) or an idiosyncratic reaction (55 percent). CONCLUSIONS Patients who have many seizures before therapy or who have an inadequate response to initial treatment with antiepileptic drugs are likely to have refractory epilepsy.

Revised terminology and concepts for organization of seizures and epilepsies: report of the ILAE Commission on Classification and Terminology, 2005-2009.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Commission on Classification and Terminology has revised concepts, terminology, and approaches for classifying seizures and forms of epilepsy. Generalized and focal are redefined for seizures as occurring in and rapidly engaging bilaterally distributed networks (generalized) and within networks limited to one hemisphere and either discretely localized or more widely distributed (focal). Classification of generalized seizures is simplified. No natural classification for focal seizures exists; focal seizures should be described according to their manifestations (e.g., dyscognitive, focal motor). The concepts of generalized and focal do not apply to electroclinical syndromes. Genetic, structural–metabolic, and unknown represent modified concepts to replace idiopathic, symptomatic, and cryptogenic. Not all epilepsies are recognized as electroclinical syndromes. Organization of forms of epilepsy is first by specificity: electroclinical syndromes, nonsyndromic epilepsies with structural–metabolic causes, and epilepsies of unknown cause. Further organization within these divisions can be accomplished in a flexible manner depending on purpose. Natural classes (e.g., specific underlying cause, age at onset, associated seizure type), or pragmatic groupings (e.g., epileptic encephalopathies, self‐limited electroclinical syndromes) may serve as the basis for organizing knowledge about recognized forms of epilepsy and facilitate identification of new forms.

Definition of drug resistant epilepsy: consensus proposal by the ad hoc Task Force of the ILAE Commission on Therapeutic Strategies.

To improve patient care and facilitate clinical research, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) appointed a Task Force to formulate a consensus definition of drug resistant epilepsy. The overall framework of the definition has two “hierarchical” levels: Level 1 provides a general scheme to categorize response to each therapeutic intervention, including a minimum dataset of knowledge about the intervention that would be needed; Level 2 provides a core definition of drug resistant epilepsy using a set of essential criteria based on the categorization of response (from Level 1) to trials of antiepileptic drugs. It is proposed as a testable hypothesis that drug resistant epilepsy is defined as failure of adequate trials of two tolerated, appropriately chosen and used antiepileptic drug schedules (whether as monotherapies or in combination) to achieve sustained seizure freedom. This definition can be further refined when new evidence emerges. The rationale behind the definition and the principles governing its proper use are discussed, and examples to illustrate its application in clinical practice are provided.

Double-blind comparison of lamotrigine and carbamazepine in newly diagnosed epilepsy

Lamotrigine has been licensed widely as adjunctive therapy for partial and secondary generalised seizures. Use of the drug as monotherapy was investigated in a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group comparison with carbamazepine in newly diagnosed epilepsy. After 4 weeks of planned, fixed dose escalation, doses were adjusted according to efficacy, adverse events, and plasma concentrations. 151 of 260 patients (131 lamotrigine, 129 carbamazepine) in eight UK centres completed the 48-week trial. No differences in efficacy between the drugs were found for partial seizures with or without secondary generalisation or for primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures. The proportion of patients maintained seizure-free during the last 24 weeks of treatment was almost the same in both groups (39% lamotrigine, 38% carbamazepine). More patients with primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures (47% both groups) than those presenting with a focal onset (35%, 37%) were fully controlled. Overall, fewer patients on lamotrigine than on carbamazepine withdrew because of adverse events (15 vs 27%). The commonest side-effect leading to withdrawal with either drug was rash (9%, 13%). Sleepiness was less common in lamotrigine than in carbamazepine recipients (12 vs 22%, p < 0.05). More lamotrigine than carbamazepine recipients (65 vs 51%, p = 0.018) completed the study (hazard ratio 1.57 [95% CI 1.07-2.31]). Lamotrigine and carbamazepine showed similar efficacy against partial onset seizures and primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures in newly diagnosed epilepsy. Lamotrigine, however, was better tolerated.

Multicentre, double-blind, randomised comparison between lamotrigine and carbamazepine in elderly patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy

In a multicentre, double-blind trial 150 elderly patients (mean age 77 years) with newly diagnosed epilepsy were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with lamotrigine (LTG) or carbamazepine (CBZ). Following a short titration period, the dosage was individualised for each patient while maintaining the blind over the next 24 weeks. The main difference between the groups was the rate of drop-out due to adverse events (LTG 18% versus CBZ 42%). This was in part a consequence of the lower rash rate with LTG (LTG 3%, CBZ 19%; 95% CI 7-25%). LTG-treated patients also complained less frequently of somnolence (LTG 12%, CBZ 29%; 95% CI 4-30%). Although there was no difference between the drugs in time to first seizure, a greater percentage of LTG-treated patients remained seizure-free during the last 16 weeks of treatment (LTG 39%, CBZ 21%; P = 0.027). Overall, more patients continued on treatment with LTG than CBZ (LTG 71%, CBZ 42%; P < 0.001) for the duration of the study. The hazard ratio for withdrawal was 2.4 (95% CI 1.4-4.0) indicating that a patient treated with CBZ was more than twice as likely to come off medication than one taking LTG. In conclusion, LTG can be regarded as an acceptable choice as initial treatment for elderly patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

Nearly a quarter of patients with seizures have drug-resistant epilepsy. This review examines how this diagnosis should be established and how to recognize pseudoresistance. It explains possible mechanisms of drug-resistant epilepsy and presents treatment strategies.

New Antiepileptic Drugs

No fewer than eight new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with diverse mechanisms of action have been introduced into clinical practice in the 1990s. Short monographs on lamotrigine, vigabatrin, gabapentin, oxcarbazepine, felbamate, topiramate and vigabatrin have been prepared for this review. Details are provided of mechanisms of action, clinical pharmacokinetics and adverse drug interactions. Each section concentrates on the efficacy, tolerability and practical use of these drugs. The areas where they have potential for superiority over the established AEDs have been highlighted. Specific indications and dosage schedules have been provided. As many of these AEDs have, as yet, limited licences, an attempt has been made to identify ongoing studies and important omissions. Where possible, the eventual place of the new agent in the pharmacological management of epilepsy has been assessed. A more limited summary has been included of zonisamide which, although licensed in Japan, is still regarded as an investigational drug elsewhere. Short discussions of three of the most promising investigational compounds, namely remacemide, losigamone and levetiracetam, complete the picture.

Patterns of treatment response in newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Objective: To delineate the temporal patterns of outcome and to determine the probability of seizure freedom with successive antiepileptic drug regimens in newly diagnosed epilepsy. Methods: Patients in whom epilepsy was diagnosed and the first antiepileptic drug prescribed between July 1, 1982, and April 1, 2006, were followed up until March 31, 2008. Outcomes were categorized into 4 patterns: A) early and sustained seizure freedom; B) delayed but sustained seizure freedom; C) fluctuation between periods of seizure freedom and relapse; and D) seizure freedom never attained. Probability of seizure freedom with successive drug regimens was compared. Seizure freedom was defined as no seizures for ≥1 year. Results: A total of 1,098 patients were included (median age 32 years, range 9–93). At the last clinic visit, 749 (68%) patients were seizure-free, 678 (62%) on monotherapy. Outcome pattern A was observed in 408 (37%), pattern B in 246 (22%), pattern C in 172 (16%), and pattern D in 272 (25%) patients. There was a higher probability of seizure freedom in patients receiving 1 compared to 2 drug regimens, and 2 compared to 3 regimens (p < 0.001). The difference was greater among patients with symptomatic or cryptogenic than with idiopathic epilepsy. Less than 2% of patients became seizure-free on subsequent regimens but a few did so on their sixth or seventh regimen. Conclusions: Most patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy had a constant course which could usually be predicted early. The chance of seizure freedom declined with successive drug regimens, most markedly from the first to the third and among patients with localization-related epilepsies.

Neuropsychological effects of epilepsy and antiepileptic drugs

Epilepsy and its treatment can have deleterious cognitive and behavioural consequences. Affected individuals have a higher prevalence of neuropsychological dysfunction than the general population because of complex interactions among several multifaceted and overlapping influences--for example, underlying neuropathologies, ictal and interictal neuronal discharges, a plethora of antiepileptic drugs, and numerous psychosocial issues. Research into the clinical relevance of these factors has been dogged by a range of methodological pitfalls including lack of standardisation of neuropsychological tests, small numbers and multiple testing, and statistical failure to appreciate differential effects of interactive elements in individual patients. Although antiepileptic drugs can impair neuropsychological functioning, their positive effect on seizure control might improve cognition and behaviour. Each person should be assessed individually with respect to factors unique to his or her seizure disorder and its treatment.

Effectiveness of First Antiepileptic Drug

Summary:  Purpose: To investigate the interaction among efficacy, tolerability, and overall effectiveness of the first antiepileptic drug (AED) in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.