Lacosamide add-on therapy for focal epilepsy.

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.

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 11, 2013.Severe myoclonic epilepsy in infants (SMEI), also known as Dravet syndrome, is a rare, refractory form of epilepsy, for which stiripentol (STP) has been recently licensed as add-on therapy. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of STP and other antiepileptic drug treatments (including ketogenic diet) for patients with SMEI. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (27 April 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 27 April 2015) and MEDLINE (1946 to 27 April 2015). We systematically searched the online trials registry ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the bibliographies of identified studies for additional references. We handsearched selected journals and conference proceedings and imposed no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials; double- or single-blinded or unblinded trials; and parallel-group studies. Administration of at least one antiepileptic drug therapy given singly (monotherapy) or in combination (add-on therapy) compared with add-on placebo or no add-on treatment. Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion according to predefined criteria, extracted relevant data and evaluated the methodological quality of trials. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater seizure reduction, seizure freedom, adverse effects, proportion of dropouts and quality of life. We assessed outcomes by using a Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). In the updated search, we identified no additional studies suitable for inclusion. We found no RCTs assessing drugs other than STP. The previous version of this review included two RCTs evaluating use of STP (total of 64 children). Both studies were generally at unclear risk of bias. A significantly higher proportion of participants had 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency in the STP group compared with the placebo group (22/33 vs 2/31; RR 10.40, 95% CI 2.64 to 40.87). A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved seizure freedom in the STP group compared with the placebo group (12/33 vs 1/31; RR 7.93, 95% CI 1.52 to 41.21). Investigators found no significant differences in proportions of dropouts from the STP group compared with the placebo group (2/33 vs 8/31; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.03). Only one study explicitly reported the occurrence of side effects, noting that higher proportions of participants in the STP group experienced side effects than in the placebo group (100% vs 25%; RR 3.73, 95% CI 1.81 to 7.67). Data derived from two small RCTs indicate that STP is significantly better than placebo with regards to 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and seizure freedom. Adverse effects occurred more frequently with STP. Additional adequately powered studies with long-term follow-up should be conducted to unequivocally establish the long-term efficacy and tolerability of STP in the treatment of patients with SMEI.

The majority of patients with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug. However, up to 30% develop refractory seizures, particularly those with partial seizures. In this review, we summarise the current evidence regarding a new antiepileptic drug, levetiracetam, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant localization related (partial) epilepsy. To evaluate the effects of levetiracetam on seizures, side effects, quality of life and cognition, when used as an add-on treatment for patients with a drug-resistant localization related (partial) epilepsy. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2000). In addition, we contacted UCB SA (makers of levetiracetam) and experts in the field to seek any ongoing studies or unpublished studies. Randomized placebo controlled add-on trials of levetiracetam in patients with a drug-resistant localization related (partial) epilepsy. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted relevant data. The following outcomes were assessed: (a) 50% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency; (b) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (c) side effects; (d) cognitive effects; (e) quality of life. Primary analyses were intention to treat. Sensitivity best and worst case analyses were also undertaken. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated for each outcome. Dose response was evaluated in regression models. Four trials (1023 patients) were included. All four trials had data for treatment withdrawal and side effect outcomes. Three trials (904 patients) had data for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Three trials (595 patients) had data for quality of life and cognitive outcomes. The overall Odds Ratio (OR) (95% Confidence Interval (CI)) for 50% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency outcome was 3.81 (2.78,5.22). Dose regression analysis shows clear evidence that levetiracetam reduces seizure frequency with an increase in efficacy with increasing dose of levetiracetam. Approximately 15% of patients taking 1000 mg and 20-30% of patients taking 3000 mg levetiracetam per day have a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Patients were not significantly more likely to have levetiracetam withdrawn, OR (95% CI) 1.25 (0.87,1.80). The following side effects were significantly associated with levetiracetam: dizziness 2.36 (1.21, 4.61) and infection 1.82 (1.05, 3.14) whereas accidental injury was significantly associated with placebo 0.55 (0.32, 0.93). Quality of life and cognitive effect outcomes suggest that levetiracetam has a positive effect on cognition and some aspects of quality of life. Levetiracetam reduces seizure frequency when used as an add-on treatment for patients with a drug-resistant localization related (partial) epilepsy, and seems well tolerated. Minimum effective and maximum tolerated doses have not been identified. The trials reviewed were of 16-24 weeks duration and results cannot be used to confirm longer term effects. Our results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to patients with other seizure types or epilepsy syndromes. Great care should also be taken with any attempt to apply these results to children.

The aim of this commentary was to discuss from a rehabilitation perspective the published Cochrane Review ‘Sulthiame add-on therapy for epilepsy’1 by Bresnahan et al., under the direct supervision of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. This Cochrane Corner is produced in agreement with Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology by Cochrane Rehabilitation. Epilepsy is one of the most common and disabling neurological disorders, affecting up to 65 million people worldwide.2 The main and recurrent symptoms of epilepsy are seizures, defined as paroxysmal events caused by atypical, involuntary rhythmic neuronal activity.3 Seizures are often unpredictable, causing distress in these patients, and therefore implicating cognitive, psychological, and social consequences.4 The principal therapeutic aim is to control the seizures and improve the quality of life of these patients. Antiseizure medication (ASM) is the first line of treatment for epilepsy.5 An appropriate ASM is selected on the basis of seizure type, epilepsy syndrome, or drug characteristics.6 If a single drug does not control the seizures, epilepsy is defined as drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). DRE often requires polytherapy, combining ASM with different mechanisms of action.7 In this clinical scenario, use of sulthiame as add-on therapy seems to reduce seizure activity in people with DRE, as observed, for example, in children affected by Lennox–Gastaut syndrome.8 The aim of this Cochrane Review1 was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of sulthiame as add-on therapy for people with epilepsy of any aetiology. The population addressed in this review included individuals of any age with epilepsy of any aetiology, in a drug-resistant form. Sulthiame was compared to placebo or other ASM, as add-on therapy to the participant’s ASM regimen. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, from baseline to end of treatment. Secondary outcomes were: complete cessation of seizures during follow-up; main seizure frequency; tolerability in terms of both time to treatment withdrawal and proportion of participants who experienced at least one adverse event such as deterioration in cognitive ability, crystalluria, or respiratory and metabolic acidosis; and quality of life. The review authors searched for studies published on the Cochrane Register of Studies, which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, up to January 2019. They also checked the reference lists of retrieved reports for additional reports of relevant studies, and contacted manufactures of sulthiame and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished articles. The review included one double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled parallel study, that recruited 37 infants, aged from 3 to 15 months, with newly diagnosed West syndrome (infantile spasms). All participants received 3 days of baseline pyridoxine (150–300mg/kg/day) and were then randomized to receive sulthiame (5mg/kg/day) or placebo. After 3 days, non-responders received a double dose of sulthiame or placebo until day 9 when the study drug was disclosed after an electroencephalograph. No data were reported for the primary outcome and for main seizure frequency and quality of life. The study reported incomplete data both for time to treatment withdrawal and adverse effects (high risk of reporting bias). Moreover, the assessment risk of other bias was unclear due to the lack of baseline demographic data (unclear risk of other bias) and the study did not provide details of the method or effectiveness of the blinding process beyond the description given for allocation concealment (unclear risk of performance and detection bias). The authors concluded that 30% of infants treated with add-on sulthiame stopped seizures versus no infants in the placebo group. The risk ratio (RR) for sulthiame compared with placebo was 11.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67–184.47), with a statistically insignificant effect (p=0.09) and a very low quality of evidence. Moreover, the same number of participants experienced adverse effects in both groups (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.44–1.64; very low certainty evidence; p=0.63), particularly somnolence in 4 out of 20 in the add-on sulthiame group versus 1 out of 17 in the placebo group. Considering the very low certainty of available evidence, small sample size, and significant risk of bias, the authors concluded that it was uncertain if sulthiame could lead to a cessation of seizures as add-on therapy to pyridoxine in infants with West syndrome. No conclusions can be drawn about the occurrence of adverse effects, change in quality of life, or mean reduction in seizure frequency. Further studies with large sample sizes are required to establish efficacy and tolerability of sulthiame as add-on therapy in West syndrome and other types of epilepsy. Epilepsy is a neurological disorder characterized by unprovoked seizures, with progressive impairment of independence and quality of life. Moreover, patients with epilepsy may develop cognitive disturbances due to chronic cortical damage.9 From a rehabilitation perspective, a holistic approach addressing both cognitive and mood disorders is strongly advised, particularly for DRE where memory impairment is common.10 The correct pharmacological approach, together with rehabilitation interventions, could provide an opportunity for clinical improvement in these patients. In DRE, seizure control is often difficult to achieve and requires polytherapy. However, this updated review does not provide sufficient evidence to encourage the use of sulthiame as a safe and effective add-on therapy for the treatment of patients with DRE. The author thanks Cochrane Rehabilitation and the Cochrane Epilepsy Group for reviewing the contents of the Cochrane Corner. The author has stated that they had no interests that could be perceived as posing a conflict or bias.

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, affecting 0.5 to 1% of the population. Nearly 30 per cent of people with epilepsy have seizures that are refractory to currently available drugs. In response to this problem, potential new drugs are being developed. Remacemide is one of these. To evaluate the effects of add-on treatment with remacemide upon seizures, adverse effects, cognition and quality of life for people with drug-resistant localization related epilepsy. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group trials register (4 July 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2002) and MEDLINE (28 May 2002). In addition, we contacted AstraZeneca (makers of remacemide) and colleagues in the field to see if they were aware of any trials that we had missed. Randomized placebo controlled add-on trials of people of any age with localization related seizures, in which an adequate method of concealment of randomization was used. The studies could be blinded or unblinded and be of parallel or crossover design. They had to have a minimum treatment period of eight weeks. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. Outcomes investigated included 50 per cent or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, effects on cognition and quality of life. The primary analyses were by intention-to-treat. Dose response was evaluated in regression models. Two parallel group trials were included representing 514 individuals. Daily doses of 300, 600, 800 and 1200mg of remacemide were tested. The overall relative risk (RR) for remacemide versus placebo with 95% confidence intervals(CI) for a 50 per cent or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.59(95% CI 0.91 to 2.79). Due to differences in response rates among trials, regression models were unable to provide reliable estimates of responses to individual doses. Regression models did however suggest a significant effect for 800-1200mg remacemide per day. Remacemide was more likely to be withdrawn than placebo, the RR for treatment withdrawal was 1.90(95% CI 1.00 to 3.60). The RR for dizziness indicates that it is significantly associated with remacemide 3.08(99% CI 1.37 to 6.95). Effects on cognition and quality of life were not reported. Given the modest effect on seizure frequency and significant withdrawal rate it is unlikely that remacemide will be further developed as an antiepileptic drug.

Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30 % develop refractory epilepsy, especially those with partial seizures. In this review we summarise the current evidence regarding oxcarbazepine when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. To evaluate the effects of oxcarbazepine when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2000), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 1999) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted Novartis (manufacturers of oxcarbazepine) and experts in the field. Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of oxcarbazepine in patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. The following outcomes were assessed : (a) 50 % or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (b) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (c) side effects. Primary analyses were intention to treat. Summary odds ratios were estimated for each outcome. Overall Odds Ratio (OR) (95 % Confidence Interval (CIs)) for 50 % or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo 2.96 (2.20,4.00). Treatment withdrawal OR (95 % CIs) compared to placebo 2.17 (1.59,2.97). Side effects: OR (99 % CIs) compared to placebo, ataxia 2.93(1.72,4.99); dizziness 3.05 (1.99, 4. 67); fatigue 1.80 (1.02, 3.19); nausea 2.88 (1.77, 4.69); somnolence 2.55 (1.84, 3.55); diplopia 4.32 (2.65, 7.04), were significantly associated with oxcarbazepine. Oxcarbazepine has efficacy as an add-on treatment in patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy, both in adults and children. However, trials reviewed were of relatively short duration, and provide no evidence about the long term effects of oxcarbazepine. Results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to patients with other epilepsy types.

Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop refractory epilepsy, especially those with partial seizures. In this review we summarize the current evidence regarding oxcarbazepine when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. To evaluate the effects of oxcarbazepine when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (28 March 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2006). No language restrictions were imposed. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies. We also contacted Novartis (manufacturers of oxcarbazepine) and experts in the field. Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, add-on trials of oxcarbazepine in patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. The following outcomes were assessed : (a) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (b) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (c) side effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. Summary odds ratios were estimated for each outcome. Two trials were included representing 961 randomized patients.Overall Odds Ratio (OR) (95% Confidence Interval (CIs)) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo 2.96 (2.20, 4.00).Treatment withdrawal OR (95% CIs) compared to placebo 2.17 (1.59, 2.97).Side effects: OR (99% CIs) compared to placebo, ataxia 2.93 (1.72, 4.99); dizziness 3.05 (1.99, 4.67); fatigue 1.80 (1.02, 3.19); nausea 2.88 (1.77, 4.69); somnolence 2.55 (1.84, 3.55); diplopia 4.32 (2.65, 7.04), were significantly associated with oxcarbazepine. Oxcarbazepine has efficacy as an add-on treatment in patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy, both in adults and children. However, trials reviewed were of relatively short duration, and provide no evidence about the long-term effects of oxcarbazepine. Results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to patients with other epilepsy types.

The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis, and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic agent, but up to 30% develop refractory epilepsy, especially those with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) of zonisamide, used as an add-on treatment for focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drug. This is an updated version of the Cochrane review previously published in 2013. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide, when used as an add-on treatment for people with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs. For this update, on 4 September 2017, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE Ovid, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP. We searched SCOPUS on 13 February 2013, but this is no longer necessary, because RCTs and quasi-RCTs in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. In addition, we contacted Eisai Limited (makers and licensees of zonisamide) and experts in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies. Randomised controlled trials, in which add-on zonisamide was compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug in people with focal epilepsy, uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the quality of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. The primary outcome was at least a 50% reduction in total seizure frequency; the secondary outcomes were (1) tolerability; and (2) adverse effects. We used an intention-to-treat approach for our primary analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) for each outcome. We displayed a summary of the estimates of effects and quality of the evidence for each outcome in a 'Summary of findings' table. We included eight studies (1636 participants). The overall RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for 300 mg to 500 mg/day of zonisamide was 1.90 (95% CI 1.63 to 2.22; 7 trials, 1371 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The RR for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for any dose of zonisamide (100 mg to 500 mg/day) was 1.86 (95% CI 1.60 to 2.17; 7 trials, 1429 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was six (95% CI 4.1 to 6.8) for this outcome. Two trials provided evidence of a dose-response relationship for this outcome. The RR for treatment withdrawal for 300 mg to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.59 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.13; 6 trials, 1099 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and for 100 mg to 500 mg/day was 1.44 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.93; 6 trials, 1156 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 15 (95% CI 9.3 to 36.7). The CIs of the following adverse effects indicated that they were significantly associated with zonisamide: ataxia RR 3.85 (99% CI 1.36 to 10.93; 4 trials, 734 participants; low-quality evidence); somnolence RR 1.52 (99% CI 1.00 to 2.31; 8 trials, 1636 participants; moderate-quality evidence); agitation RR 2.35 (99% CI 1.05 to 5.27; 4 trials, 598 participants; low-quality evidence); and anorexia RR 2.74 (99% CI 1.64 to 4.60; 6 trials, 1181 participants; low-quality evidence).Across the eight studies, we rated risk of bias domains at low or unclear risk of bias apart from two studies which we rated at high risk of attrition bias. Five of the eight studies were sponsored by the drug companies that produced zonisamide. When used as an add-on treatment in people with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs, moderate-quality evidence found that zonisamide was more successful than placebo at reducing the frequency of seizures by at least 50%. We were unable to identify minimum effective and maximum tolerated doses. The included trials evaluated a maximum stable-dose phase of 18 weeks, so results cannot be used to confirm longer periods of efficacy in seizure control. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other seizure types or epilepsy syndromes.

Despite optimal medical treatment, including epilepsy surgery, many epilepsy patients have uncontrolled seizures. In the last decades, interest has grown in invasive intracranial neurostimulation as a treatment for these patients. Intracranial stimulation includes both deep brain stimulation (DBS) (stimulation through depth electrodes) and cortical stimulation (subdural electrodes). To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of deep brain and cortical stimulation for refractory epilepsy based on randomized controlled trials. We searched PubMed (6 August 2013), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (31 August 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7 of 12) and reference lists of retrieved articles. We also contacted device manufacturers and other researchers in the field. No language restrictions were imposed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing deep brain or cortical stimulation to sham stimulation, resective surgery or further treatment with antiepileptic drugs. Four review authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted the relevant data and assessed trial quality and overall quality of evidence. The outcomes investigated were seizure freedom, responder rate, percentage seizure frequency reduction, adverse events, neuropsychological outcome and quality of life. If additional data were needed, the study investigators were contacted. Results were analysed and reported separately for different intracranial targets for reasons of clinical heterogeneity. Ten RCTs comparing one to three months of intracranial neurostimulation to sham stimulation were identified. One trial was on anterior thalamic DBS (n = 109; 109 treatment periods); two trials on centromedian thalamic DBS (n = 20; 40 treatment periods), but only one of the trials (n = 7; 14 treatment periods) reported sufficient information for inclusion in the quantitative meta-analysis; three trials on cerebellar stimulation (n = 22; 39 treatment periods); three trials on hippocampal DBS (n = 15; 21 treatment periods); and one trial on responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (n = 191; 191 treatment periods). Evidence of selective reporting was present in four trials and the possibility of a carryover effect complicating interpretation of the results could not be excluded in 4 cross-over trials without any washout period. Moderate-quality evidence could not demonstrate statistically or clinically significant changes in the proportion of patients who were seizure-free or experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome measures) after 1 to 3 months of anterior thalamic DBS in (multi)focal epilepsy, responsive ictal onset zone stimulation in (multi)focal epilepsy patients and hippocampal DBS in (medial) temporal lobe epilepsy. However, a statistically significant reduction in seizure frequency was found for anterior thalamic DBS (-17.4% compared to sham stimulation; 95% confidence interval (CI) -32.1 to -1.0; high-quality evidence), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (-24.9%; 95% CI -40.1 to 6.0; high-quality evidence) ) and hippocampal DBS (-28.1%; 95% CI -34.1 to -22.2; moderate-quality evidence). Both anterior thalamic DBS and responsive ictal onset zone stimulation do not have a clinically meaningful impact on quality life after three months of stimulation (high-quality evidence). Electrode implantation resulted in asymptomatic intracranial haemorrhage in 3% to 4% of the patients included in the two largest trials and 5% to 13% had soft tissue infections; no patient reported permanent symptomatic sequelae. Anterior thalamic DBS was associated with fewer epilepsy-associated injuries (7.4 versus 25.5%; P = 0.01) but higher rates of self-reported depression (14.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.02) and subjective memory impairment (13.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.03); there were no significant differences in formal neuropsychological testing results between the groups. Responsive ictal-onset zone stimulation was well tolerated with few side effects but SUDEP rate should be closely monitored in the future (4 per 340 [= 11.8 per 1000] patient-years; literature: 2.2-10 per 1000 patient-years). The limited number of patients preclude firm statements on safety and tolerability of hippocampal DBS. With regards to centromedian thalamic DBS and cerebellar stimulation, no statistically significant effects could be demonstrated but evidence is of only low to very low quality. Only short term RCTs on intracranial neurostimulation for epilepsy are available. Compared to sham stimulation, one to three months of anterior thalamic DBS ((multi)focal epilepsy), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation ((multi)focal epilepsy) and hippocampal DBS (temporal lobe epilepsy) moderately reduce seizure frequency in refractory epilepsy patients. Anterior thalamic DBS is associated with higher rates of self-reported depression and subjective memory impairment. SUDEP rates require careful monitoring in patients undergoing responsive ictal onset zone stimulation. There is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the efficacy and safety of hippocampal DBS, centromedian thalamic DBS and cerebellar stimulation. There is a need for more, large and well-designed RCTs to validate and optimize the efficacy and safety of invasive intracranial neurostimulation treatments.

Chloral hydrate as a sedating agent for neurodiagnostic procedures in children.

Zonisamide for refractory juvenile absence epilepsy

In the treatment of pediatric epilepsy, there is a critical demand for effective and safe therapeutic options to address patients' unmet clinical needs. Eslicarbazepine acetate is a novel once-daily antiepileptic drug and a third-generation single enantiomer member of the dibenzazepine family. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate as add-on treatment for focal-onset seizures in pediatric patients using meta-analytical techniques. Randomized, placebo-controlled, single- or double-blinded add-on trials of eslicarbazepine acetate in patients < 18years of age with focal-onset seizures uncontrolled by concomitant stable antiepileptic drug regimens were identified through a systematic literature search. The assessed outcomes included the mean relative change and ≥ 50% reduction in the baseline seizure frequency, the incidence of treatment withdrawal, serious adverse events, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Risk ratio and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals were estimated for dichotomous/continuous outcomes. Two trials were included involving 386 participants (age range 2-18years), 217 for eslicarbazepine acetate and 169 for placebo groups, respectively. At the dosage of 30mg/kg/day, eslicarbazepine acetate-treated patients had a significantly greater reduction in baseline seizure frequency (weighted mean difference - 21.67, 95% confidence interval - 40.87 to - 2.46; p = 0.027) and 58 patients (44.6%) were seizure responders compared with 27 controls (29.7%) [risk ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 0.99-2.20; p = 0.055]. There were no differences in treatment withdrawal (risk ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.65-2.37; p = 0.513), serious adverse events (risk ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.69-2.86; p = 0.350), and treatment-emergent adverse events (risk ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.94-1.22; p = 0.313). Adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate could be an effective well-tolerated option in children and adolescents with focal-onset seizures uncontrolled by one or more concomitant anti-epileptic drugs.

The available evidence suggests that oxytocin used as first-line treatment of PPH probably is more effective than misoprostol with less side-effects. Adding misoprostol to the conventional treatment of oxytocin probably makes little or no difference to effectiveness outcomes, and is also associated with more side-effects. The evidence for most uterotonic agents used as first-line treatment of PPH is limited, with no evidence found for commonly used agents, such as injectable prostaglandins, ergometrine, and Syntometrine®.

Small numbers of studies and participants in each comparison limited our confidence in the evidence. Sclerosing agents were more effective than placebo for resolution or improvement of telangiectasias but also caused more adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in more pain (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a benefit in resolution or improvement for any sclerosant compared to another or to laser. There may be more resolution or improvement of telangiectasias in the combined laser and polidocanol group compared to polidocanol alone (low-certainty evidence). There may be differences between treatments in adverse events and pain. Compared to other sclerosing agents polidocanol probably causes less pain; STS resulted in more hyperpigmentation, matting and probably pain; foam may cause more matting (low-certainty evidence); laser treatment may result in less hyperpigmentation (moderate-certainty evidence). Further well-designed studies are required to provide evidence for other available treatments and important outcomes (such as recurrence, time to resolution and delayed adverse events); and to improve our confidence in the identified comparisons.

Modified Atkins diet versus ketogenic diet in children with drug-resistant epilepsy: A meta-analysis of comparative studies.