Tiagabine add‐on for drug‐resistant partial epilepsy

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(3):CD001908. Tiagabine add-on for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Pereira J, Marson AG, Hutton JL. Servico de Neurologia, Hospital de Santo Antonio, Largo Prof. Abel Salazar, 4099-001 Porto, Portugal. [email protected] Abstract BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, affecting almost 0.5 to 1 per cent of the population. Nearly 30 per cent of people with epilepsy are resistant to currently available drugs. Tiagabine is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs and its effects as an adjunct (add-on) to standard drugs is assessed in this review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of add-on treatment with tiagabine upon seizures, side effects, cognition and quality of life for people with drug-resistant localization related seizures. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group trials register (28 March 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2001). In addition, we contacted Sanofi~Synthelabo (makers of tiagabine) and experts in the field to seek any unpublished or ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized placebo controlled add-on trials of people of any age with localization related seizures, in which an adequate method of concealment of randomization was used. The studies could be double, single or unblinded and be of parallel or crossover design. They had to have a minimum treatment period of eight weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. Outcomes investigated included 50 per cent or greater reduction in seizure frequency; treatment withdrawal; side effects; effects on cognition and quality of life. The primary analyses were by intention-to-treat. Worst case and best case analyses were also calculated for seizure outcomes. Dose response was evaluated in regression models. MAIN RESULTS: Three parallel group and two crossover group trials were included. The overall relative risk (RR) for a 50 per cent or greater reduction in seizure frequency (tiagabine versus placebo) was 3.16(95% confidence interval 1.97 to 5.07). Due to differences in response rates among trials, regression models were unable to provide reliable estimates of responses to individual doses. The RR for treatment withdrawal was 1.81(95% confidence interval 1.25 to 2.62). The 99% confidence interval for the following side effects: dizziness; fatigue; nervousness and tremor did not include unity, indicating that they are significantly associated with tiagabine. For cognitive and quality of life outcomes the limited data available suggested that there were no significant effects on cognition and mood and adjustment. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Tiagabine reduces seizures frequency but is associated with some side effects when used as an add-on for people with drug-resistant localization related seizures. PMID: 12137637 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Publication Types, MeSH Terms, SubstancesPublication Types: Review MeSH Terms: Anticonvulsants/adverse effects Anticonvulsants/therapeutic use* Drug Resistance Epilepsies, Partial/drug therapy* Humans Nipecotic Acids/adverse effects Nipecotic Acids/therapeutic use* Substances: Anticonvulsants Nipecotic Acids tiagabine LinkOut - more resource

Multi-wavelength visibility measurements of the red giant R Doradus

We present visibility measurements of the nearby Mira-like star R Doradus taken over a wide range of wavelengths (650--990 nm). The observations were made using MAPPIT (Masked APerture-Plane Interference Telescope), an interferometer operating at the 3.9-m Anglo-Australian Telescope. We used a slit to mask the telescope aperture and prism to disperse the interference pattern in wavelength. We observed in R Dor strong decreases in visibility within the TiO absorption bands. The results are in general agreement with theory but differ in detail, suggesting that further work is needed to refine the theoretical models.Comment: 8 pages; SPIE Conf. 4006 "Interferometry in Optical Astronomy

Model-based sensitivity analysis for outcome reporting bias in the meta analysis of benefit and harm outcomes

Outcome reporting bias occurs when outcomes in research studies are selectively reported, the selection being influenced by the study results. For benefit outcomes, we have shown how risk assessments using the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials risk classification scale can be used to calculate bias-adjusted treatment effect estimates. This paper presents a new and simpler version of the benefits method, and shows how it can be extended to cover the partial reporting and non-reporting of harm outcomes. Our motivating example is a Cochrane systematic review of 12 studies of Topiramate add-on therapy for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Bias adjustments for partially reported or unreported outcomes suggest that the review has overestimated the benefits and underestimated the harms of the test treatment

Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, first published in Issue 1, 2003 and updated in 2015. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenobarbitone are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for partial onset seizures, and is used in the USA and Europe. Phenobarbitone is no longer considered a first-line treatment because of concerns over associated adverse events, particularly documented behavioural adverse events in children treated with the drug. However, phenobarbitone is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.To review the time to withdrawal, remission, and first seizure of carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 18 August 2016: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (from 1823) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.RCTs in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenobarbitone monotherapy.This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'adverse events'. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.IPD were available for 836 participants out of 1455 eligible individuals from six out of 13 trials; 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for phenobarbitone, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were HR 1.50 for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; P = 0.003); HR 0.93 for time to achieve 12-month remission (95% CI 0.72 to 1.20; P = 0.57); HR 0.99 for time to achieve six-month remission (95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; P = 0.95); and HR 0.87 for time to first seizure (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06; P = 0.18). Results suggest an advantage for carbamazepine over phenobarbitone in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and no statistically significant evidence between the drugs for the other outcomes. We found evidence of a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (Chi² test for subgroup differences P = 0.03), where phenobarbitone was favoured for partial onset seizures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02) and carbamazepine was favoured for generalised onset seizures (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.77; P = 0.27). We found no evidence of an interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for the other outcomes. However, methodological quality of the included studies was variable, with 10 out of the 13 included studies (4 out of 6 studies contributing IPD) judged at high risk of bias for at least one methodological aspect, leading to variable individual study results, and therefore, heterogeneity in the analyses of this review. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of poor methodological aspects, where possible.Overall, we found evidence suggestive of an advantage for carbamazepine in terms of drug effectiveness compared with phenobarbitone (retention of the drug in terms of seizure control and adverse events) and evidence suggestive of an association between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (phenobarbitone favoured for partial seizures and carbamazepine favoured for generalised seizures). However, this evidence was judged to be of low quality due to poor methodological quality and the potential impact on individual study results (and therefore variability (heterogeneity) present in the analysis within this review), we encourage caution when interpreting the results of this review and do not advocate that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations for allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line antiepileptic therapy for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments. It is also important that the effectiveness and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types are compared to one another.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are first-line recommended treatments for new onset partial seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs.To review the time to withdrawal, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).The first searches for this review were run in 1997. For the most recent update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (17 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 17 October 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 17 October 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators.Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine.This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.We included 13 studies in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3394 eligible individuals from nine out of 13 trials: 78% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were: time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), time to first seizure (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.37) and time to six-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94), showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine for withdrawal but a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07) or time to 24-month remission (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so the evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment withdrawal to be moderate for individuals with partial onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with partial onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures.Lamotrigine was significantly less likely to be withdrawn than carbamazepine but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. A choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results

Developing a health state classification system from NEWQOL for epilepsy using classical psychometric techniques and Rasch analysis: a technical report

Aims: Resource allocation amongst competing health care interventions is informed by evidence of both clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Cost-utility analysis is increasingly used to assess cost effectiveness through the use of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). This requires health state values. Generic measures of health related quality of life (HRQL) are usually used to produce these values, but there are concerns about their relevance and sensitivity in epilepsy. This study develops a health state classification system for epilepsy from the NEWQOL battery, a validated questionnaire measuring QoL in epilepsy. The classification system will be amenable to valuation for calculating QALYs. Methods: Factor and other psychometric analyses were undertaken to investigate the factor structure of the battery, and assess the validity and responsiveness of the items. These analyses were used alongside Rasch analysis to select the dimensions included in the classification system, and the items used to represent each domain. Analysis was carried out on a trial dataset of patients with epilepsy (n=1611). Rasch and factor analysis were performed on one half of the sample and validated on the remaining half. Dimensions and items were selected that performed well across all analyses. Results: The battery was found to demonstrate reliability and validity but responsiveness across time periods for many of the items was low. A six dimension classification system was developed: worry about seizures, depression, memory, cognition, stigmatism and control, each with four response levels. Conclusions: It is feasible to develop a health state classification system from a battery of instruments using a combination of classical psychometric, factor and Rasch analysis. This is the first condition-specific health state classification developed for epilepsy and the next stage will produce preference weights to enable the measure to be used in cost-utility analysis.quality adjusted life years; health related quality of life; Rasch analysis; preference-based measures of health; health states; epilepsy

Domino Michael-aldol annulations for the stereocontrolled synthesis of bicyclo[3.3.1]nonane and bicyclo[3.2.1]octane derivatives

Domino Michael-aldol annulation of cycloalkane-1,3-diones with enals affords a general route to 6-hydroxybicyclo[3.3.1]nonane-2,9-diones and 2-hydroxybicyclo[3.2.1]octane-6,8-diones, notably in one-pot procedures under convenient conditions. The annulation is shown to be compatible with one or more substituents at six positions of the bicyclo[3.3.1]nonane-2,9-dione scaffold. In some cases, the relative configuration of the product can be controlled by the appropriate choice of solvent, base and temperature for the annulation. In contrast to the chair–chair conformations usually adopted, the bicyclo compounds derived from 2,4,4-trimethylcyclohexane-1,3-dione possessed boat-chair conformations. Oxidation of the annulation products gave the corresponding bicyclo triketones

Developing a health state classification system from NEWQOL for epilepsy using classical psychometric techniques and Rasch analysis: A technical report

Aims: Resource allocation amongst competing health care interventions is informed by evidence of both clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Cost-utility analysis is increasingly used to assess cost effectiveness through the use of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). This requires health state values. Generic measures of health related quality of life (HRQL) are usually used to produce these values, but there are concerns about their relevance and sensitivity in epilepsy. This study develops a health state classification system for epilepsy from the NEWQOL battery, a validated questionnaire measuring QoL in epilepsy. The classification system will be amenable to valuation for calculating QALYs. Methods: Factor and other psychometric analyses were undertaken to investigate the factor structure of the battery, and assess the validity and responsiveness of the items. These analyses were used alongside Rasch analysis to select the dimensions included in the classification system, and the items used to represent each domain. Analysis was carried out on a trial dataset of patients with epilepsy (n=1611). Rasch and factor analysis were performed on one half of the sample and validated on the remaining half. Dimensions and items were selected that performed well across all analyses. Results: The battery was found to demonstrate reliability and validity but responsiveness across time periods for many of the items was low. A six dimension classification system was developed: worry about seizures, depression, memory, cognition, stigmatism and control, each with four response levels. Conclusions: It is feasible to develop a health state classification system from a battery of instruments using a combination of classical psychometric, factor and Rasch analysis. This is the first condition-specific health state classification developed for epilepsy and the next stage will produce preference weights to enable the measure to be used in cost-utility analysis