Explore the vast range of titles available.

Valproate is widely accepted as a drug of first choice for patients with generalised onset seizures, and its broad spectrum of efficacy means it is recommended for patients with seizures that are difficult to classify. Lamotrigine and topiramate are also thought to possess broad spectrum activity. The SANAD study aimed to compare the longer-term effects of these drugs in patients with generalised onset seizures or seizures that are difficult to classify. SANAD was an unblinded randomised controlled trial in hospital-based outpatient clinics in the UK. Arm B of the study recruited 716 patients for whom valproate was considered to be standard treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to valproate, lamotrigine, or topiramate between Jan 12, 1999, and Aug 31, 2004, and follow-up data were obtained up to Jan 13, 2006. Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure, and time to 1-year remission, and analysis was by both intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN38354748. For time to treatment failure, valproate was significantly better than topiramate (hazard ratio 1·57 [95% CI 1·19–2·08]), but there was no significant difference between valproate and lamotrigine (1·25 [0·94–1·68]). For patients with an idiopathic generalised epilepsy, valproate was significantly better than both lamotrigine (1·55 [1·07–2·24] and topiramate (1·89 [1·32–2·70]). For time to 12-month remission valproate was significantly better than lamotrigine overall (0·76 [0·62–0·94]), and for the subgroup with an idiopathic generalised epilepsy 0·68 (0·53–0·89). But there was no significant difference between valproate and topiramate in either the analysis overall or for the subgroup with an idiopathic generalised epilepsy. Valproate is better tolerated than topiramate and more efficacious than lamotrigine, and should remain the drug of first choice for many patients with generalised and unclassified epilepsies. However, because of known potential adverse effects of valproate during pregnancy, the benefits for seizure control in women of childbearing years should be considered.

Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5–12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0–94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96–1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of −0·040 (95% central range −0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Background Helicobacter pylori ( H. pylori ) causes chronic infection in more than half of the population worldwide. Accumulating body of evidence indicates the possible role of H. Pylori infection in extra-intestinal health problems, including epilepsy. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of treating H. pylori infection on seizure frequency among children with drug-resistant idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). Methods A parallel, two-arm, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted on 126 children with drug-resistant IGE and positive H. pylori stool antigen test who were randomly assigned to study and comparison groups in 1.2:1 ratio. Only the study group received H. pylori eradication therapy (esomeprazole, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin) for two weeks. The primary outcome was seizure improvement (≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction compared with baseline) after 2.5 months. Secondary outcomes were occurrence of status epilepticus, escalation of antiseizure medication (ASMs), and adverse effects. Outcomes between the two groups were compared using Chi-square/Fisher exact tests on an intention-to-treat principle. Logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate possible effects of baseline variables on primary outcome. Results Seizure improvement occurred in 23 (33%) children in the study group compared with seven (12%) children in the comparison group (Risk ratio [RR] 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3–5.9; p 0.006). The study group had lower occurrence of status epilepticus (2.9% vs. 14%; RR 0.21, 95%CI: 0.05–0.93; p 0.042) and lesser need for ASMs escalation (4.4% vs. 19.3%; RR 0.23, 95%CI: 0.07–0.77; p 0.010). Adverse effects were more frequent among subjects in the study group, including nausea (15.9% vs. 10.5%) vomiting (8.7% vs. 3.5%), diarrhea (11.6% vs. 5.3%), and skin rash (4.4% vs. 1.8%), but the differences were not statistically significant ( p  > 0.05). None of baseline participants’ variables was significantly associated with the primary outcome. Conclusion Treating H. pylori infection may improve seizure control in children with drug-resistant IGE, but further studies are warranted to confirm our findings and explore mechanisms behind seizure improvement following H. pylori eradication therapy. Trial registration Registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT05297695) on 17 March 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05297695 .

Objective To compare the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) with extended-release sodium valproate (VPA-ER) and controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Methods This unblinded, randomised, 52-week superiority trial (NCT00175903) recruited patients (≥16 years of age) with ≥2 unprovoked seizures in the previous 2 years and ≥1 in the previous 6 months. The physician chose VPA or CBZ as preferred standard treatment; each patient was randomised to standard treatment or LEV. The primary outcome was time to treatment withdrawal (LEV vs standard antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)). Analyses also compared LEV with VPA-ER, and LEV with CBZ-CR. Findings 1688 patients (mean age 41 years; 44% female) were randomised to LEV (n=841) or standard AEDs (n=847). Time to treatment withdrawal was not significantly different between LEV and standard AEDs: HR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.74 to 1.08). Time to treatment withdrawal (HR (95% CI)) was 1.02 (0.74 to 1.41) for LEV/VPA-ER and 0.84 (0.66 to 1.07) for LEV/CBZ-CR. Time to first seizure (HR, 95% CI) was significantly longer for standard AEDs, 1.20 (1.03 to 1.39), being 1.19 (0.93 to 1.54) for LEV/VPA-ER and 1.20 (0.99 to 1.46) for LEV/CBZ-CR. Estimated 12-month seizure freedom rates from randomisation: 58.7% LEV versus 64.5% VPA-ER; 50.5% LEV versus 56.7% CBZ-CR. Similar proportions of patients within each stratum reported at least one adverse event: 66.1% LEV versus 62.0% VPA-ER; 73.4% LEV versus 72.5% CBZ-CR. Conclusions LEV monotherapy was not superior to standard AEDs for the global outcome, namely time to treatment withdrawal, in patients with newly diagnosed focal or generalised seizures.

The PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study was a pooled analysis of data from 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which people with epilepsy (PWE; focal and generalized) were treated with perampanel (PER). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included 50% responder rate (≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit); in PWE with status epilepticus, response was defined as seizures under control. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. The Full Analysis Set included 5193 PWE. Retention, effectiveness and safety/tolerability were assessed in 4721, 4392 and 4617, respectively. Retention on PER treatment at 3, 6, and 12 months was 90.5%, 79.8%, and 64.2%, respectively. Mean retention time on PER treatment was 10.8 months. The 50% responder rate was 58.3% at 12 months and 50.0% at the last visit, and the corresponding seizure freedom rates were 23.2% and 20.5%, respectively; 52.7% of PWE with status epilepticus responded to PER treatment. Overall, 49.9% of PWE reported AEs and the most frequently reported AEs (≥ 5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (15.2%), somnolence (10.6%), irritability (8.4%), and behavioral disorders (5.4%). At 12 months, 17.6% of PWEs had discontinued due to AEs. PERMIT demonstrated that PER is effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat people with focal and/or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice.

ObjectiveTo evaluate efficacy and safety of lacosamide (up to 12 mg/kg/day or 400 mg/day) as adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in patients (≥4 years) with idiopathic generalised epilepsy (IGE).MethodsPhase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial (SP0982; NCT02408523) in patients with IGE and PGTCS taking 1–3 concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Primary outcome was time to second PGTCS during 24-week treatment.Results242 patients were randomised and received ≥1 dose of trial medication (lacosamide/placebo: n=121/n=121). Patients (mean age: 27.7 years; 58.7% female) had a history of generalised-onset seizures (tonic-clonic 99.6%; myoclonic 38.8%; absence 37.2%). Median treatment duration with lacosamide/placebo was 143/65 days. Risk of developing a second PGTCS during 24-week treatment was significantly lower with lacosamide than placebo (Kaplan-Meier survival estimates 55.27%/33.37%; HR 0.540, 95% CI 0.377 to 0.774; p<0.001; n=118/n=121). Median time to second PGTCS could not be estimated for lacosamide (>50% of patients did not experience a second PGTCS) and was 77.0 days for placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimated freedom from PGTCS at end of the 24-week treatment period (day 166) for lacosamide/placebo was 31.3%/17.2% (difference 14.1%; p=0.011). More patients on lacosamide than placebo had ≥50% (68.1%/46.3%) or ≥75% (57.1%/36.4%) reduction from baseline in PGTCS frequency/28 days, or observed freedom from PGTCS during treatment (27.5%/13.2%) (n=119/n=121). 96/121 (79.3%) patients on lacosamide had treatment-emergent adverse events (placebo 79/121 (65.3%)), most commonly dizziness (23.1%), somnolence (16.5%), headache (14.0%). No patients died during the trial.ConclusionsLacosamide was efficacious and generally safe as adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled PGTCS in patients with IGE.

Purpose The GABRG2 gene polymorphisms C588T and 3145G>A could be predictive genetic markers that trigger idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) or predict pharmaco-resistance to antiseizure medications (ASMs). Methods This case‒control study enrolled 85 children, including 34 patients with IGE who were responsive to ASMs (responsive group), 30 patients with IGE who were resistant to ASMs (resistant group), and 21 healthy children (control group). All participants were assessed for the GABRG2 C588T and GABRG2 3145G>A gene polymorphisms via polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Results The CC genotype of the GABRG2 polymorphism was the most commonly reported genotype. The CT and TT genotypes were more frequently associated with epileptic patients than with controls. The T allele and the T-included genotypes were more common among epileptic patients than controls. Regarding the GABRG2 _3145G>A polymorphism, the AG genotype was the most frequent among the study groups. The GG phenotype was more common among epileptic children than in controls. The G allele and G-included genotypes were significantly associated with epilepsy ( p  = 0.02), with a 3.2-fold higher risk of occurrence of epilepsy for the G allele carriers. A statistically insignificant difference in the distribution of different genotypes and C & T alleles of the GABRG2 C588T polymorphism was detected between the ASMs-responsive and the ASMs-resistant subgroups. However, the TT genotype was more common in the ASMs-resistant subgroup (10% vs. 3%). The GABRG2 _3145G>A polymorphism appeared to be a prognostic determinant of ASMs responsiveness; the GG genotype was significantly associated with poor control of seizure activity (47% vs. 24%, p  = 0.05). The G-included genotypes were significantly associated with ASMs resistance (76% vs. 53%, p  = 0.05). Conclusions The T allele and TT genotype of the GABRG2 C588T gene were more common among patients with IGE, whereas the G allele and the GG genotype of the GABRG2 3145G>A gene may be significant predictors of ASMs resistance among IGE patients. Results validation in larger, multi-center studies across diverse populations is recommended.

Genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE) syndromes start during childhood or adolescence, and four commonly persist into adulthood, making up 15–20% of all cases of epilepsy in adults. These four GGE syndromes are childhood absence epilepsy, juvenile absence epilepsy, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy and epilepsy with generalized tonic–clonic seizures alone. However, in ~20% of patients with GGE, characteristics of more than one syndrome are present. Novel insights into the genetic aetiology, comorbidities and prognosis of the GGE syndromes have emerged and challenge traditional concepts about these conditions. Evidence has shown that the mode of inheritance in GGE is mostly polygenic. Neuropsychological and imaging studies indicate similar abnormalities in unaffected relatives of patients with GGE, supporting the concept that underlying alterations in bilateral frontothalamocortical networks are genetically determined. Contrary to popular belief, first-line anti-seizure medication often fails to provide seizure freedom in combination with good tolerability. Nevertheless, long-term follow-up studies have shown that with advancing age, many patients can discontinue their anti-seizure medication without seizure relapses. Several outcome predictors have been identified, but prognosis across the syndromes is more homogeneous than previously assumed. Overall, overlap in pathophysiology, seizure types, treatment responses and outcomes support the idea that GGEs are not separate nosological entities but represent a neurobiological continuum.In this Review, the authors consider how current understanding of four genetic generalized epilepsy syndromes that commonly occur in adults challenges traditional concepts about these conditions and suggests that they are not distinct but sit on a neurobiological continuum.

Epilepsy, a neurological disease characterized by recurrent seizures, is highly heterogeneous in nature. Based on the prevalence, epilepsy is classified into two types: common and rare epilepsies. Common epilepsies affecting nearly 95% people with epilepsy, comprise generalized epilepsy which encompass idiopathic generalized epilepsy like childhood absence epilepsy, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, juvenile absence epilepsy and epilepsy with generalized tonic-clonic seizure on awakening and focal epilepsy like temporal lobe epilepsy and cryptogenic focal epilepsy. In 70% of the epilepsy cases, genetic factors are responsible either as single genetic variant in rare epilepsies or multiple genetic variants acting along with different environmental factors as in common epilepsies. Genetic testing and precision treatment have been developed for a few rare epilepsies and is lacking for common epilepsies due to their complex nature of inheritance. Precision medicine for common epilepsies require a panoramic approach that incorporates polygenic background and other non-genetic factors like microbiome, diet, age at disease onset, optimal time for treatment and other lifestyle factors which influence seizure threshold. This review aims to comprehensively present a state-of-art review of all the genes and their genetic variants that are associated with all common epilepsy subtypes. It also encompasses the basis of these genes in the epileptogenesis. Here, we discussed the current status of the common epilepsy genetics and address the clinical application so far on evidence-based markers in prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment management. In addition, we assessed the diagnostic predictability of a few genetic markers used for disease risk prediction in individuals. A combination of deeper endo-phenotyping including pharmaco-response data, electro-clinical imaging, and other clinical measurements along with genetics may be used to diagnose common epilepsies and this marks a step ahead in precision medicine in common epilepsies management.

Epilepsy affects 65 million people worldwide, with 30% suffering from drug-resistant epilepsy. While surgical resection is the primary treatment, its application is limited in generalized epilepsy. Centromedian nucleus neurostimulation offers a promising alternative, yet its mechanisms remain unclear, limiting target optimization. We present a multimodal approach integrating intraoperative thalamic and sub-scalp electroencephalogram recordings with post-implant reconstructions to define neural targets affected by centromedian nucleus stimulation. We find that stimulating low-activity regions near the centromedian nucleus, particularly the white matter of internal medullary lamina, induces significant cortical delta power increases greater than stimulation within high-activity areas inside the nucleus. Implantation in these low-activity targets results in greater than 50% seizure reduction in all three subjects. These findings suggest that seizure control primarily involves stimulating white matter regions such as the internal medullary lamina rather than the centromedian nucleus itself. A personalized, electrophysiology-guided implantation approach may enhance neurostimulation efficacy in drug-resistant epilepsy. Centromedian nucleus neurostimulation targeting low-activity white matter of the internal medullary lamina shows immediate increase in cortical delta power associated with EEG slowing and decrease in epileptic activity.