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.

Monotherapy versus polytherapy for epilepsy: a multicenter double-blind randomized study.

PURPOSE: Monotherapy has been the gold standard in epilepsy treatment for the last 20 years, partly because of the reputation for increased toxicity of polytherapy. However, monotherapy and polytherapy have not been compared in a double-blind clinical trial. Open trials that compared the two treatments were not optimally designed and compared the two at unequal drug loads (i.e., at nonequivalent dosages). We report on a double-blind clinical trial in which a combination of carbamazepine (CBZ) and valproate (VPA) was compared with CBZ monotherapy. Patients started with equal drug loads, and neurotoxicity was the primary outcome measure. METHODS: The 130 adult patients with untreated generalized tonic-clonic and/or partial seizures were randomized to equal drug loads of either monotherapy (400 mg CBZ per day) or polytherapy (200 mg CBZ plus 300 mg VPA per day). Outcome was measured by seizure counts, clinimetric epilepsy scales, and neuropsychological tests at baseline, at 2 and 12 months, and irregularly between 2 and 12 months. RESULTS: No statistical differences were found between the two treatments in the reduction of seizure frequencies, in overall neurotoxicity, or in overall systemic toxicity. The frequencies and clinimetric scores of certain adverse effects did differ (e.g., more monotherapy patients remained sedated, and more polytherapy patients gained weight). Fewer polytherapy patients withdrew because of adverse effects (14 vs. 22%), although this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.15). Neuropsychological assessment did not show significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found in overall neurotoxicity between monotherapy and polytherapy.

Selection of antiepileptic drug polytherapy based on mechanisms of action: the evidence reviewed.

PURPOSE: When monotherapy with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) fails, combination therapy is tried in an attempt to improve effectiveness by improving efficacy, tolerability, or both. We reviewed the available studies (both animal and human) on AED polytherapy to determine whether AEDs can be selected for combination therapy based on their mechanisms of action, and if so, which combinations are associated with increased effectiveness. Because various designs and methods of analysis were used in these studies, it was also necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of these approaches. METHODS: Published papers reporting on AED polytherapy in animals or humans were identified by Medline search and by checking references cited in these papers. RESULTS: Thirty-nine papers were identified reporting on two-drug AED combinations. Several combinations were reported to offer improved effectiveness, but no uniform approach was used in either animal or human studies for the evaluation of pharmacodynamic drug interactions; efficacy was often the only end point. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that AED polytherapy based on mechanisms of action may enhance effectiveness. In particular, combining a sodium channel blocker with a drug enhancing GABAergic inhibition appears to be advantageous. Combining two GABA mimetic drugs or combining an AMPA antagonist with an NMDA antagonist may enhance efficacy, but tolerability is sometimes reduced. Combining two sodium channel blockers seems less promising. However, given the incomplete knowledge of the pathophysiology of seizures and indeed of the exact mechanisms of action of AEDs, an empirical but rational approach for evaluating AED combinations is of fundamental importance. This would involve appropriate testing of all possible combinations in animal models and subsequent evaluation of advantageous combinations in clinical trials. Testing procedures in animals should include the isobologram method, and the concept of drug load should be the basis of studies in patients with epilepsy.

Effects of polytherapy compared with monotherapy in antiepileptic drugs: an animal study.

Although monotherapy in epilepsy treatment is frequently advocated, this is not based on studies with equal drug loads. This study was performed to investigate the experimental background of polytherapy with standardized drug loads. Dose-dependent effects on grip strength, accelerod performance, and spontaneous behavior of rats was used to study the effect of combining valproate and ethosuximide. The potency of the drugs (combination) was obtained by fitting the sigmoid Emax equation to the data. Drug interaction was assessed using the isobologram method and quantified by comparing equivalent drug loads with their 95% confidence intervals. We found that the effects of valproate and ethosuximide combine in a simple additive way in the grip strength experiment as well as in the accelerod experiment. In the behavioral studies, however, a higher drug load of the combination was needed to obtain the same amount of sedation, signifying infra-additivity. Infra-additivity of sedative effects is an important finding because this is by far the most frequent side effect mentioned in human studies. However, assessment of the therapeutic effect of the combination will have to be completed before a preference for mono- or polytherapy, based on the balance of adverse effects and efficacy, can be expressed.

Newer anticonvulsant drugs: role of pharmacology, drug interactions and adverse reactions in drug choice.

In the last few years a number of new anticonvulsants have been introduced into clinical practice mainly as add-on therapy in patients who do not become seizure-free while receiving established anticonvulsants. Up to now, no single drug has been shown to be more effective at controlling seizures of a particular type than another, so other factors such as mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, dosage regimens or the spectrum of adverse drug reactions and interactions are used when making a choice between one agent and another. The mechanism of action of tiagabine and vigabatrin is very specific; both agents increase gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) levels through inhibition of reuptake and catabolism respectively. However, the mechanism of action of gabapentin is unknown and those of felbamate, lamotrigine and topiramate are not sufficiently clarified as yet, and may be multiple. Great advances have been made in improving the pharmacokinetic characteristics of these newer anticonvulsants. Gabapentin and vigabatrin exhibit relatively ideal pharmacokinetic properties as they are not bound to proteins, are excreted mostly unchanged in the urine and show linear pharmacokinetics. Lamotrigine possesses a highly variable elimination half-life depending on the co-medication. Tiagabine is highly protein bound and zonisamide shows nonlinear pharmacokinetics; both these drugs are extensively metabolised. Problematic drug interactions between newer anticonvulsants and other drugs in general occur rarely when these agents are given concomitantly. However, in common with most new drugs, there are very few data on the use of the newer anticonvulsants in women of childbearing age. Studies done so far on interactions with oral contraceptives used low anticonvulsant dosages for a very short time. The newer anticonvulsants elicit adverse reactions that, while not being unique, are particularly associated with that drug. For example, felbamate may cause aplastic anaemia and fulminant liver failure, lamotrigine is prone to cause skin rash, and oxcarbazepine may cause symptomatic hyponatraemia. Topiramate and zonisamide cause kidney stones, and vigabatrin may induce psychiatric syndromes. Although highly diverse in structure and activity, these newer drugs offer new possibilities for treating refractory epilepsy. However, since no single factor can dictate the choice of drug nor predict the success of treatment, prescribing of these rather expensive drugs has to depend upon careful consideration of the aims of treatment, the characteristics of the drug and the needs of the individual patient.

Reappraisal of polytherapy in epilepsy: a critical review of drug load and adverse effects.

PURPOSE: We reviewed the literature to determine whether an analysis of published data could clarify the relationship between antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy and adverse affects (AE). We highlight the problems encountered. METHODS: We made a Medline-search for articles published between 1974 and 1994 reporting the number of AE and doses or serum levels of every AED, per patient or treatment group, and used the PDD/DDD ratio to calculate AED load per patient from doses or the OSL/AToxL ratio to do so from serum levels of individual drugs. The PDD/DDD is the sum of ratios of the actual prescribed daily doses divided by the published average therapeutic dose of each drug. The OSL/AToxL is the sum of each observed serum level divided by its average toxic level. RESULTS: We retrieved 118 trial reports. Most had to be excluded because of incomplete reporting of concomitant medication or AE. The data of the 15 articles selected for further analysis indicate a relationship between drug load and number of AE. We noted no relationship between the number of AEDs administered and AE. In add-on studies, the difference in neurotoxicity between the active and placebo arm may be obscured if the relative increase in drug load is small, as exemplified by the study of McGuire et al.. CONCLUSIONS: Articles reporting add-on trials of new AEDs generally do not provide detailed information about the basic medication to which the new AED is added, which makes calculation of total drug load impossible. Furthermore, often only frequency of AE is reported, not severity or development of tolerance, making it difficult to judge the impact of AE. However, despite the paucity of available information, we present some evidence that toxicity in AED polytherapy may be related to total drug load, rather than to the number of drugs administered. Therefore, the present trend to reject polytherapy for fear of increased toxicity is not warranted, which removes one of the objections to initiating specific research to prove or disprove the value of AED combinations as long as the drug load is appropriate.

Adverse effects in epilepsy therapy. Wait and see or go for it?

OBJECTIVES: Attention for adverse effects (AEs) is important for optimizing epilepsy treatment. However, a uniform strategy is lacking. In particular there appears to be a dichotomy between those who "wait and see" and those who "go for it", i.e. routinely check a list of AEs. Our intention is to identify the effects of different approaches. METHODS: Trial reports on carbamazepine or valproate monotherapy (Medline-search), and data from the Nijmegen Epilepsy Research Group were analyzed. RESULTS: Analysis suggests that for certain AEs, such as diplopia, dysarthria, affect and mood disturbances, headache, dizziness, gastro-intestinal disturbances, dermatological disturbances and idiosyncratic reactions, it does not matter which approach is chosen. However, sedation, cognitive impairments, sexual dysfunction, hair changes, nystagmus, gait disturbances, tremor and weight changes are reported more frequently when routinely checked. The value of routine laboratory monitoring is, however, questioned. CONCLUSIONS: Use of different strategies to detect AEs obstructs estimation of risks of AEDs. Baseline measurements and regular checking for those AEs, which are reported more frequently by authors who actively search for AEs, is advisable.

Pharmacotherapy of epilepsy: state of the art and developments.

PURPOSE: A discussion of modern day practice and new developments in antiepileptic drug treatment. CONTENTS: Important principles of antiepileptic therapy are addressed--starting with antiepileptic drug therapy, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, therapeutic drug monitoring, drug-induced adverse effects and the withdrawal of antiepileptic drugs. Furthermore, the pathophysiology of focal and generalized epilepsies and the mechanism of action of several antiepileptic drugs are briefly reviewed. Modern treatment algorithms for different types of epileptic seizures are presented. A significant development is the introduction of new antiepileptic drugs and particularly of those drugs that have been developed according to the latest insights into pathophysiology. Also of interest is the increased focus on adverse effects and on quality of life. Partly due to these developments, combining antiepileptic drugs has received renewed attention in an attempt to maintain effective seizure control but with a reduction of adverse effects.

Alternative pathways of apoptosis induced by methylprednisolone and valinomycin analyzed by flow cytometry.

Apoptosis of murine thymocytes induced by either methylprednisolone or valinomycin was studied by flow cytometry. The apoptosis induced by methylprednisolone followed three stages: an initial decrease in cell volume, indicated by a fall in forward scatter accompanied by faint ethidium bromide staining, a second stage in which the cells became brightly stained by ethidium bromide, and a final stage when the cells were apparently less fluorescent as the nuclei disintegrated into apoptotic bodies. As the forward scatter of cells decreased there was a simultaneous depolarization of the cells and an elevation of intracellular calcium. These early changes preceded the fragmentation of the DNA which also preceded the intense staining of the cells by ethidium bromide. Methylprednisolone-induced apoptosis was inhibited by low concentrations (1 x 10(-7) M) of valinomycin and nonactin, neither of which could themselves induce apoptosis at these low concentrations. Cadmidazolium and cycloheximide arrested the program at an early stage. Okadaic acid allowed volume loss and ethidium bromide staining to proceed in the absence of DNA fragmentation. At high concentrations (1 x 10(-5) M) valinomycin induced a form of apoptosis, but nonactin only caused the cells to fragment. The valinomycin-induced apoptosis, although it involved the degradation of DNA and the disintegration of the nuclei into apoptotic bodies, differed from the methylprednisolone apoptosis as it did not involve a decrease of cell volume and was not inhibited by cycloheximide or affected by okadaic acid.