Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy

© 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration.Background: Epilepsy is a highly prevalent neurological condition characterized by repeated unprovoked seizures with various etiologies. Although antiepileptic medications produce clinical improvement in most individuals, nearly a third of individuals have drug-resistant epilepsy that carries significant morbidity and mortality. There remains a need for non-invasive and more effective therapies for this population. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) uses electromagnetic coils to excite or inhibit neurons, with repetitive pulses at low-frequency producing an inhibitory effect that could conceivably reduce cortical excitability associated with epilepsy. Objectives: To assess the evidence for the use of TMS in individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy compared with other available treatments in reducing seizure frequency, improving quality of life, reducing epileptiform discharges, antiepileptic medication use, and side-effects. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 10 March 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to March 2016. We also searched SCOPUS (1823 to June 2014) as a substitute for Embase (but it is no longer necessary to search SCOPUS, because randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in EMBASE are now included in CENTRAL). Selection criteria: Eligible studies were RCTs that were double-blinded, single-blinded or unblinded, and placebo, no treatment, or active controlled, which used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) without restriction of frequency, duration, intensity, or setup (focal or vertex treatment) on patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The search revealed 274 records from the databases, that after selection provided seven full-text relevant studies for inclusion. Of the seven studies included, five were completed studies with published data and included randomized, blinded trials. The total number of participants in the seven trials was 230. Data collection and analysis: We extracted information from each trial including methodological data; participant demographics including baseline seizure frequency, type of epileptic drugs taken; intervention details and intervention groups for comparison; potential biases; and outcomes and time points, primarily change in seizure frequency or responder rates, as well as quality of life and epileptiform discharges, adverse effects, and changes in medication use. Main results: Two of the seven studies analyzed showed a statistically significant reduction in seizure rate from baseline (72% and 78.9% reduction of seizures per week from the baseline rate, respectively). The other five studies showed no statistically significant difference in seizure frequency following rTMS treatment compared with controls. We were not able to combine the results of the trials in analysis due to differences in the designs of the studies. Four studies evaluated our secondary endpoint of mean number of epileptic discharges, and three of the four showed a statistically significant reduction in discharges. Quality of life was not assessed in any of the studies. Adverse effects were uncommon among the studies and typically involved headache, dizziness, and tinnitus. No significant changes in medication use were found in the trials. Authors' conclusions: Overall, we judged the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes of this review to be low. There is evidence that rTMS is safe and not associated with any adverse events, but given the variability in technique and outcome reporting that prevented meta-analysis, the evidence for efficacy of rTMS for seizure reduction is still lacking despite reasonable evidence that it is effective at reducing epileptiform discharges

Using interactive screen experiments as pre-laboratory tasks to enhance student learning

The teaching of first year undergraduate practical physics is currently faced with a difficult problem: the disparity in the level of practical physics many university entrant students have encountered prior to their arrival. Those with little practical physics experience enter the laboratory for the first time with a great deal of anxiety, which represents a barrier to their learning. This anxiety is magnified when their fellow students, some of whom have significant practical laboratory experience in their recent educational background, deal easily with the same situation. At Durham University, Interactive Screen Experiments (ISEs) have been used to familiarise students with laboratory equipment as part of an assessed pre-laboratory task for the first year physics laboratory, after which they perform real experiments

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

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

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

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, the majority of which may be able to achieve remission with a single antiepileptic drug (AED).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 AED for an individual is based on the highest-quality evidence available regarding the potential benefits and harms of various treatments. It is also important to compare the efficacy and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types.Topiramate and carbamazepine are commonly used AEDs. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of results of outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability, and may help inform a choice between the two drugs.To assess the effects of topiramate monotherapy versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy 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).We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (14 April 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (14 April 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 14 April 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 with or without other generalised seizure types with a comparison of monotherapy with either topiramate or carbamazepine.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 6-month remission, 'time to 12-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), and used the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HRs and 95% CIs.IPD were available for 1151 of 1239 eligible individuals from two of three eligible studies (93% of the potential data). A small proportion of individuals recruited into these trials had 'unclassified seizures;' for analysis purposes, these individuals are grouped with those with generalised onset seizures. 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 topiramate.The main overall results, given as pooled HR adjusted for seizure type (95% CI) were: for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.16 (0.98 to 1.38); time to first seizure 1.11 (0.96 to 1.29); and time to 6-month remission 0.88 (0.76 to 1.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs. A statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to 12-month remission: 0.84 (0.71 to 1.00).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial-onset seizures; 85% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. For individuals with partial-onset seizures, a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.45) and time to 12-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00). No statistically significant differences were apparent between the drugs for other outcomes and for the limited number of individuals with generalised-onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types or unclassified seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events with both drugs were drowsiness or fatigue, 'pins and needles' (tingling sensation), headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and anxiety or depression The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.We judged the methodological quality of the included trials generally to be good; however, there was some evidence that the open-label design of the larger of the two trials may have influenced the withdrawal rate from the trial. Hence, we judged 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 evidence from this review to be high for individuals with partial-onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised-onset or unclassified seizures.For individuals with partial-onset seizures, there is evidence that carbamazepine is less likely to be withdrawn and that 12-month remission will be achieved earlier than with topiramate. No differences were found between the drugs in terms of the outcomes measured in the review for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other seizure types or unclassified epilepsy; however, we encourage caution in the interpretation of these results due to the small numbers of participants with these seizure types.We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible and take into consideration masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results

Questioning Classic Patient Classification Techniques in Gait Rehabilitation: Insights from Wearable Haptic Technology

Classifying stroke survivors based on their walking abilities is an important part of the gait rehabilitation process. It can act as powerful indicator of function and prognosis in both the early days after a stroke and long after a survivor receives rehabilitation. This classification often relies solely on walking speed; a quick and easy measure, with only a stopwatch needed. However, walking speed may not be the most accurate way of judging individual’s walking ability. Advances in technology mean we are now in a position where ubiquitous and wearable technologies can be used to elicit much richer measures to characterise gait. In this paper we present a case study from one of our studies, where within a homogenous group of stroke survivors (based on walking speed classification) important differences in individual results and the way they responded to rhythmic haptic cueing were identified during the piloting of a novel gait rehabilitation technique

Extremely red radio galaxies

At least half the radio galaxies at z>1 in the 7C Redshift Survey have extremely red colours (R-K>5), consistent with stellar populations which formed at high redshift (z>5). We discuss the implications of this for the evolution of massive galaxies in general and for the fraction of near-IR-selected EROs which host AGN, a result which is now being tested by deep, hard X-ray surveys. The conclusion is that many massive galaxies undergo at least two active phases: one at z~5 when the black hole and stellar bulge formed and another at z~1-2 when activity is triggered by an event such as an interaction or merger.Comment: 6 pages, 2 figures, to appear in the proceedings of the workshop on "QSO hosts and their environments", IAA, Granada, 10-12 Jan 2001, Ed. I. Marque

Pulmonary rehabilitation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and COPD: a propensity matched real-world study

BACKGROUND: The adherence to and clinical efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), particularly in comparison to people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), remains uncertain. The objectives of this real-world study were to compare the responses of patients with IPF with a matched group of patients with COPD undergoing the same supervised, outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program, and to determine whether pulmonary rehabilitation is associated with survival in IPF. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do people with IPF improve to the same extent with pulmonary rehabilitation as a matched group of individuals with COPD, and are non-completion of and/or non-response to pulmonary rehabilitation associated with one-year all-cause mortality in IPF? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using propensity score matching, 163 patients with IPF were matched 1:1 with a control group of 163 patients with COPD referred to pulmonary rehabilitation. We compared between-group pulmonary rehabilitation completion rates and response. Survival status in the IPF cohort was recorded over one-year following pulmonary rehabilitation discharge. Cox proportional-hazards regression explored the association between pulmonary rehabilitation status and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Similar pulmonary rehabilitation completion rates (IPF: 69%; COPD: 63%; p=0.24) and improvements in exercise response were observed in both groups with no significant mean (95% confidence interval (CI)) between-group differences in incremental shuttle walk (ISW) change (2 (-18 to 22) meters). Pulmonary rehabilitation non-completion (hazard ratio (HR) (95%CI) 5.62 (2.24 to 14.08)) and non-response (HR (95%CI) 3.91 (1.54 to 9.93)) were independently associated with increased one-year all-cause mortality in IPF. INTERPRETATION: Compared with a matched group of patients with COPD, this real-word study demonstrates that patients with IPF have similar completion rates and magnitude of response to pulmonary rehabilitation. In IPF, non-completion of and non-response to pulmonary rehabilitation were associated with increased all-cause mortality. These data reinforce the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with IPF

Change in gait speed and adverse outcomes in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Gait speed is associated with survival in individuals with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The extent to which four-metre gait speed (4MGS) decline predicts adverse outcome in IPF remains unclear. We aimed to examine longitudinal 4MGS change and identify a cut-point associated with adverse outcome. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, we recruited 132 individuals newly diagnosed with IPF and measured 4MGS change over 6 months. Death/first hospitalization at 6 months were composite outcome events. Complete data (paired 4MGS plus index event) were available in 85 participants; missing 4MGS data were addressed using multiple imputation. Receiver-Operating Curve plots identified a 4MGS change cut-point. Cox proportional-hazard regression assessed the relationship between 4MGS change and time to event. RESULTS: 4MGS declined over 6 months (mean [95% CI] change: -0.05 [-0.09 to -0.01] m/s; p = 0.02). A decline of 0.07 m/s or more in 4MGS over 6 months had better discrimination for the index event than change in 6-minute walk distance, forced vital capacity, Composite Physiologic Index or Gender Age Physiology index. Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated a significant difference in time to event between 4MGS groups (substantial decline: >-0.07 m/s versus minor decline/improvers: ≤-0.07 m/s; p = 0.007). Those with substantial decline had an increased risk of hospitalization/death (adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI] 4.61 [1.23-15.83]). Similar results were observed in multiple imputation analysis. CONCLUSION: In newly diagnosed IPF, a substantial 4MGS decline over 6 months is associated with shorter time to hospitalization/death at 6 months. 4MGS change has potential as a surrogate endpoint for interventions aimed at modifying hospitalization/death

First Steps towards Underdominant Genetic Transformation of Insect Populations

The idea of introducing genetic modifications into wild populations of insects to stop them from spreading diseases is more than 40 years old. Synthetic disease refractory genes have been successfully generated for mosquito vectors of dengue fever and human malaria. Equally important is the development of population transformation systems to drive and maintain disease refractory genes at high frequency in populations. We demonstrate an underdominant population transformation system in Drosophila melanogaster that has the property of being both spatially self-limiting and reversible to the original genetic state. Both population transformation and its reversal can be largely achieved within as few as 5 generations. The described genetic construct {Ud} is composed of two genes; (1) a UAS-RpL14.dsRNA targeting RNAi to a haploinsufficient gene RpL14 and (2) an RNAi insensitive RpL14 rescue. In this proof-of-principle system the UAS-RpL14.dsRNA knock-down gene is placed under the control of an Actin5c-GAL4 driver located on a different chromosome to the {Ud} insert. This configuration would not be effective in wild populations without incorporating the Actin5c-GAL4 driver as part of the {Ud} construct (or replacing the UAS promoter with an appropriate direct promoter). It is however anticipated that the approach that underlies this underdominant system could potentially be applied to a number of species. Figure