Photosensitivity and self-induction in patients aged 50 and older.

OBJECTIVE: Photosensitivity is known to occur predominantly in children and adolescents and with a clear female predominance. Little is known on the prevalence of photosensitivity in older patients (50+) and its phenotypical appearance. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed investigating the prevalence of a photoparoxysmal EEG response (PPR) on at least one EEG during the period 2015-2021. Data were gathered from patients aged 50 years and older by retrieving clinical and EEG characteristics from existing medical records. Data on photosensitivity-related symptoms in daily life were gathered with telephone interviewing. RESULTS: In 248 patients a PPR had been elicited, of whom 16 patients (6.5%) were 50 years or older. In older patients, photosensitivity was a persistent feature of childhood-onset epilepsy (n = 8), of adult-onset epilepsy (n = 7), or an incidental finding (n = 1). In the 50+ group, 56% of photosensitive patients was female, whereas 72% in the total PPR-group. In six of 16 older patients, eye closure sensitivity was observed; two of these patients reported self-induction. Symptoms of photosensitivity in daily life were present in eight out of nine patients who consented in a telephone interview. For seven of these patients, wearing sunglasses was helpful. SIGNIFICANCE: Female preponderance for photosensitivity was not found in epilepsy patients of 50 years and older. In 44% of the older photosensitive patients in this series, the PPR was a feature of adult-onset epilepsy. Symptoms of photosensitivity in daily life in older patients with epilepsy seem comparable to those in younger patients, and thus worthwhile to diagnose and treat them equally.

Cost-effectiveness of add-on lamotrigine therapy in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study addresses the cost-effectiveness of add-on therapy with lamotrigine in clinical practice. METHODS: Two years' observational data of 165 patients were used. Seizure frequency, adverse effects and direct medical costs were recorded for the year before and the year after the start of lamotrigine add-on therapy. Therapy effectiveness was measured by: (1) reduction in seizure frequency and (2) retention time. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed the direct medical cost per patient treated effectively with lamotrigine. RESULTS: The cost of medication was 492 (95% CI: 399-583) higher after the start of lamotrigine therapy. The extra cost of lamotrigine therapy (622) was partly offset by a reduction of the cost of co-medication (-130; 95% CI: -210 to -50). Overall, the total medical cost was 453 higher in the first year of lamotrigine therapy than in the year before the start of lamotrigine. Lamotrigine was effective in 47% of all the patients, making the resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 954 per year. DISCUSSION: Add-on therapy of lamotrigine for patients with uncontrolled epilepsy offers improved health outcomes. Lamotrigine therapy is associated with increased cost (453) and an annual incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 954. These data, together with utility data published in the literature, support the notion that lamotrigine should be considered as an add-on therapy in for patients with refractory epilepsy.

Effectiveness of lamotrigine in clinical practice: results of a retrospective population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the effectiveness of lamotrigine in a population-based cohort of epilepsy patients. METHODS: Medical charts of 360 patients treated in 37 centres in The Netherlands were reviewed. Effectiveness of lamotrigine therapy was assessed during the first year of use, with patients serving as their own controls. Effectiveness was measured by reduction in seizure frequency and retention time. RESULTS: Effectiveness could only be assessed in 165 patients; assessment in remaining patients was not possible due to various reasons, such as insufficient medical chart information. Lamotrigine was effective in 40% of patients who had been prescribed lamotrigine because of insufficient seizure control (n=112), and 14% of these 112 patients became seizure free. Duration of epilepsy, baseline seizure frequency, valproate use, drug load and number of antiepileptic drugs (AED) used were related to effectiveness of lamotrigine. In this group, 36% continued lamotrigine (LTG) throughout the first year without experiencing a >50% seizure reduction. Lamotrigine was effective in 63% of patients who received the drug because of poor tolerability of other antiepileptic drugs (n=53). DISCUSSION: Lamotrigine is an effective drug in clinical practice. Use of retention time measures only may not correctly reflect the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs.

Recruitment of a cohort of lamotrigine users through community pharmacists: differences between patients who gave informed consent and those who did not.

OBJECTIVE: Community pharmacists may function as intermediaries in the recruitment of a population-based cohort of patients using specific drugs. In this study, baseline characteristics and the retention rate of patients that gave informed consent, refused and did not answer were compared. METHODS: A total of 1819 patients using the new antiepileptic drug (AED) lamotrigine were asked to provide informed consent for a retrospective chart study via their individual pharmacist. Four possible reactions resulted from the consent question: active consent, active refusal, passive refusal and non-informed. Patient characteristics and lamotrigine retention rate of the different groups were compared. RESULTS: Pharmacists did not inform a total of 183 patients (10%). Of the remaining patients, a total of 968 (59%) gave consent; 101 (6%) actively refused and 567 (35%) did not respond. Age, burden of illness, psychotropic co-medication and continuation of lamotrigine therapy were related to active consent. Lamotrigine retention rate in patients that gave consent was higher than in other patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patient recruitment with community pharmacists as intermediaries for observational studies on the effects of (new) drugs is feasible, and allows access to a broad population of patients. The recruitment procedure, however, may lead to selection bias.

Diffusion of the new antiepileptic drug lamotrigine in Dutch clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Lamotrigine is one of the recently introduced antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) licensed in the Netherlands in 1995. The objective of this study was to examine the diffusion of lamotrigine into clinical practice. Three different aspects of this diffusion process were examined: incidence of use, patient characteristics and changes in prescription patterns in the first 5 years following its introduction. METHODS: A retrospective follow-up study has been conducted using drug prescription data from the database of the Dutch Drug Information Project (GIP database). Patients were included who started with lamotrigine, carbamazepine, phenytoin or valproate in the period between January 1996 and December 2000. Incidence of use was calculated for the four drugs. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine differences in baseline characteristics. The Chi-square test was used to analyse changes in the usage patterns of lamotrigine. RESULTS: The study population consisted of a total of 29,718 patients who were prescribed carbamazepine, phenytoin, valproate or lamotrigine for the first time in the study period. Carbamazepine and valproate accounted for the majority of all new prescriptions; the incidence of lamotrigine use remained stable with 4.4 patients per 100,000 per year. Baseline characteristics of lamotrigine differed depending on the patient's age and gender (OR 3.7, 95% CI 3.3-4.2; OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.3-1.5) relative to the conventional AEDs. In a large majority of cases, lamotrigine was used as a second-line or third-line AED. Physicians prescribing lamotrigine were predominantly neurologists, in contrast to prescribers of conventional AEDs. The prevalence of psychotropic medication and migraine-abortive drugs was significantly lower in users of lamotrigine than in users of conventional AEDs. During follow-up, several significant trends were noticed in the prescribing of lamotrigine with regard to age groups, gender, antiepileptic history and off-label use. DISCUSSION: Lamotrigine is prescribed to a population different from that using conventional AEDs. The uptake of lamotrigine in clinical practice is slow, for reasons probably related to characteristics of the drug itself and the prescribers. During the observation period, lamotrigine diffused gradually towards more first-line use as an AED and more off-label use.

Patterns of lamotrigine use in daily clinical practice during the first 5 years after introduction in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Follow-up data on the long-term effectiveness (efficacy and tolerability) of lamotrigine are limited. A useful though crude measure for effectiveness in daily clinical practice is the treatment retention rate determined from drug dispensing data. This study describes the baseline characteristics, the usage patterns and the retention rate of this antiepileptic drug (AED) in a population-based cohort of lamotrigine users in the Netherlands during the first 5 years after its registration in 1995. Data from this cohort are compared with those from the initial randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with refractory epilepsy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used dispensing data from community pharmacies. Baseline characteristics and usage patterns were evaluated for first time users of lamotrigine in this study. Usage patterns were characterized as continued, add-on or discontinued use during the patient observation time window. Cox regression analysis was used to explore possible relationships between baseline characteristics and specific usage patterns defined. The baseline characteristics and discontinuation rates in this cohort study were compared with RCT data reported in medical literature. RESULTS: A total of 3598 lamotrigine users were identified. The mean age of the population was 39 years and 54% were female. On average, patients used two other AEDs at the start of lamotrigine therapy and approximately 6% of the patients had no history of prior AED use. The discontinuation rate was 25% after 1 year, and approximately 32% at the end of the 5-year study. Addition of another drug or discontinuation was seen in more than half of the population 3 years after the start of therapy. Concurrent use of valproic acid was associated with a better retention rate. Absence of AED history, use of antidepressants, or use of migraine abortive drugs resulted in an increased likelihood of discontinuing lamotrigine. The population from RCTs differed from the study cohort with respect to age, concurrent use of AEDs and length of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Data from RCTs cannot easily be extrapolated to daily clinical practice. In this large, observational study, lamotrigine therapy failed in a considerable number of patients, although the mean retention rate was better than previously reported by others. Population-based linkage of health care records can be used to further clarify the effectiveness of lamotrigine.

Current limitations of antiepileptic drug therapy: a conference review.

The current limitations of antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy were the topic of a discussion group meeting at the 5th European Congress on Epileptology, Madrid, 6-10 October 2002. This review contains four short papers covering the topics discussed by the speakers at this meeting and an account of the ensuing discussion with all participants. The meeting focused on four issues. (i) Are mechanisms of action of AEDs useful to predict treatment outcome? The short answer to this question was no, for several reasons. These include the fact that clinically relevant mechanisms in individual patients remain unclear, the treatment of epilepsy targets the symptoms rather than the cause of the disease, and that current seizure classification defines heterogeneous patient populations. (ii) The benefits of the often recommended titration of the dose to the maximum tolerated level when seizures persist at average AED doses. A re-evaluation of this practice showed that dose escalation achieves seizure freedom in only 1 of 4 patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and only 1 of 10 patients with refractory epilepsy are likely to experience a greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency. Being aware of the limited utility of maximum dose titration and subsequent dose reduction if no significant individual benefit is achieved avoids medical over-treatment with a worsening risk-benefit balance. (iii) When single drug therapy is not sufficiently effective, adding a second drug or alternative monotherapy are common options. Based on published data, there is no conclusive evidence in favour of either alternative monotherapy or second-line polytherapy. A pragmatic choice may be to evaluate the combination and then attempt to withdraw the first drug in the case of success. This may prevent the substitution of a partially efficacious drug by a non-efficacious drug. The choice of the second drug should, in theory, be based on which first drug has failed but again compelling evidence to support specific recommendations is lacking. (iv) Unexpected worsening of seizures may occur in many circumstances and has many causes, including tolerance and adverse pharmacodynamic effects of individual AEDs on seizure generating mechanisms. Patients are usually aware of aggravation and may express a "dislike" for a particular AED as a warning sign for physicians to modify the medication. The availability of numerous AEDs, particularly with single mechanisms of action, has increased the risk of paradoxical effects that may go undetected in clinical trials and only surface during astute clinical observations.