Lamotrigine add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review last updated in 2020. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder, affecting 0.5% to 1% of the population. In nearly 30% of cases, epilepsy is resistant to currently available drugs. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Lamotrigine is a second-generation antiseizure medication. When used as an add-on (in combination with other antiseizure medications), lamotrigine can reduce seizures, but with some adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of add-on lamotrigine, compared with add-on placebo or no add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 3 October 2022 with no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated add-on lamotrigine versus add-on placebo or no add-on treatment in people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We used data from the first period of eligible cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. Our primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Our secondary outcomes were treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, cognitive effects, and quality of life. Primary analyses were by intention-to-treat. We performed sensitivity best- and worse-case analyses to account for missing outcome data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cls) for dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new studies for this update, so the results and conclusions of the review are unchanged. We included five parallel-group studies in adults or children, eight cross-over studies in adults or children, and one parallel study with a responder-enriched design in infants. In total, these 14 studies enroled 1806 eligible participants (38 infants, 199 children, 1569 adults). Baseline phases ranged from four to 12 weeks and treatment phases ranged from eight to 36 weeks. We rated 11 studies (1243 participants) at low overall risk of bias and three (697 participants) at unclear overall risk of bias due to lack of information on study design. Four studies (563 participants) reported effective blinding. Lamotrigine compared with placebo probably increases the likelihood of achieving 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.23; 12 trials, 1322 participants (adults and children); moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in risk of treatment withdrawal for any reason among people treated with lamotrigine versus people treated with placebo (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 14 trials; 1806 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Lamotrigine compared with placebo is probably associated with a greater risk of ataxia (RR 3.34, 99% Cl 2.01 to 5.55; 12 trials; 1525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), dizziness (RR 1.76, 99% Cl 1.28 to 2.43; 13 trials; 1768 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), nausea (RR 1.81, 99% CI 1.22 to 2.68; 12 studies, 1486 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and diplopia (RR 3.79, 99% Cl 2.15 to 6.68; 3 trials, 944 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of fatigue between lamotrigine and placebo (RR 0.82, 99% CI 0.55 to 1.22; 12 studies, 1552 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal seizures is probably effective for reducing seizure frequency. Certain adverse effects (ataxia, dizziness, diplopia, and nausea) are probably more likely to occur with lamotrigine compared with placebo. There is probably little or no difference in the number of people who withdraw from treatment with lamotrigine versus placebo. The trials were of relatively short duration and provided no long-term evidence. In addition, some trials had few participants. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of lamotrigine and to compare lamotrigine with other add-on drugs.

Immunomodulatory interventions for focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of an original Cochrane Review published in 2013 (Walker 2013). Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder affecting 0.5% to 1% of the population. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. However, up to 30% of people do not respond to drug treatment, and therefore do not achieve seizure remission. Experimental and clinical evidence supports a role for inflammatory pathway activation in the pathogenesis of epilepsy which, if effectively targeted by immunomodulatory interventions, highlights a potentially novel therapeutic strategy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of immunomodulatory interventions on seizures, adverse effect profile, cognition, and quality of life, compared to placebo controls, when used as additional therapy for focal epilepsy in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 11 November 2021: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and Medline (Ovid) 1946 to 10 November 2021. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We placed no language restrictions. We reviewed the bibliographies of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised placebo-controlled trials of add-on immunomodulatory drug interventions, in which an adequate method of concealment of randomisation was used. The studies were double-, single- or unblinded. Eligible participants were children (aged over 2 years) and adults with focal epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We assessed the following outcomes. 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. 2. Seizure freedom. 3. Treatment withdrawal for any reason. 4. Quality of life. 5. ADVERSE EFFECTS: We used an intention-to-treat (ITT) population for all primary analyses, and we presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl). MAIN RESULTS: We included three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on a total of 172 participants. All trials included children and adults over two years of age with focal epilepsy. Treatment phases lasted six weeks and follow-up from six weeks to six months. One of the three included trials described an adequate method of concealment of randomisation, whilst the other two trials were rated as having an unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. Effective blinding of studies was reported in all three trials. All analyses were by ITT. One trial was sponsored by the manufacturer of an immunomodulatory agent and therefore was at high risk of funding bias. Immunomodulatory interventions were significantly more effective than placebo in reducing seizure frequency (risk ratio (RR) 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 4.60; 3 studies, 172 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For treatment withdrawal, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that people were more likely to discontinue immunomodulatory intervention than placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.80; 3 studies, 172 participants; low-certainty evidence). The RR for adverse effects was 1.16 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.59; 1 study, 66 participants; low-certainty evidence). Certain adverse effects such as dizziness, headache, fatigue, and gastrointestinal disorders were more often associated with immunomodulatory interventions. There were little to no data on cognitive effects and quality of life. No important heterogeneity between studies was found for any of the outcomes. We judged the overall certainty of evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide confidence intervals. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Immunomodulatory interventions as add-on treatment for children and adults with focal epilepsy appear to be effective in reducing seizure frequency. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about the tolerability of these agents in children and adults with epilepsy. Further randomised controlled trials are needed.

A retrospective multicentric study on the effectiveness of intravenous brivaracetam in seizure clusters: Data from the Italian experience.

OBJECTIVE: Nearly half of people with epilepsy (PWE) are expected to develop seizure clusters (SC), with the subsequent risk of hospitalization. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the use, effectiveness and safety of intravenous (IV) brivaracetam (BRV) in the treatment of SC. METHODS: Retrospective multicentric study of patients with SC (≥ 2 seizures/24 h) who received IV BRV. Data collection occurred from January 2019 to April 2022 in 25 Italian neurology units. Primary efficacy outcome was seizure freedom up to 24 h from BRV administration. We also evaluated the risk of evolution into Status Epilepticus (SE) at 6, 12 and 24 h after treatment initiation. A Cox regression model was used to identify outcome predictors. RESULTS: 97 patients were included (mean age 62 years), 74 (76%) of whom had a history of epilepsy (with drug resistant seizures in 49% of cases). BRV was administered as first line treatment in 16% of the episodes, while it was used as first or second drug after benzodiazepines failure in 49% and 35% of episodes, respectively. On the one hand, 58% patients were seizure free at 24 h after BRV administration and no other rescue medications were used in 75 out of 97 cases (77%) On the other hand, SC evolved into SE in 17% of cases. A higher probability of seizure relapse and/or evolution into SE was observed in patients without a prior history of epilepsy (HR 2.0; 95% CI 1.03 - 4.1) and in case of BRV administration as second/third line drug (HR 3.2; 95% CI 1.1 - 9.7). No severe treatment emergent adverse events were observed. SIGNIFICANCE: In our cohort, IV BRV resulted to be well tolerated for the treatment of SC and it could be considered as a treatment option, particularly in case of in-hospital onset. However, the underlying etiology seems to be the main outcome predictor.

Vagus nerve stimulation for focal seizures.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in 2015. Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder, characterised by recurring, unprovoked seizures. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory treatment that is used as an adjunctive therapy for treating people with drug-resistant epilepsy. VNS consists of chronic, intermittent electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, delivered by a programmable pulse generator. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS), and MEDLINE Ovid on 3 March 2022. We imposed no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered parallel or cross-over, randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of VNS as add-on treatment, which compared high- and low-level stimulation (including three different stimulation paradigms: rapid, mild, and slow duty-cycle), and VNS stimulation versus no stimulation, or a different intervention. We considered adults or children with drug-resistant focal seizures who were either not eligible for surgery, or who had failed surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods, assessing the following outcomes: 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency 2. Treatment withdrawal (any reason) 3. Adverse effects 4. Quality of life (QoL) 5. Cognition 6. Mood MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the conclusions are unchanged. We included the five randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the last update, with a total of 439 participants. The baseline phase ranged from 4 to 12 weeks, and double-blind treatment phases from 12 to 20 weeks. We rated two studies at an overall low risk of bias, and three at an overall unclear risk of bias, due to lack of reported information about study design. Effective blinding of studies of VNS is difficult, due to the frequency of stimulation-related side effects, such as voice alteration. The risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.64; 4 RCTs, 373 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that high frequency VNS was over one and a half times more effective than low frequency VNS. The RR for treatment withdrawal was 2.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 12.71; 4 RCTs, 375 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results for the top five reported adverse events were: hoarseness RR 2.17 (99% CI 1.49 to 3.17; 3 RCTs, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); cough RR 1.09 (99% CI 0.74 to 1.62; 3 RCTs, 334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); dyspnoea RR 2.45 (99% CI 1.07 to 5.60; 3 RCTs, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence); pain RR 1.01 (99% CI 0.60 to 1.68; 2 RCTs; 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); paraesthesia 0.78 (99% CI 0.39 to 1.53; 2 RCTs, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Results from two studies (312 participants) showed that a small number of favourable QOL effects were associated with VNS stimulation, but results were inconclusive between high- and low-level stimulation groups. One study (198 participants) found inconclusive results between high- and low-level stimulation for cognition on all measures used. One study (114 participants) found the majority of participants showed an improvement in mood on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale compared to baseline, but results between high- and low-level stimulation were inconclusive. We found no important heterogeneity between studies for any of the outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: VNS for focal seizures appears to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment. Results of the overall efficacy analysis show that high-level stimulation reduced the frequency of seizures better than low-level stimulation. There were very few withdrawals, which suggests that VNS is well tolerated. Adverse effects associated with implantation and stimulation were primarily hoarseness, cough, dyspnoea, pain, paraesthesia, nausea, and headache, with hoarseness and dyspnoea more likely to occur with high-level stimulation than low-level stimulation. However, the evidence for these outcomes is limited, and of moderate to low certainty. Further high-quality research is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS for drug-resistant focal seizures.

Care delivery and self-management strategies for children with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a neurological disorder affecting both children and adults. Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical cell electrical activity in the brain. In response to criticism that epilepsy care for children has little impact on long-term outcomes, healthcare professionals and administrators have developed various service models and strategies to address perceived inadequacies. This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention for epilepsy versus usual care in children and adolescents with epilepsy and their families. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 14 January 2020: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 13 January 2020), PsycINFO (1887 to 14 January 2020), CINAHL Plus (1937 to 14 January 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We also contacted experts in the field seeking information on unpublished and ongoing studies and checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials recruiting children and adolescents with epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: 1. Seizure frequency and severity; 2. Appropriateness and volume of medication prescribed (including evidence of drug toxicity); 3. Participants' reported knowledge of information and advice received from professionals; 4. Participants' reports of health and quality of life; 5. Objective measures of general health status; 6. Objective measures of social or psychological functioning (including the number of days spent on sick leave/absence from school or work, and employment status); and 7. Costs of care or treatment. The results of the data extraction and quality assessment for each study were presented in structured tables and as a narrative summary. All summary statistics were extracted for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies of eight interventions in the review, reporting on seven distinct self-management programmes for educating or counselling children with epilepsy and their parents, and one new model of care. Based largely on self-reported outcomes, each programme showed some benefits for the well-being of children with epilepsy; however, all of the included studies had methodological flaws. No single programme was evaluated with different study samples, and in no instance was the same outcome measured and reported in the same way across studies, precluding any possible meta-analysis, even if the interventions were considered sufficiently similar to include in meta-analysis.  We chose the outcomes for which data might be important for decisions about the interventions as per guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We found moderate certainty evidence that one of the educational interventions reduced seizure frequency. There was low certainty evidence that two other educational interventions reduced seizure severity, seizure control, and seizure cure rates. The evidence for all other outcomes (drug adherence, knowledge, self-efficacy and self-perception of epilepsy on quality of life) was mixed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Whilst each of the programmes evaluated in this review showed some benefit to children with epilepsy, their impact was extremely variable. No programme showed benefits across the full range of outcomes, and all studies had methodological problems. There is currently insufficient evidence in favour of any single programme. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials using validated measures and considering clinical meaningfulness as well as statistical significance of results is required.

Brivaracetam add-on therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. It is estimated that up to 30% of individuals with epilepsy continue to have epileptic seizures despite treatment with an antiepileptic drug. These patients are classified as drug-resistant and require treatment with a combination of multiple antiepileptic drugs. Brivaracetam is a third-generation antiepileptic drug that is a high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A. In this review we investigated the use of brivaracetam as add-on therapy for epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the following databases on 7 September 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web); MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to 3 September 2021. CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for parallel-group RCTs that recruited people of any age with drug-resistant epilepsy. We accepted studies with any level of blinding (double-blind, single-blind, or unblinded). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In accordance with standard Cochrane methodological procedures, two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion before evaluating trial quality and extracting relevant data. The primary outcome to be assessed was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes were: seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse events, the proportion of participants who experienced any adverse events, and drug interactions. We used an intention-to-treat population for all primary analyses, and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore the results and conclusions of the review are unchanged. The previous review included six studies involving a total of 2411 participants. Only one study included participants with both focal and generalised onset seizures; the other five trials included participants with focal onset seizures only. Study participants were aged 16 to 80 years. Treatment periods ranged from 7 to 16 weeks. We judged two studies to have low risk of bias and four to have unclear risk of bias. Details on the method used for allocation concealment and how blinding was maintained were insufficient in one study each. One study did not report all outcomes prespecified in the trial protocol, and there were discrepancies in reporting in a further study. Participants receiving brivaracetam add-on were more likely to experience a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those receiving placebo (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.14; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants receiving brivaracetam were more likely to attain seizure freedom; however, the evidence is of low certainty (RR 5.89, 95% CI 2.30 to 15.13; 6 studies). The incidence of treatment withdrawal for any reason was slightly greater for participants receiving brivaracetam compared to those receiving placebo (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.74; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). The risk of participants experiencing one or more adverse events did not differ significantly following treatment with brivaracetam compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, participants receiving brivaracetam did appear to be more likely to withdraw from treatment due to adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.33; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When used as add-on therapy for individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy, brivaracetam may be effective in reducing seizure frequency and may aid patients in achieving seizure freedom. However, add-on brivaracetam is probably associated with a greater proportion of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo. It is important to note that only one of the eligible studies included participants with generalised epilepsy. None of the included studies involved participants under the age of 16, and all studies were of short duration. Consequently, the findings of this review are mainly applicable to adult patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Future research should focus on investigating the tolerability and efficacy of brivaracetam during longer-term follow-up, as well as assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam in managing other types of seizures and in other age groups.

Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review last published in Issue 7, 2019; it includes two additional studies. Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one-third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs that has been developed to improve outcomes. In this review we summarised the current evidence regarding pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the following databases on 16 November 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 16 November 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of pregabalin and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add-on for people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Double-blind and single-blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT). We presented summary risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). 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 11 randomised controlled trials (3949 participants). Nine trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.72, 9 trials, 2663 participants, low-certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose-response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.60; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.64; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared pregabalin to three active-control drugs: lamotrigine, eventrate and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12; 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to eventrate (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine for seizure freedom (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83). However, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add-on pregabalin compared to eventrate (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We detected no significant differences in treatment withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse effects, specifically, during either pooled analysis or subgroup analysis. Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, headache and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin than in active control. We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We assessed all the studies to be at a high risk of funding bias as they were all sponsored by Pfizer. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment was significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, although there were issues with tolerability at higher doses. However, the trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision-making. This review focused on the use of pregabalin in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of pregabalin when used as monotherapy.

Sulthiame monotherapy for epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2014. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition characterised by recurrent seizures. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Sulthiame (STM) is widely used as an antiepileptic drug in Europe and Israel. In this review, we have presented a summary of evidence for the use of STM as monotherapy in epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and side effect profile of STM as monotherapy when compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug for people with epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 13 April 2020: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 10 April 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of STM and researchers in the field to ask about ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled monotherapy trials of STM in people of any age with epilepsy of any aetiology. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: treatment withdrawal; seizure-free at six months; adverse effects; and quality of life scoring. We conducted the primary analyses by intention-to-treat where possible, and presented a narrative analysis of the data. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies involving a total of 355 participants: three studies (209 participants) with a diagnosis of benign epilepsy of childhood with centrotemporal spikes (BECTS), and one study (146 participants) with a diagnosis of generalised tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). STM was given as monotherapy compared with placebo and with levetiracetam in the BECTS studies, and compared with phenytoin in the GTCS study. An English translation of the full text of one of the BECTS studies could not be found, and analysis of this study was based solely on the English translation of the abstract. For the primary outcome, the total number of dropouts caused either by seizure recurrence or adverse reaction was significantly higher in the levetiracetam treatment arm compared to the STM treatment arm (RR 0.32, 95% Cl 0.10 to 1.03; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes for this comparison, results for seizure freedom were inconclusive (RR 1.12, 95% Cl 0.88 to 1.44; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Reporting of adverse effects was incomplete. Participants receiving STM were significantly less likely to develop gingival hyperplasia than participants receiving phenytoin in the GTCS study (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.58; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence). No further statistically significant adverse events were noted when STM was compared with phenytoin or placebo. The most common adverse events were related to behavioural disturbances when STM was compared with levetiracetam (RR 0.95, 95% Cl 0.59 to 1.55; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence), with the same incidence in both groups. No data were reported for quality of life. Overall, we assessed one study at high risk of bias and one study at unclear bias across the seven domains, mainly due to lack of information regarding study design. Only one trial reported effective methods for blinding. The risk of bias assessments for the other two studies ranged from low to high. We rated the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes as low using the GRADE approach. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides insufficient information to inform clinical practice. Small sample sizes, poor methodological quality, and lack of data on important outcome measures precluded any meaningful conclusions regarding the efficacy and tolerability of sulthiame as monotherapy in epilepsy. More trials, recruiting larger populations, over longer periods, are needed to determine whether sulthiame has a clinical use.

Gabapentin add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially people with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 11 August 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new studies for this update, therefore, the results and conclusions are unchanged. In the previous update of this review, we combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall risk ratio (RR) for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (95% CI 19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (95% CI 8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-certainty evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, the studies were at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide CIs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and seems to be fairly well-tolerated. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of gabapentin, and to compare gabapentin with other add-on drugs.

Rufinamide add-on therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a central nervous system disorder (neurological disorder). Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical nerve cell electrical activity in the brain. Despite the development of more than 10 new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) since the early 2000s, approximately a third of people with epilepsy remain resistant to pharmacotherapy, often requiring treatment with a combination of AEDs. In this review, we summarised the current evidence regarding rufinamide, a novel anticonvulsant medication, which, as a triazole derivative, is structurally unrelated to any other currently used anticonvulsant medication when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy. In January 2009, rufinamide was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of children four years of age and older with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. It is also approved as an add-on treatment for adults and adolescents with focal seizures. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of rufinamide and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on trials of rufinamide, recruiting people (of any age or gender) with drug-resistant epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome); seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; and adverse effects (secondary outcomes). Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT) and we presented summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). 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: The review included six trials, representing 1759 participants. Four trials (1563 participants) included people with uncontrolled focal seizures. Two trials (196 participants) included individuals with established Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Overall, the age of adults ranged from 18 to 80 years and the age of children ranged from 4 to 16 years. Baseline phases ranged from 28 to 56 days and double-blind phases from 84 to 96 days. Five of the six included trials described adequate methods of concealment of randomisation, and only three described adequate blinding. All analyses were by ITT. Overall, five studies were at low risk of bias and one had unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturer of rufinamide and therefore were at high risk of funding bias. The overall RR for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.79 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.22; 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), indicating that rufinamide (plus conventional AED) was significantly more effective than placebo (plus conventional AED) in reducing seizure frequency by at least 50% when added to conventionally used AEDs in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Data from only one study (73 participants) reported seizure freedom: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.36 to 4.86; 1 RCT, 73 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The overall RR for treatment withdrawal (for any reason and due to AED) was 1.83 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.31; 6 RCTs, 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that rufinamide was significantly more likely to be withdrawn than placebo. Most adverse effects were significantly more likely to occur in the rufinamide-treated group. Adverse events significantly associated with rufinamide were headache, dizziness, somnolence, vomiting, nausea, fatigue, and diplopia. The RRs for these adverse effects were as follows: headache 1.36 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.69; 3 RCTs, 1228 participants; high-certainty evidence); dizziness 2.52 (95% Cl 1.90 to 3.34; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); somnolence 1.94 (95% Cl 1.44 to 2.61; 6 RCTs, 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); vomiting 2.95 (95% Cl 1.80 to 4.82; 4 RCTs, 777 participants; low-certainty evidence); nausea 1.87 (95% Cl 1.33 to 2.64; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); fatigue 1.46 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.97; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and diplopia 4.60 (95% Cl 2.53 to 8.38; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no important heterogeneity between studies for any outcomes. Overall, we assessed the evidence as moderate to low certainty due to wide CIs and potential risk of bias from some studies contributing to the analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment was effective in reducing seizure frequency. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for long-term use of rufinamide. In the short term, rufinamide as an add-on was associated with several adverse events. This review focused on the use of rufinamide in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of rufinamide when used as monotherapy.

Lamotrigine add-on therapy for drug-resistant generalised tonic-clonic seizures.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2010; it includes one additional study. Primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures are a type of generalised seizure. Other types of seizures include: absence, myoclonic, and atonic seizures. Effective control of tonic-clonic seizures reduces the risk of injury and death, and improves quality of life. While most people achieve seizure control with one antiepileptic drug, around 30% do not, and require a combination of antiepileptic drugs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of add-on lamotrigine for drug-resistant primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched these databases on 19 March 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) Web, MEDLINE Ovid, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The CRS includes records from the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of lamotrigine. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled parallel or cross-over trials of add-on lamotrigine for people of any age with drug-resistant primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology; two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, evaluated risk of bias, extracted relevant data, and GRADE-assessed evidence. We investigated these outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in primary generalised tonic-clonic seizure frequency; (2) seizure freedom; (3) treatment withdrawal; (4) adverse effects; (5) cognitive effects; and (6) quality of life. We used an intention-to-treat (ITT) population for all analyses, and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for adverse effects, we used 99% CIs to compensate for multiple hypothesis testing. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies (total 300 participants): two parallel-group studies and one cross-over study. We assessed varied risks of bias across studies; most limitations arose from the poor reporting of methodological details. We meta-analysed data extracted from the two parallel-group studies, and conducted a narrative synthesis for data from the cross-over study. Both parallel-group studies (270 participants) reported all dichotomous outcomes. Participants taking lamotrigine were almost twice as likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in primary generalised tonic-clonic seizure frequency than those taking a placebo (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.45; low-certainty evidence). The results between groups were inconclusive for the likelihood of seizure freedom (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.72; very low-certainty evidence); treatment withdrawal (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.99; very low-certainty evidence); and individual adverse effects: ataxia (RR 3.05, 99% CI 0.05 to 199.36); dizziness (RR 0.91, 99% CI 0.29 to 2.86; very low-certainty evidence); fatigue (RR 1.02, 99% CI 0.13 to 8.14; very low-certainty evidence); nausea (RR 1.60, 99% CI 0.48 to 5.32; very low-certainty evidence); and somnolence (RR 3.73, 99% CI 0.36 to 38.90; low-certainty evidence). The cross-over trial (26 participants) reported that 7/14 participants with generalised tonic-clonic seizures experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency with add-on lamotrigine compared to placebo. The authors reported four treatment withdrawals, but did not specify during which treatment allocation they occurred. Rash (seven lamotrigine participants; zero placebo participants) and fatigue (five lamotrigine participants; zero placebo participants) were the most frequently reported adverse effects. None of the included studies measured cognition. One parallel-group study (N = 153) evaluated quality of life. They reported inconclusive results for the overall quality of life score between groups (P = 0.74). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides insufficient information to inform clinical practice. Low-certainty evidence suggests that lamotrigine reduces the rate of generalised tonic-clonic seizures by 50% or more. Very low-certainty evidence found inconclusive results between groups for all other outcomes. Therefore, we are uncertain to very uncertain that the results reported are accurate, and suggest that the true effect could be grossly different. More trials, recruiting larger populations, over longer periods, are necessary to determine lamotrigine's clinical use.

Lamotrigine add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2016. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder, affecting 0.5% to 1% of the population. For nearly 30% of these people, their epilepsy is resistant to currently available drugs. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Lamotrigine is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs. Lamotrigine, in combination with other antiepileptic drugs (add-on), can reduce seizures, but with some adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of lamotrigine on (1) seizures, (2) adverse-effect profile, and (3) cognition and quality of life, compared to placebo, when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update of the review, we searched the following databases on 9 March 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to March 06, 2020). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials from PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. No language restrictions were imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised placebo-controlled trials of people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy of any age, in which an adequate method of concealment of randomisation was used. The studies were double-, single- or unblinded, placebo-controlled. For cross-over studies, the first treatment period was treated as a parallel trial. Eligible participants were adults or children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion, and extracted data. Outcomes included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal (any reason), adverse effects, effects on cognition and quality of life. Primary analyses were by intention-to-treat. Sensitivity best- and worse-case analyses were undertaken to account for missing outcome data. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cls) were estimated for the primary outcomes of seizure frequency and treatment withdrawal. For adverse effects, we calculated pooled RRs and 99% Cls. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the results and conclusions are unchanged. In previous updates of this review, the authors found five parallel add-on studies, eight cross-over studies in adults or children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and one parallel add-on study with a responder-enriched design in infants. In total, these 14 studies included 1806 eligible participants (38 infants, 199 children, 1569 adults). Baseline phases ranged from four to 12 weeks; treatment phases from eight to 36 weeks. Overall, 11 studies (1243 participants) were rated as having low risk of bias, and three (697 participants) had unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. Effective blinding of studies was reported in four studies (563 participants). The overall risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.80 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.23; 12 trials, 1322 participants (adults and children); moderate-certainty evidence) indicating that lamotrigine was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing seizure frequency. The overall RR for treatment withdrawal (for any reason) was 1.11 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 14 trials; 1806 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The adverse events significantly associated with lamotrigine were: ataxia, dizziness, diplopia (double vision), and nausea. The RR of these adverse effects were as follows: ataxia 3.34 (99% Cl 2.01 to 5.55; 12 trials; 1525 participants; high-certainty evidence); dizziness 2.00 (99% Cl 1.52 to 2.64;13 trials; 1768 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); diplopia 3.79 (99% Cl 2.15 to 6.68; 3 trials, 944 participants; high-certainty evidence); nausea 1.81 (99% Cl 1.22 to 2.68; 12 studies,1486 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The limited data available precluded any conclusions about effects on cognition and quality of life. No important heterogeneity between studies was found for any of the outcomes. Overall, we assessed the evidence as high to moderate certainty, due to incomplete data for some outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal seizures appears to be effective in reducing seizure frequency, and seems to be fairly well-tolerated. However, the trials were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for the long term. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of lamotrigine, and to compare lamotrigine with other add-on drugs.

Diagnostic and interventional implications of telemedicine in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment: A literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, life expectancy, and aging-related disorders as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease (AD) are increasing, having a rising impact on patients' quality of life and caregivers' distress. Telemedicine offers many possibilities, such as remote diagnosing and monitoring of patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to provide a narrative synthesis of the literature about the implementation of telemedicine for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with AD and MCI and their caregivers. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases up to September 2018. MCI or AD diagnoses were the conditions of interest. We excluded other dementias. RESULTS: Fifty-six articles met inclusion criteria. We identified two main categories: diagnosis group (DG) and follow-up/interventional group (FIG). Fifteen articles suggested how to make a remote or earlier diagnosis: four were case-control accuracy studies, nine were paired comparative accuracy studies, and two were prospective single-arm accuracy studies. Among these, four focused on MCI, six on AD, and five on both. Forty one focused on supporting patients during the stages of the disease (28 articles), patient's caregivers (nine articles), or both (four articles). CONCLUSIONS: The rising use of telemedicine could actively improve AD and MCI patients' lives, reduce caregivers' burden, and facilitate an early diagnosis if patients live in remote places. However, as some studies report, it is relevant to take into account the emotional impact of telemedicine on patients and not only on the effectiveness.

Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one-third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs which have been developed to improve outcomes.This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2014, and includes three new studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), on 5 July 2018, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 5 July 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (5 July 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 5 July 2018), and contacted Pfizer Ltd, manufacturer of pregabalin, to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add-on for people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Double-blind and single-blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected and assessed trials for eligibility and extracted data. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Two review authors assessed the included studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine industry-sponsored randomised controlled trials (3327 participants) in the review. Seven trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.42, 7 trials, 2193 participants, low-certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose-response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.65, 7 trials, 2193 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.88 to 3.74, 7 trials, 2193 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).Three trials compared pregabalin to three active-control drugs: lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12, 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to levetiracetam (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11, 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12, 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) for seizure freedom, however, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add-on pregabalin compared to levetiracetam (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52), levetiracetam (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49), or gabapentin (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.07) for treatment withdrawal due to any reason or due to adverse effects (pregabalin versus lamotrigine: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.48; versus levetiracetam: RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.54; versus gabapentin: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.11). Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin.We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin, when used as an add-on drug for treatment-resistant focal epilepsy, is significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, however issues with tolerability were noted at higher doses. The trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision making.

The inter-rater reliability of the Italian version of Aphasia Rapid Test (ART) for acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: The Aphasia Rapid Test (ART) is a screening questionnaire used for examining language in acute stroke patients. The ART was initially developed and validated in French. The purpose of this study was to assess the inter-rater reliability of Italian ART. METHODS: The original version of the ART was translated into Italian. The inter-rater reliability was assessed by two independent neurologists who were blind to each other's ratings in 52 acute post-stroke patients. RESULTS: The 52 patients (28 men, 24 women; mean age 73.73 ± 28.99 years) were included within 1 week of stroke onset (46 ischemic, 6 hemorrhagic), as assessed by clinical examination and confirmed by CT and/or MRI. The mean (± SD) ART value was 9.38 (± 9.26) for rater 1 and 9 (±9.31) for rater 2. The inter-rater agreement was very good, with a coefficient of concordance of 0.99 (95% CI 0.986-0.995; p < 0.0001) and a weighted kappa of 0.878 and a quadratic weighted kappa of 0.983. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the cross-cultural adaptation of the French version of the ART was successful in an Italian-speaking population.

A pilot study on the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation applied to the pharyngeal motor cortex for dysphagia associated with brainstem involvement in multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: we investigated the effect of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied over the pharyngeal motor area in dysphagia associated with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: Eighteen MS patients with dysphagia associated with brainstem involvement were randomized to receive either "real" or "sham" tDCS. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The Penetration/Aspiration Scale (PAS). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: changes in electromyographic (EMG) parameters and pharyngeal cortical motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Patients were evaluated at baseline (T0), at the end of 5-session cycle of tDCS stimulations (T1), after two (T2), and four (T3) weeks. RESULTS: the PAS values were significantly lower in the active group than in "sham" group at T1, and at T3. Over the post-stimulation periods, PAS significantly improved only in the "real" group. As regards the secondary outcomes, we observed a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups only in the MEPs amplitude at T1. The comparison between baseline and each of the post-stimulation times showed significant differences only of the "real" group across all the secondary parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support a beneficial effect of anodal tDCS applied to the pharyngeal motor cortex in MS-associated dysphagia. SIGNIFICANCE: Considering its safety and efficacy, tDCS may represent an important resource in MS-associated dysphagia.

Brivaracetam add-on therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. It is estimated that up to 30% of patients with epilepsy continue to have epileptic seizures despite treatment with an antiepileptic drug. These patients are classified as drug-resistant and require treatment with a combination of multiple antiepileptic drugs. Brivaracetam is a third-generation antiepileptic drug that is a high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A. This review investigates the use of brivaracetam as add-on therapy for epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 9 October 2018: the 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 to 8 October 2018; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Originally we also searched SCOPUS as a substitute for Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised controlled trials with parallel-group design, recruiting people of any age with drug-resistant epilepsy. We accepted studies with any level of blinding (double-blind, single-blind, or unblind). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In accordance with standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration, two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion before evaluating trial quality and extracting relevant data. The primary outcome to be assessed was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes were: seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse events, the proportion of participants who experienced any adverse events, and drug interactions. We used an intention-to-treat (ITT) population for all primary analyses, and we presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: The review included six trials representing 2411 participants. Only one study included participants with both focal and generalised onset seizures; the other five trials included participants with focal onset seizures only. All six studies included adult participants between 16 and 80 years old, and treatment periods ranged from 7 to 16 weeks. We judged two studies to have low risk of bias and four to have unclear risk of bias. One study failed to provide details on the method used for allocation concealment, and one did not report all outcomes prespecified in the trial protocol. One study did not describe how blinding was maintained, and another noted discrepancies in reporting.Participants receiving brivaracetam add-on were significantly more likely to experience a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those receiving placebo (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.14; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Participants receiving brivaracetam were also significantly more likely to attain seizure freedom (RR 5.89, 95% CI 2.30 to 15.13; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The incidence of treatment withdrawal for any reason (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.74; 6 studies; low-quality evidence), as well as the risk of participants experiencing one or more adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence), was not significantly different following treatment with brivaracetam compared to placebo. However, participants receiving brivaracetam did appear to be significantly more likely to withdraw from treatment specifically because of adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.33; 6 studies; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Brivaracetam, when used as add-on therapy for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, is effective in reducing seizure frequency and can aid patients in achieving seizure freedom. However, add-on brivaracetam is associated with a greater proportion of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo. It is important to note that only one of the eligible studies included participants with generalised epilepsy. None of the studies included participants under the age of 16, and all studies were of short duration. Consequently, these findings are mainly applicable to adult patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Future research should thus focus on investigating the tolerability and efficacy of brivaracetam during longer-term follow-up, and should also assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam in managing other types of seizures and its use in other age groups.

Gabapentin add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2013.Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially those with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 20 March 2018), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 March 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (20 March 2018) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 20 March 2018). We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials representing 2607 randomised participants. We combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall RR for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-quality evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-quality evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There were no significant differences for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Overall, the studies were rated at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall quality of evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide confidence intervals. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types.

Rufinamide add-on therapy for refractory epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a central nervous system disorder (neurological disorder). Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical nerve cell electrical activity in the brain. Despite the development of more than 10 new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) since the early 2000s, approximately a third of people with epilepsy remain resistant to pharmacotherapy, often requiring treatment with a combination of AEDs. In this review, we summarised the current evidence regarding rufinamide, a novel anticonvulsant medication, which, as a triazole derivative, is structurally unrelated to any other currently used anticonvulsant medication, when used as an add-on treatment for refractory epilepsy. In January 2009, rufinamide was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of children four years of age and older with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. It is also approved as an add-on treatment for adults and adolescents with focal seizures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment in people with refractory epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: On 2 October 2017, 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), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted the manufacturers of rufinamide and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on trials of rufinamide, recruiting people (of any age or gender) with refractory epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcomes); seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; and adverse effects (secondary outcomes). Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT) and we presented summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). 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 quality of evidence using the GRADE approach, which we presented in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: The review included six trials, representing 1759 participants. Four trials (1563 participants) included people with uncontrolled focal seizures. Two trials (196 participants) included established Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Overall, the age of the adults ranged from 18 to 80 years and the age of the infants ranged from four to 16 years. Baseline phase ranged from 28 to 56 days and double-blind phases from 84 to 96 days. Five of the six included trials described adequate methods of concealment of randomisation and only three described adequate blinding. All analyses were by ITT. Overall, five studies were at low risk of bias, and one had unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturer of rufinamide, and therefore, were at high risk of funding bias.The overall RR for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.79 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.22; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence) indicating that rufinamide (plus conventional AED) was significantly more effective than placebo (plus conventional AED) in reducing seizure frequency by at least 50%, when added to conventionally used AEDs in people with refractory focal epilepsy. The overall RR for treatment withdrawal (for any reason and due to AED) was 1.83 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.31; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence) showing that rufinamide was significantly more likely to be withdrawn than placebo. In respect of adverse effects, most were significantly more likely to occur in the rufinamide-treated group. The adverse events significantly associated with rufinamide were: headache, dizziness, somnolence, vomiting, nausea, fatigue and diplopia. The RRs of these adverse effects were: headache 1.36 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.69; 3 RCTs; high-quality evidence); dizziness 2.52 (95% Cl 1.90 to 3.34; 3 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence); somnolence 1.94 (95% Cl 1.44 to 2.61; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence); vomiting 2.95 (95% Cl 1.80 to 4.82; 4 RCTs; low-quality evidence); nausea 1.87 (95% Cl 1.33 to 2.64; 3 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence); fatigue 1.46 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.97; 3 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence); and diplopia 4.60 (95% Cl 2.53 to 8.38; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence). There was no important heterogeneity between studies for any of the outcomes. Overall, we assessed the evidence as moderate to low quality, due to potential risk of bias from some studies contributing to the analysis and wide CIs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment was effective in reducing seizure frequency. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for the long-term use of rufinamide. In the short term, rufinamide as an add-on was associated with several adverse events. This review focused on the use of rufinamide in drug-resistant focal epilepsy and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of rufinamide when used as monotherapy.