Search

While the respiratory complications of COVID-19 infection are now well known, psychiatric manifestations are an emerging issue. We report a case of prolonged encephalopathy secondary to COVID-19 which was associated with prominent neuropsychiatric features. The patient went on to develop sub-clinical seizures, a rare but recognised complication of SARS-CoV-2.

This protocol for a Cochrane Review is out of date and has been withdrawn in order to adhere to Cochrane policy.

Ictal arrhythmias are disturbances of cardiac conduction that occur during clinical or electrographic seizures. Ictal asystole (IA) is rare, and its incidence can range from 0.3–0.4% in patients with epilepsy who were monitored by video-EEG (van der Lende et al., 2015). We report on ten patients (six males and four females) with an age ranging from 31 to 70 years old) who were monitored in our video-EEG (VEEG) unit over the last eight years. These patients were selected based on the history of documented ictal asystole during inpatient VEEG monitoring). In our series the mean latency from the seizure onset to the onset of ictal asystole was 22 seconds and the mean duration of the IA was 15.8 seconds. During the asystolic phase the seizures may clinically continue or syncopal signs may supervene. In our case series all the patients had either left or right temporal lobe epilepsy, six of which were lesional. We found two patterns of ictal semiology in our series. The first group of patients included five patients who experienced a rapid onset of IA in their seizure and the second group where the latency of ictal asystole was relatively late. All our cohort had a permanent pacemaker following the diagnosis, six of these patients have been event free since placement.

See Hansen and Møller (doi:10.1093/brain/awz318) for a scientific commentary on this article. Using polygenic risk scores from a genome-wide association study in generalized and focal epilepsy, Leu et al. reveal a significantly higher genetic burden for epilepsy in multiple cohorts of people with epilepsy compared to population controls. Quantification of common variant burden may be valuable for epilepsy prognosis and treatment., Rare genetic variants can cause epilepsy, and genetic testing has been widely adopted for severe, paediatric-onset epilepsies. The phenotypic consequences of common genetic risk burden for epilepsies and their potential future clinical applications have not yet been determined. Using polygenic risk scores (PRS) from a European-ancestry genome-wide association study in generalized and focal epilepsy, we quantified common genetic burden in patients with generalized epilepsy (GE-PRS) or focal epilepsy (FE-PRS) from two independent non-Finnish European cohorts (Epi25 Consortium, n = 5705; Cleveland Clinic Epilepsy Center, n = 620; both compared to 20 435 controls). One Finnish-ancestry population isolate (Finnish-ancestry Epi25, n = 449; compared to 1559 controls), two European-ancestry biobanks (UK Biobank, n = 383 656; Vanderbilt biorepository, n = 49 494), and one Japanese-ancestry biobank (BioBank Japan, n = 168 680) were used for additional replications. Across 8386 patients with epilepsy and 622 212 population controls, we found and replicated significantly higher GE-PRS in patients with generalized epilepsy of European-ancestry compared to patients with focal epilepsy (Epi25: P = 1.64×10−15; Cleveland: P = 2.85×10−4; Finnish-ancestry Epi25: P = 1.80×10−4) or population controls (Epi25: P = 2.35×10−70; Cleveland: P = 1.43×10−7; Finnish-ancestry Epi25: P = 3.11×10−4; UK Biobank and Vanderbilt biorepository meta-analysis: P = 7.99×10−4). FE-PRS were significantly higher in patients with focal epilepsy compared to controls in the non-Finnish, non-biobank cohorts (Epi25: P = 5.74×10−19; Cleveland: P = 1.69×10−6). European ancestry-derived PRS did not predict generalized epilepsy or focal epilepsy in Japanese-ancestry individuals. Finally, we observed a significant 4.6-fold and a 4.5-fold enrichment of patients with generalized epilepsy compared to controls in the top 0.5% highest GE-PRS of the two non-Finnish European cohorts (Epi25: P = 2.60×10−15; Cleveland: P = 1.39×10−2). We conclude that common variant risk associated with epilepsy is significantly enriched in multiple cohorts of patients with epilepsy compared to controls—in particular for generalized epilepsy. As sample sizes and PRS accuracy continue to increase with further common variant discovery, PRS could complement established clinical biomarkers and augment genetic testing for patient classification, comorbidity research, and potentially targeted treatment.

Cytogenic testing is routinely applied in most neurological centres for severe paediatric epilepsies. However, which characteristics of copy number variants (CNVs) confer most epilepsy risk and which epilepsy subtypes carry the most CNV burden, have not been explored on a genome-wide scale. Here, we present the largest CNV investigation in epilepsy to date with 10 712 European epilepsy cases and 6746 ancestry-matched controls. Patients with genetic generalized epilepsy, lesional focal epilepsy, non-acquired focal epilepsy, and developmental and epileptic encephalopathy were included. All samples were processed with the same technology and analysis pipeline. All investigated epilepsy types, including lesional focal epilepsy patients, showed an increase in CNV burden in at least one tested category compared to controls. However, we observed striking differences in CNV burden across epilepsy types and investigated CNV categories. Genetic generalized epilepsy patients have the highest CNV burden in all categories tested, followed by developmental and epileptic encephalopathy patients. Both epilepsy types also show association for deletions covering genes intolerant for truncating variants. Genome-wide CNV breakpoint association showed not only significant loci for genetic generalized and developmental and epileptic encephalopathy patients but also for lesional focal epilepsy patients. With a 34-fold risk for developing genetic generalized epilepsy, we show for the first time that the established epilepsy-associated 15q13.3 deletion represents the strongest risk CNV for genetic generalized epilepsy across the whole genome. Using the human interactome, we examined the largest connected component of the genes overlapped by CNVs in the four epilepsy types. We observed that genetic generalized epilepsy and non-acquired focal epilepsy formed disease modules. In summary, we show that in all common epilepsy types, 1.5–3% of patients carry epilepsy-associated CNVs. The characteristics of risk CNVs vary tremendously across and within epilepsy types. Thus, we advocate genome-wide genomic testing to identify all disease-associated types of CNVs.

Background Pregnant women affected by female genital mutilation/cutting are at risk of adverse maternal outcomes compared to unaffected women, and sometimes require procedures to facilitate giving birth that midwives and doctors do not routinely perform. These women require culturally sensitive care. Current health professional literature provides evidence that midwives and doctors need further knowledge and training in this area. Aims This audit aimed to describe the demographic characteristics of pregnant women with female genital mutilation/cutting giving birth at two Perth maternity units, in addition to assessing health provider compliance with the local female genital mutilation/cutting Clinical Guideline. Materials and methods The clinical database used by public maternity units in Western Australia was used to identify affected women who gave birth during 2014 at King Edward Memorial Hospital or Osborne Park Hospital. Demographic characteristics and information about antenatal care and maternal outcomes were collected. Results 53 women fulfilled the audit criteria. Prevalence of pregnant women with female genital mutilation/cutting varied from 0.33% to 2.18% between the two units. Compliance with the Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Clinical Guideline was generally suboptimal. While no woman was deinfibulated antenatally, 26% of women required intrapartum deinfibulation to give birth. Conclusions Women with female genital mutilation/cutting make up more than 2% of the antenatal population in some Perth metropolitan maternity units. Health care provider knowledge of, and compliance with, the Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Clinical Guideline was poor in the two units studied. It appears that healthcare professionals need more education and training to provide affected women with the best care.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2015. Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic drug; many will require add‐on therapy. Around a third of people fail to achieve complete seizure freedom despite multiple antiepileptic drugs. Lacosamide has been licenced as an add‐on therapy for drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide as an add‐on therapy for children and adults with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (22 August 2019): the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 August 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no language restrictions. We contacted UCB Pharma (sponsors of lacosamide). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of add‐on lacosamide in people with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology, assessing the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; adverse events; quality of life; and cognitive changes. The primary analyses were intention‐to‐treat. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome presented with 99% confidence intervals (CI), except for 50% or greater seizure reduction, seizure freedom and treatment withdrawal which were presented with 95% CIs. We performed subgroup analyses according to lacosamide dose and sensitivity analyses according to population age, whereby data from children were excluded from the meta‐analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (2199 participants). The risk of bias for all studies was low to unclear. All studies were placebo‐controlled and assessed doses from 200 mg to 600 mg per day. One study evaluated lacosamide in children; all other studies were in adults. Trial duration ranged from 24 to 26 weeks. All studies used adequate methods of randomisation and were double‐blind. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was judged as moderate to high, with the exception of seizure freedom which was low. The RR for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.79 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.08; 5 studies; 2199 participants; high‐certainty evidence). The RR for seizure freedom for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 2.27 (95% CI 1.35 to 3.83; 5 studies; 2199 participants; low‐certainty evidence). The RR for treatment withdrawal for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.57 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.98; 5 studies; 2199 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). The estimated effect size for most outcomes did not change considerably following sensitivity analysis. For seizure freedom, however, the RR nearly doubled upon the exclusion of data from children (RR 4.04, 95% CI 1.52 to 10.73). Adverse events associated with lacosamide included: abnormal co‐ordination (RR 6.12, 99% CI 1.35 to 27.77), blurred vision (RR 4.65, 99% CI 1.24 to 17.37), diplopia (RR 5.59, 99% CI 2.27 to 13.79), dizziness (RR 2.96, 99% CI 2.09 to 4.20), nausea (RR 2.35, 99% CI 1.37 to 4.02), somnolence (RR 2.04, 99% CI 1.22 to 3.41), vomiting (RR 2.94, 99% CI 1.54 to 5.64), and number of participants experiencing one or more adverse events (RR 1.12, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.24). Adverse events that were not significant were: vertigo (RR 3.71, 99% CI 0.86 to 15.95), rash (RR 0.58, 99% CI 0.17 to 1.89), nasopharyngitis (RR 1.41, 99% CI 0.87 to 2.28), headache (RR 1.34, 99% CI 0.90 to 1.98), fatigue (RR 2.11, 99% CI 0.92 to 4.85), nystagmus (RR 1.47, 99% CI 0.61 to 3.52), and upper respiratory tract infection (RR 0.70, 99% CI 0.43 to 1.15). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Lacosamide is effective and well‐tolerated in the short term when used as add‐on treatment for drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. Lacosamide increases the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and may increase seizure freedom, compared to placebo. Higher doses of lacosamide may be associated with higher rates of adverse events and treatment withdrawal. Additional evidence is required assessing the use of lacosamide in children and on longer‐term efficacy and tolerability.

To assess the reporting of adverse events (AEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) using the CONSORT statement for harms 2004, and to determine if reporting has changed since introduction of this standard.One hundred and fifty two RCTs were included from a search of papers published between 1999 and 2008 inclusive. We identified 23 criteria in the CONSORT statements. The mean number of criteria met per trial was 11.3 (95%CI 10.6-12.0). Commercially funded studies met 12.6 and non-commercially funded met 9.4 (p0.001). Trials recruiting adults met 12.5 and trials recruiting children met 9.3 (p0.001). Trials published before 2004 met 11.6 and trials published after 2004 met 11.1 (p=0.53). Commercially funded trials met the majority of criteria more than non-commercially sponsored trials, particularly for definition of AEs (RR 3.15, CI 1.67-5.95) and the use of a validated dictionary of terms (RR 3.46, CI 1.41-8.44). Definitions for AEs (RR 2.32, CI 1.07-5.02) and details of analyses (RR 2.05, CI 1.01-4.15) were reported in adult trials more often than trials in children.Reporting of AEs in RCTs of AEDs is poor and has not improved since the publication of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of harms. Commercially funded trials were better reported than non-commercially funded trials and trials recruiting adults were better reported than trials recruiting children. These findings have serious implications as poor reporting precludes bias being detected and hinders adequate risk benefit analyses. Journal editors, authors and reviewers should be encouraged to follow current guidance.

Background In the UK, patients with epilepsy in remission, who withdraw antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment, are advised not to drive during withdrawal and for 6 months thereafter, assuming the risk of recurrence in the next 12 months is below 20%. Those with a seizure recurrence currently have to be seizure-free for 12 months before returning to drive, whether treatment is restarted or not. New EU regulations recommend returning to driving 3 months after restarting treatment. Methods Regression modelling of data from the Medical Research Council AED withdrawal study was undertaken to estimate the risk of seizure recurrence in the next 12 months at various time points following: completion of drug withdrawal; AED reinstatement for those with a recurrence. A systematic review of prospective studies was also undertaken. Results Immediately following treatment withdrawal, the recurrence risk in the next 12 months was 30% (95% CI 25% to 35%) and at 3 months after withdrawal was 15% (95% CI 10% to 19%). At 3 months following the recommencement of treatment following a seizure recurrence, the risk of a seizure in the next 12 months was 26% (95% CI 17% to 35%), at 6 months 18% (95% CI 10% to 27%) and at 12 months 17% (95% CI 3% to 27%). Systematic review results were similar. Conclusion Current UK legislation concerning time off driving after withdrawing AED treatment may be too conservative. For those restarting treatment after a recurrence, current UK guidance may be too conservative but the new EU guidance too liberal.

The great majority of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare antiepileptic drugs are industry sponsored and have the objective of obtaining a monotherapy license for a drug. Such trials do not inform everyday clinical practice as they tend to be too short and to depart from clinical practice by restricting clinicians in their choice of actions. The data that exists provides evidence that drugs with actions on voltage-gated sodium channels provide best seizure control for localised onset seizures and epilepsy syndromes, while valproate provides best seizure control for generalised epilepsy and unclassified syndromes. Drugs do, however, vary in their tolerability over the short term and in their risk for rare serious idiosyncratic adverse events, chronic toxicity and teratogenicity; issues that cannot be examined within the scope of RCTs.

A 48 year old man presented with a sub-acute painless complete right sided ptosis, diplopia, dysphonia, dysphagia and left foot drop. He had a PMH of Multiple Myeloma (MM) in remission after 3 cycles of chemotherapy. On examination he had complete right 3rd, left 12th, bilateral 9th and 10th and cranial nerve palsies along with a left foot drop. A meningeal infiltrative process was suspected. MRI neuraxis revealed subtle leptomeningeal enhancement in the lumbar spine, symmetrical nodular deposits around the jugular foramen bilaterally and enhancement of the right cavernous sinus. Plasma IgG was raised. CSF cytology revealed mitotic plasma cells confirming the clinical suspicion of CNS myelomatosis however a bone marrow biopsy did not show evidence of myeloma relapse. CNS involvement occurs in around 1 % of cases of MM and predicts poor prognosis. This case highlights that a relapse of MM can present in the form of Polyneuritis Cranialis Multiplex without bone marrow evidence of relapse. CNS disease can also be present at initial diagnosis of MM. CNS Myelomatosis should therefore be considered in the differential diagnosis of contiguous or non-contiguous multiple cranial nerve palsies. Investigations should be initiated urgently so that aggressive treatment can start promptly.

Background 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. Objectives To evaluate the effects of oxcarbazepine when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Search methods 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. Selection criteria Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, add-on trials of oxcarbazepine in patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Data collection and analysis 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. Main results 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. Authors' conclusions 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.

Aim To determine if adverse event (AE) outcomes from RCTs of AEDs across non-epilepsy indications (neuropathy & migraine) can be meta-analysed with data from epilepsy trials Method We searched for RCTs meeting inclusion criteria. AEDs included were topiramate, gabapentin, valproate, oxcarbazepine, lacosamide and others. Extracted data were analysed using RevMan 5.0. AEs analysed were; dizziness, ataxia, headache, fatigue, nausea, somnolence, AE withdrawals and any AE. Effect size summary statistics were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using a random effects model generating an I2 statistic. Results Hundred and six RCTs met inclusion criteria. When dizziness was analysed, test between indications showed no heterogeneity (I2=0%) for gabapentin, topiramate, lacosamide and lamotrigine. However, heterogeneity was significant (I2=59%) for oxcarbazepine. When fatigue was the AE outcome, there was no heterogeneity (I2=0%) when we analysed data for gabapentin, lamotrigine, lacosamide, oxcarbazepine and topiramate. When somnolence was the AE outcome, heterogeneity was insignificant for oxcarbazepine (I2=8%), lacosamide (I2=0%) and topiramate (I2=0%), but significant for gabapentin (I2=56%) and lamotrigine (I2=60%). In instances where there was significant heterogeneity, the size of relative risk was greater in the non-epilepsy indications Conclusion AEs of AEDs from non-epilepsy trials could be used in meta-analysis due to low statistical heterogeneity for some interventions and outcomes. Nevertheless this was not the case in all AEDs or outcomes. Effect sizes were larger in the non-epilepsy indications overall.

Objectives Decisions regarding choice and dose of anti-epileptic drug (AED) are driven by considering the potential benefits of reducing seizure frequency against the potential harms of alternative AEDs. Such decisions should be made using the best available evidence, which often requires a quantitative synthesis of data from multiple randomised controlled trials (RCT). However, the systematic review and meta-analysis of harms data is hindered by problems such as inadequate reporting, heterogeneity of harms definitions, and selective reporting bias. Here we will evaluate the quality of reporting of harms data in epilepsy trials, and assess the potential added value of incorporating harms data beyond the clinical indication of epilepsy.