Topiramate add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

Background The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are controlled by a single antiepileptic drug. However, up to 20% of patients from population‐based studies, and up to 30% from clinical series (not population‐based), develop drug‐resistant epilepsy, especially those with focal‐onset seizures. In this review, we summarise the current evidence regarding topiramate, an antiepileptic drug first marketed in 1996, when used as an add‐on treatment for drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999, and last updated in 2014. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate when used as an add‐on treatment for people with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. Search methods For the latest update of this review we searched the following databases on 2 July 2018: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946‐ ); ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted the manufacturers of topiramate and researchers in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished studies. Selection criteria Randomised, placebo‐controlled add‐on trials of topiramate, recruiting people with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (2) seizure freedom; (3) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (4) adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention‐to‐treat (ITT), and summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) are presented. 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 12 trials, representing 1650 participants. Baseline phases ranged from four to 12 weeks and double‐blind phases ranged from 11 to 19 weeks. The RR for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency with add‐on topiramate compared to placebo was 2.71 (95% CI 2.05 to 3.59; 12 studies; high‐certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis showed increasing effect with increasing topiramate dose demonstrated by an odds ratio (OR) of 1.45 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.64; P < 0.001) per 200 mg/d increase in topiramate dosage. The proportion of participants achieving seizure freedom was also significantly increased with add‐on topiramate compared to placebo (RR 3.67, 95% CI 1.79 to 7.54; 8 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). Treatment withdrawal was significantly higher for add‐on topiramate compared to placebo (RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.37; 12 studies; high‐certainty evidence). The RRs for the following adverse effects indicate that they are significantly more prevalent with topiramate, compared to placebo: ataxia 2.29 (99% CI 1.10 to 4.77; 4 studies); concentration difficulties 7.81 (99% CI 2.08 to 29.29; 6 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence); dizziness 1.52 (99% CI 1.07 to 2.16; 8 studies); fatigue 2.08 (99% CI 1.37 to 3.15; 10 studies); paraesthesia 3.65 (99% CI 1.58 to 8.39; 7 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence); somnolence 2.44 (99% CI 1.61 to 3.68; 9 studies); 'thinking abnormally' 5.70 (99% CI 2.26 to 14.38; 4 studies; high‐certainty evidence); and weight loss 3.99 (99% CI 1.82 to 8.72; 9 studies; low‐certainty evidence). Evidence of publication bias for the primary outcome was found (Egger test, P = 0.001). We rated all studies included in the review as having either low or unclear risk of bias. Overall, we assessed the evidence as moderate to high certainty due to the evidence of publication bias, statistical heterogeneity and imprecision, which was partially compensated for by large effect sizes. Authors' conclusions Topiramate has efficacy as an add‐on treatment for drug‐resistant focal epilepsy as it is almost three times more effective compared to a placebo in reducing seizures. The trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for the long‐term efficacy of topiramate. Short‐term use of add‐on topiramate was shown to be associated with several adverse events. The results of this review should only be applied to adult populations as only one study included children. Future research should consider further examining the effect of dose

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with epilepsy: Findings from the US arm of the COV-E study

Objectives: As part of the COVID-19 and Epilepsy (COV-E) global study, we aimed to understand the impact of COVID-19 on the medical care and well-being of people with epilepsy (PWE) in the United States, based on their perspectives and those of their caregivers. Methods: Separate surveys designed for PWE and their caregivers were circulated from April 2020 to July 2021; modifications in March 2021 included a question about COVID-19 vaccination status. Results: We received 788 responses, 71% from PWE (n = 559) and 29% (n = 229) from caregivers of persons with epilepsy. A third (n = 308) of respondents reported a change in their health or in the health of the person they care for. Twenty-seven percent (n = 210) reported issues related to worsening mental health. Of respondents taking ASMs (n = 769), 10% (n = 78) reported difficulty taking medications on time, mostly due to stress causing forgetfulness. Less than half of respondents received counseling on mental health and stress. Less than half of the PWE reported having discussions with their healthcare providers about sleep, ASMs, and potential side effects, while a larger proportion of caregivers (81%) reported having had discussions with their healthcare providers on the same topics. More PWE and caregivers reported that COVID-19-related measures caused adverse impact on their health in the post-vaccine period than during the pre-vaccine period, citing mental health issues as the primary reason. Significance: Our findings indicate that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US on PWE is multifaceted. Apart from the increased risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, the pandemic has also had negative effects on mental health and self-management. Healthcare providers must be vigilant for increased emotional distress in PWE during the pandemic and consider the importance of effective counseling to diminish risks related to exacerbated treatment gaps

Treatment of seizures in the neonate: Guidelines and consensus-based recommendations—Special report from the ILAE Task Force on Neonatal Seizures

Seizures are common in neonates, but there is substantial management variability. The Neonatal Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) developed evidence-based recommendations about antiseizure medication (ASM) management in neonates in accordance with ILAE standards. Six priority questions were formulated, a systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed, and results were reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 standards. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool and risk of Bias in non-randomised studies - of interventions (ROBINS-I), and quality of evidence was evaluated using grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). If insufficient evidence was available, then expert opinion was sought using Delphi consensus methodology. The strength of recommendations was defined according to the ILAE Clinical Practice Guidelines development tool. There were six main recommendations. First, phenobarbital should be the first-line ASM (evidence-based recommendation) regardless of etiology (expert agreement), unless channelopathy is likely the cause for seizures (e.g., due to family history), in which case phenytoin or carbamazepine should be used. Second, among neonates with seizures not responding to first-line ASM, phenytoin, levetiracetam, midazolam, or lidocaine may be used as a second-line ASM (expert agreement). In neonates with cardiac disorders, levetiracetam may be the preferred second-line ASM (expert agreement). Third, following cessation of acute provoked seizures without evidence for neonatal-onset epilepsy, ASMs should be discontinued before discharge home, regardless of magnetic resonance imaging or electroencephalographic findings (expert agreement). Fourth, therapeutic hypothermia may reduce seizure burden in neonates with hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy (evidence-based recommendation). Fifth, treating neonatal seizures (including electrographic-only seizures) to achieve a lower seizure burden may be associated with improved outcome (expert agreement). Sixth, a trial of pyridoxine may be attempted in neonates presenting with clinical features of vitamin B6-dependent epilepsy and seizures unresponsive to second-line ASM (expert agreement). Additional considerations include a standardized pathway for the management of neonatal seizures in each neonatal unit and informing parents/guardians about the diagnosis of seizures and initial treatment options

Protocol for the development of an international Core Outcome Set for treatment trials in adults with epilepsy: the EPilepsy outcome Set for Effectiveness Trials Project (EPSET).

BackgroundA Core Outcome Set (COS) is a standardised list of outcomes that should be reported as a minimum in all clinical trials. In epilepsy, the choice of outcomes varies widely among existing studies, particularly in clinical trials. This diminishes opportunities for informed decision-making, contributes to research waste and is a barrier to integrating findings in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Furthermore, the outcomes currently being measured may not reflect what is important to people with epilepsy. Therefore, we aim to develop a COS specific to clinical effectiveness research for adults with epilepsy using Delphi consensus methodology.MethodsThe EPSET Study will comprise of three phases and follow the core methodological principles as outlined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Phase 1 will include two focused literature reviews to identify candidate outcomes from the qualitative literature and current outcome measurement practice in phase III and phase IV clinical trials. Phase 2 aims to achieve international consensus to define which outcomes should be measured as a minimum in future trials, using a Delphi process including an online consensus meeting involving key stakeholders. Phase 3 will involve dissemination of the ratified COS to facilitate uptake in future trials and the planning of further research to identify the most appropriate measurement instruments to use to capture the COS in research practice.DiscussionHarmonising outcome measurement across future clinical trials should ensure that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and health services, and allow for more meaningful results to be obtained.Core outcome set registrationCOMET Initiative as study 118

Diverse perspectives on interdisciplinarity from the Members of the College of the Royal Society of Canada

Various multiple-disciplinary terms and concepts (although most commonly “interdisciplinarity”, which is used herein) are used to frame education, scholarship, research, and interactions within and outside academia. In principle, the premise of interdisciplinarity may appear to have many strengths; yet, the extent to which interdisciplinarity is embraced by the current generation of academics, the benefits and risks for doing so, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving interdisciplinarity represent inherent challenges. Much has been written on the topic of interdisciplinarity, but to our knowledge there have been few attempts to consider and present diverse perspectives from scholars, artists, and scientists in a cohesive manner. As a team of 57 members from the Canadian College of New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists of the Royal Society of Canada (the College) who self-identify as being engaged or interested in interdisciplinarity, we provide diverse intellectual, cultural, and social perspectives. The goal of this paper is to share our collective wisdom on this topic with the broader community and to stimulate discourse and debate on the merits and challenges associated with interdisciplinarity. Perhaps the clearest message emerging from this exercise is that working across established boundaries of scholarly communities is rewarding, necessary, and is more likely to result in impact. However, there are barriers that limit the ease with which this can occur (e.g., lack of institutional structures and funding to facilitate cross-disciplinary exploration). Occasionally, there can be significant risk associated with doing interdisciplinary work (e.g., lack of adequate measurement or recognition of work by disciplinary peers). Solving many of the world’s complex and pressing problems (e.g., climate change, sustainable agriculture, the burden of chronic disease, and aging populations) demand thinking and working across long-standing, but in some ways restrictive, academic boundaries. Academic institutions and key support structures, especially funding bodies, will play an important role in helping to realize what is readily apparent to all who contributed to this paper—that interdisciplinarity is essential for solving complex problems; it is the new norm. Failure to empower and encourage those doing this research will serve as a great impediment to training, knowledge, and addressing societal issues

Modulation of Mrp1 (ABCc1) and Pgp (ABCb1) by Bilirubin at the Blood-CSF and Blood-Brain Barriers in the Gunn Rat

Accumulation of unconjugated bilirubin (UCB) in the brain causes bilirubin encephalopathy. Pgp (ABCb1) and Mrp1 (ABCc1), highly expressed in the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier (BCSFB) respectively, may modulate the accumulation of UCB in brain. We examined the effect of prolonged exposure to elevated concentrations of UCB on expression of the two transporters in homozygous, jaundiced (jj) Gunn rats compared to heterozygous, not jaundiced (Jj) littermates at different developmental stages (2, 9, 17 and 60 days after birth). BBB Pgp protein expression was low in both jj and Jj pups at 9 days (about 16–27% of adult values), despite the up-regulation in jj animals (2 and 1.3 fold higher than age matched Jj animals at P9 and P17–P60, respectively); Mrp1 protein expression was barely detectable. Conversely, at the BCSFB Mrp1 protein expression was rather high (60–70% of the adult values) in both jj and Jj at P2, but was markedly (50%) down-regulated in jj pups starting at P9, particularly in the 4th ventricle choroid plexuses: Pgp was almost undetectable. The Mrp1 protein down regulation was accompanied by a modest up-regulation of mRNA, suggesting a translational rather than a transcriptional inhibition. In vitro exposure of choroid plexus epithelial cells obtained from normal rats to UCB, also resulted in a down-regulation of Mrp1 protein. These data suggest that down-regulation of Mrp1 protein at the BSCFB, resulting from a direct effect of UCB on epithelial cells, may impact the Mrp1-mediated neuroprotective functions of the blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier and actually potentiate UCB neurotoxicity

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with epilepsy: findings from the Brazilian arm of the COV-E study

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on people and healthcare services. The disruption to chronic illnesses, such as epilepsy, may relate to several factors ranging from direct infection to secondary effects from healthcare reorganization and social distancing measures. Objectives: As part of the COVID-19 and Epilepsy (COV-E) global study, we ascertained the effects of COVID-19 on people with epilepsy in Brazil, based on their perspectives and their perspectives those of those of their caregivers. We also evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on the care delivered to people with epilepsy by healthcare workers. Methods: We designed separate online surveys for people with epilepsy and their caregivers. A further survey for healthcare workers contained additional assessments of changes to working patterns, productivity, and concerns for those with epilepsy under their care. The Brazilian arm of COV-E initially collected data from April to November 2020 during the country's first wave. We also examined national data to identify the Brazilian states with the highest COVID-19 incidence and related mortality. Lastly, we applied this geographic grouping to our data to explore whether local disease burden played a direct role in difficulties faced by people with epilepsy. Results: Two hundred and forty-one people returned the survey, 20% were individuals with epilepsy (n = 48); 22% were caregivers (n = 53) and 58% were healthcare workers (n = 140). Just under half (43%) of people with epilepsy reported health changes during the pandemic, including worsening seizure control, with specific issues related to stress and impaired mental health. Of respondents prescribed antiseizure medication, 11% reported difficulty taking medication on time due to problems acquiring prescriptions and delayed or cancelled medical appointments. Only a small proportion of respondents reported discussing significant epilepsy-related risks in the previous 12 months. Analysis of national COVID-19 data showed a higher disease burden in the states of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro compared to Brazil as a whole. There were, however, no geographic differences observed in survey responses despite variability in the incidence of COVID-19. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that Brazilians with epilepsy have been adversely affected by COVID-19 by factors beyond infection or mortality. Mental health issues and the importance of optimal communication are critical during these difficult times. Healthcare services need to find nuanced approaches and learn from shared international experiences to provide optimal care for people with epilepsy as the direct burden of COVID-19 improves in some countries. In contrast, others face resurgent waves of the pandemic

Rationale and design of the B-PROOF study, a randomized controlled trial on the effect of supplemental intake of vitamin B12 and folic acid on fracture incidence

Background: Osteoporosis is a major health problem, and the economic burden is expected to rise due to an increase in life expectancy throughout the world. Current observational evidence suggests that an elevated homocysteine concentration and poor vitamin B12and folate status are associated with an increased fracture risk. As vitamin B12and folate intake and status play a large role in homocysteine metabolism, it is hypothesized that supplementation with these B-vitamins will reduce fracture incidence in elderly people with an elevated homocysteine concentration. Methods/Design. The B-PROOF (B-Vitamins for the PRevention Of Osteoporotic Fractures) study is a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. The intervention comprises a period of two years, and includes 2919 subjects, aged 65 years and older, independently living or institutionalized, with an elevated homocysteine concentration ( 12 mol/L). One group receives daily a tablet with 500 g vitamin B12and 400 g folic acid and the other group receives a placebo tablet. In both tablets 15 g (600 IU) vitamin D is included. The primary outcome of the study is osteoporotic fractures. Measurements are performed at baseline and after two years and cover bone health