Search

Background: This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review last updated in 2020. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder, affecting 0.5% to 1% of the population. In nearly 30% of cases, epilepsy is resistant to currently available drugs. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Lamotrigine is a second-generation antiseizure medication. When used as an add-on (in combination with other antiseizure medications), lamotrigine can reduce seizures, but with some adverse effects., Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of add-on lamotrigine, compared with add-on placebo or no add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy., Search Methods: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 3 October 2022 with no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated add-on lamotrigine versus add-on placebo or no add-on treatment in people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We used data from the first period of eligible cross-over trials., Data Collection and Analysis: For this update, two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. Our primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Our secondary outcomes were treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, cognitive effects, and quality of life. Primary analyses were by intention-to-treat. We performed sensitivity best- and worse-case analyses to account for missing outcome data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cls) for dichotomous outcomes., Main Results: We identified no new studies for this update, so the results and conclusions of the review are unchanged. We included five parallel-group studies in adults or children, eight cross-over studies in adults or children, and one parallel study with a responder-enriched design in infants. In total, these 14 studies enroled 1806 eligible participants (38 infants, 199 children, 1569 adults). Baseline phases ranged from four to 12 weeks and treatment phases ranged from eight to 36 weeks. We rated 11 studies (1243 participants) at low overall risk of bias and three (697 participants) at unclear overall risk of bias due to lack of information on study design. Four studies (563 participants) reported effective blinding. Lamotrigine compared with placebo probably increases the likelihood of achieving 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.23; 12 trials, 1322 participants (adults and children); moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in risk of treatment withdrawal for any reason among people treated with lamotrigine versus people treated with placebo (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 14 trials; 1806 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Lamotrigine compared with placebo is probably associated with a greater risk of ataxia (RR 3.34, 99% Cl 2.01 to 5.55; 12 trials; 1525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), dizziness (RR 1.76, 99% Cl 1.28 to 2.43; 13 trials; 1768 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), nausea (RR 1.81, 99% CI 1.22 to 2.68; 12 studies, 1486 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and diplopia (RR 3.79, 99% Cl 2.15 to 6.68; 3 trials, 944 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of fatigue between lamotrigine and placebo (RR 0.82, 99% CI 0.55 to 1.22; 12 studies, 1552 participants; moderate-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Lamotrigine as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal seizures is probably effective for reducing seizure frequency. Certain adverse effects (ataxia, dizziness, diplopia, and nausea) are probably more likely to occur with lamotrigine compared with placebo. There is probably little or no difference in the number of people who withdraw from treatment with lamotrigine versus placebo. The trials were of relatively short duration and provided no long-term evidence. In addition, some trials had few participants. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of lamotrigine and to compare lamotrigine with other add-on drugs., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: This is an updated version of an original Cochrane Review published in 2013 (Walker 2013). Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder affecting 0.5% to 1% of the population. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. However, up to 30% of people do not respond to drug treatment, and therefore do not achieve seizure remission. Experimental and clinical evidence supports a role for inflammatory pathway activation in the pathogenesis of epilepsy which, if effectively targeted by immunomodulatory interventions, highlights a potentially novel therapeutic strategy., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of immunomodulatory interventions on seizures, adverse effect profile, cognition, and quality of life, compared to placebo controls, when used as additional therapy for focal epilepsy in children and adults., Search Methods: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 11 November 2021: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and Medline (Ovid) 1946 to 10 November 2021. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We placed no language restrictions. We reviewed the bibliographies of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised placebo-controlled trials of add-on immunomodulatory drug interventions, in which an adequate method of concealment of randomisation was used. The studies were double-, single- or unblinded. Eligible participants were children (aged over 2 years) and adults with focal epilepsy., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We assessed the following outcomes. 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. 2. Seizure freedom. 3. Treatment withdrawal for any reason. 4. Quality of life. 5., Adverse Effects: We used an intention-to-treat (ITT) population for all primary analyses, and we presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl)., Main Results: We included three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on a total of 172 participants. All trials included children and adults over two years of age with focal epilepsy. Treatment phases lasted six weeks and follow-up from six weeks to six months. One of the three included trials described an adequate method of concealment of randomisation, whilst the other two trials were rated as having an unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. Effective blinding of studies was reported in all three trials. All analyses were by ITT. One trial was sponsored by the manufacturer of an immunomodulatory agent and therefore was at high risk of funding bias. Immunomodulatory interventions were significantly more effective than placebo in reducing seizure frequency (risk ratio (RR) 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 4.60; 3 studies, 172 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For treatment withdrawal, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that people were more likely to discontinue immunomodulatory intervention than placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.80; 3 studies, 172 participants; low-certainty evidence). The RR for adverse effects was 1.16 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.59; 1 study, 66 participants; low-certainty evidence). Certain adverse effects such as dizziness, headache, fatigue, and gastrointestinal disorders were more often associated with immunomodulatory interventions. There were little to no data on cognitive effects and quality of life. No important heterogeneity between studies was found for any of the outcomes. We judged the overall certainty of evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide confidence intervals., Authors' Conclusions: Immunomodulatory interventions as add-on treatment for children and adults with focal epilepsy appear to be effective in reducing seizure frequency. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about the tolerability of these agents in children and adults with epilepsy. Further randomised controlled trials are needed., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Epilepsy is clinically defined as two or more unprovoked epileptic seizures more than 24 hours apart. Given that, a diagnosis of epilepsy can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality, it is imperative that clinicians (and people with seizures and their relatives) have access to accurate and reliable prognostic estimates, to guide clinical practice on the risks of developing further unprovoked seizures (and by definition, a diagnosis of epilepsy) following single unprovoked epileptic seizure., Objectives: 1. To provide an accurate estimate of the proportion of individuals going on to have further unprovoked seizures at subsequent time points following a single unprovoked epileptic seizure (or cluster of epileptic seizures within a 24-hour period, or a first episode of status epilepticus), of any seizure type (overall prognosis). 2. To evaluate the mortality rate following a first unprovoked epileptic seizure., Search Methods: We searched the following databases on 19 September 2019 and again on 30 March 2021, with no language restrictions. The Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March 29, 2021), SCOPUS (1823 onwards), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. In MEDLINE (Ovid) the coverage end date always lags a few days behind the search date., Selection Criteria: We included studies, both retrospective and prospective, of all age groups (except those in the neonatal period (< 1 month of age)), of people with a single unprovoked seizure, followed up for a minimum of six months, with no upper limit of follow-up, with the study end point being seizure recurrence, death, or loss to follow-up. To be included, studies must have included at least 30 participants. We excluded studies that involved people with seizures that occur as a result of an acute precipitant or provoking factor, or in close temporal proximity to an acute neurological insult, since these are not considered epileptic in aetiology (acute symptomatic seizures). We also excluded people with situational seizures, such as febrile convulsions., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors conducted the initial screening of titles and abstracts identified through the electronic searches, and removed non-relevant articles. We obtained the full-text articles of all remaining potentially relevant studies, or those whose relevance could not be determined from the abstract alone and two authors independently assessed for eligibility. All disagreements were resolved through discussion with no need to defer to a third review author. We extracted data from included studies using a data extraction form based on the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematicreviews of prediction modelling studies (CHARMS). Two review authors then appraised the included studies, using a standardised approach based on the quality in prognostic studies (QUIPS) tool, which was adapted for overall prognosis (seizure recurrence). We conducted a meta-analysis using Review Manager 2014, with a random-effects generic inverse variance meta-analysis model, which accounted for any between-study heterogeneity in the prognostic effect. We then summarised the meta-analysis by the pooled estimate (the average prognostic factor effect), its 95% confidence interval (CI), the estimates of I² and Tau² (heterogeneity), and a 95% prediction interval for the prognostic effect in a single population at three various time points, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the ages of the cohorts included; studies involving all ages, studies that recruited adult only and those that were purely paediatric., Main Results: Fifty-eight studies (involving 54 cohorts), with a total of 12,160 participants (median 147, range 31 to 1443), met the inclusion criteria for the review. Of the 58 studies, 26 studies were paediatric studies, 16 were adult and the remaining 16 studies were a combination of paediatric and adult populations. Most included studies had a cohort study design with two case-control studies and one nested case-control study. Thirty-two studies (29 cohorts) reported a prospective longitudinal design whilst 15 studies had a retrospective design whilst the remaining studies were randomised controlled trials. Nine of the studies included presented mortality data following a first unprovoked seizure. For a mortality study to be included, a proportional mortality ratio (PMR) or a standardised mortality ratio (SMR) had to be given at a specific time point following a first unprovoked seizure. To be included in the meta-analysis a study had to present clear seizure recurrence data at 6 months, 12 months or 24 months. Forty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis, of which 23 were paediatric, 13 were adult, and 10 were a combination of paediatric and adult populations. A meta-analysis was performed at three time points; six months, one year and two years for all ages combined, paediatric and adult studies, respectively. We found an estimated overall seizure recurrence of all included studies at six months of 27% (95% CI 24% to 31%), 36% (95% CI 33% to 40%) at one year and 43% (95% CI 37% to 44%) at two years, with slightly lower estimates for adult subgroup analysis and slightly higher estimates for paediatric subgroup analysis. It was not possible to provide a summary estimate of the risk of seizure recurrence beyond these time points as most of the included studies were of short follow-up and too few studies presented recurrence rates at a single time point beyond two years. The evidence presented was found to be of moderate certainty., Authors' Conclusions: Despite the limitations of the data (moderate-certainty of evidence), mainly relating to clinical and methodological heterogeneity we have provided summary estimates for the likely risk of seizure recurrence at six months, one year and two years for both children and adults. This provides information that is likely to be useful for the clinician counselling patients (or their parents) on the probable risk of further seizures in the short-term whilst acknowledging the paucity of long-term recurrence data, particularly beyond 10 years., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: The 1991 Medical Research Council (MRC) Study compared seizure relapse for seizure-free patients randomized to withdraw vs continue of antiseizure medications (ASMs). We re-analyzed this trial to account for crossover between arms using contamination-adjusted intention to treat (CA ITT) methods, to explore dose-response curves, and to validate predictions against external data. ITT assesses the effect of being randomized to withdraw, as-treated analysis assesses the confounded effect of withdrawing, but CA ITT assesses the unconfounded effect of actually withdrawing., Methods: CA ITT involves two stages. First, we used randomized arm to predict whether patients withdrew their ASM (logistic) or total daily ASM dose (linear). Second, we used those values to predict seizure occurrence (logistic)., Results: The trial randomized 503 patients to withdraw and 501 patients to continue ASMs. We found that 316 of 376 patients (88%) who were randomized to withdraw decreased their dose at every pre-seizure visit, compared with 35 of 424 (8%) who were randomized to continue (p < .01). Adjusted odds ratios of a 2-year seizure for those who withdrew vs those who did not was 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-1.9) in the as-treated analysis, 2.5 (95% CI 1.9-3.4) comparing those randomized to withdraw vs continue for ITT, and 3.1 (95% CI 2.1-4.5) for CA ITT. Probabilities (withdrawal vs continue) were 28% vs 24% (as-treated), 40% vs 22% (ITT), and 43% vs 21% (CA ITT). Differences between ITT and CA ITT were greater when varying the predictor (reaching zero ASMs) or outcome (1-year seizures). As-treated dose-response curves demonstrated little to no effects, but larger effects in CA ITT analysis. MRC data overpredicted risk in Lossius data, with moderate discrimination (areas under the curve ~0.70)., Significance: CA ITT results (the effect of actually withdrawing ASMs on seizures) were slightly greater than ITT effects (the effect of recommend withdrawing ASMs on seizures). How these findings affect clinical practice must be individualized., (© 2022 The Authors. Epilepsia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.)

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices., Objectives: To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus)., Search Methods: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events., Main Results: IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: levetiracetam 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and levetiracetam was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or levetiracetam in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), levetiracetam 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, levetiracetam, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies., Authors' Conclusions: High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug levetiracetam, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose of Review: This article discusses the use of antiseizure medications in the treatment of focal and generalized epilepsies using an evidence-based approach., Recent Findings: In recent years, several new antiseizure medications with differing mechanisms of action have been introduced in clinical practice, and their efficacy and safety has been evaluated in randomized controlled clinical trials. Currently, all antiseizure medications can prevent seizure occurrence, but they have no proven disease-modifying or antiepileptogenic effects in humans. The choice of therapy should integrate the best available evidence of efficacy, tolerability, and effectiveness derived from clinical trials with other pharmacologic considerations, the clinical expertise of the treating physicians, and patient values and preferences. After the failure of a first antiseizure medication, inadequate evidence is available to inform policy. An alternative monotherapy (especially if the failure is because of adverse effects) or a dual therapy (especially if failure is because of inadequate seizure control) can be used., Summary: Currently, several antiseizure medications are available for the treatment of focal or generalized epilepsies. They differ in mechanisms of action, frequency of administration, and pharmacologic properties, with a consequent risk of pharmacokinetic interactions. Major unmet needs remain in epilepsy treatment. A substantial proportion of patients with epilepsy continue to experience seizures despite two or more antiseizure medications, with a negative impact on quality of life. Therefore, more antiseizure medications that could provide higher seizure control with good tolerability and that could positively affect the underlying disease are needed., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Neurology.)

Background: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review last published in Issue 7, 2019; it includes two additional studies. Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one-third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs that has been developed to improve outcomes. In this review we summarised the current evidence regarding pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy., Search Methods: For the latest update we searched the following databases on 16 November 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 16 November 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of pregabalin and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add-on for people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Double-blind and single-blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT). We presented summary risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included 11 randomised controlled trials (3949 participants). Nine trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.72, 9 trials, 2663 participants, low-certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose-response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.60; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.64; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared pregabalin to three active-control drugs: lamotrigine, levetiracetam and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12; 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to levetiracetam (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine for seizure freedom (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83). However, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add-on pregabalin compared to levetiracetam (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We detected no significant differences in treatment withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse effects, specifically, during either pooled analysis or subgroup analysis. Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, headache and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin than in active control. We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We assessed all the studies to be at a high risk of funding bias as they were all sponsored by Pfizer. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach., Authors' Conclusions: For people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment was significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, although there were issues with tolerability at higher doses. However, the trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision-making. This review focused on the use of pregabalin in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of pregabalin when used as monotherapy., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Levetiracetam (Keppra ® , UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran ® , Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness., Objectives: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal ® , GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim ® , Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy., Design: Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel., Setting: Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK., Participants: Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication., Interventions: Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness., Results: Focal epilepsy . A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy . Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective., Limitations: The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions., Future Work: SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel., Conclusions: Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Multicompartment diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) approaches are increasingly being applied to estimate intra-axonal and extra-axonal diffusion characteristics in the human brain. Fiber ball imaging (FBI) and its extension fiber ball white matter modeling (FBWM) are such recently described multicompartment approaches. However, these particular approaches have yet to be applied in clinical cohorts. The modeling of several diffusion parameters with interpretable biological meaning may offer the development of new, noninvasive biomarkers of pharmacoresistance in epilepsy. In the present study, we used FBI and FBWM to evaluate intra-axonal and extra-axonal diffusion properties of white matter tracts in patients with longstanding focal epilepsy. FBI/FBWM diffusion parameters were calculated along the length of 50 white matter tract bundles and statistically compared between patients with refractory epilepsy, nonrefractory epilepsy and controls. We report that patients with chronic epilepsy had a widespread distribution of extra-axonal diffusivity relative to controls, particularly in circumscribed regions along white matter tracts projecting to cerebral cortex from thalamic, striatal, brainstem, and peduncular regions. Patients with refractory epilepsy had significantly greater markers of extra-axonal diffusivity compared to those with nonrefractory epilepsy. The extra-axonal diffusivity alterations in patients with epilepsy observed in the present study could be markers of neuroinflammatory processes or a reflection of reduced axonal density, both of which have been histologically demonstrated in focal epilepsy. FBI is a clinically feasible MRI approach that provides the basis for more interpretive conclusions about the microstructural environment of the brain and may represent a unique biomarker of pharmacoresistance in epilepsy., (© 2021 The Authors. Human Brain Mapping published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy., Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64)., Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs., Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AM reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from UCB Pharma, outside of the submitted work. JPL reports grants from University of Liverpool during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from UCB Pharma; and personal fees from Eisai, Janssen CIlag Pharmaceuticals, GW Pharmaceuticals, GSK Pharma, outside of the submitted work. GS reports personal fees from UCB Pharma, Eisai, Arvelle Therapeutics GmbH, outside of the submitted work. CP reports grants from National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme during the conduct of this study. CT reports grants from University of Liverpool during the conduct of the study. DH reports grants from National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme during the conduct of the study. RM reports personal fees from UCB Pharma and grants from UCB Pharma and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. PES is a member of the NICE Panel for Epilepsy guideline 2021 and is an editor of the journal Practical Neurology. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially people with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy., Search Methods: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 11 August 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models., Main Results: We identified no new studies for this update, therefore, the results and conclusions are unchanged. In the previous update of this review, we combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall risk ratio (RR) for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (95% CI 19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (95% CI 8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-certainty evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, the studies were at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide CIs., Authors' Conclusions: Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and seems to be fairly well-tolerated. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of gabapentin, and to compare gabapentin with other add-on drugs., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Despite an expanding literature on brain alterations in patients with longstanding epilepsy, few neuroimaging studies investigate patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy (NDfE). Understanding brain network impairments at diagnosis is necessary to elucidate whether or not brain abnormalities are principally due to the chronicity of the disorder and to develop prognostic markers of treatment outcome. Most adults with NDfE do not have MRI-identifiable lesions and the reasons for seizure onset and refractoriness are unknown. We applied structural connectomics to T1-weighted and multi-shell diffusion MRI data with generalized q-sampling image reconstruction using Network Based Statistics (NBS). We scanned 27 patients within an average of 3.7 (SD = 2.9) months of diagnosis and anti-epileptic drug treatment outcomes were collected 24 months after diagnosis. Seven patients were excluded due to lesional NDfE and outcome data was available in 17 patients. Compared to 29 healthy controls, patients with non-lesional NDfE had connectomes with significantly decreased quantitative anisotropy in edges connecting right temporal, frontal and thalamic nodes and increased diffusivity in edges between bilateral temporal, frontal, occipital and parietal nodes. Compared to controls, patients with persistent seizures showed the largest effect size (|d|>=1) for decreased anisotropy in right parietal edges and increased diffusivity in edges between left thalamus and left parietal nodes. Compared to controls, patients who were rendered seizure-free showed the largest effect size for decreased anisotropy in the edge connecting the left thalamus and right temporal nodes and increased diffusivity in edges connecting right frontal nodes. As demonstrated by large effect sizes, connectomes with decreased anisotropy (edge between right frontal and left insular nodes) and increased diffusivity (edge between right thalamus and left parietal nodes) were found in patients with persistent seizures compared to patients who became seizure-free. Patients who had persistent seizures showed larger effect sizes in all network metrics than patients who became seizure-free when compared to each other and compared to controls. Furthermore, patients with focal-to-bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS, N = 11) had decreased quantitative anisotropy in a bilateral network involving edges between temporal, parietal and frontal nodes with greater effect sizes than those of patients without FBTCS (N = 9). NBS findings between patients and controls indicated that structural network changes are not necessarily a consequence of longstanding refractory epilepsy and instead are present at the time of diagnosis. Computed effect sizes suggest that there may be structural network MRI-markers of future pharmacoresistance and seizure severity in patients with a new diagnosis of focal epilepsy., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2008 and updated in 2013. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition which affects up to 1% of the population. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy do not respond to treatment with currently available drugs. The majority of these people have focal epilepsy. Vigabatrin is an antiepileptic drug licensed for use in drug-resistant epilepsy., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of vigabatrin as an add-on therapy for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy., Search Methods: For the latest update of this review, we searched the following databases on 1 November 2018: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 31 October 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) are both included in the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web). We checked reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies and contacted Hoechst Marion Roussel (manufacturers of vigabatrin) in 2000., Selection Criteria: We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully published trials of vigabatrin in people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat (ITT). We evaluated: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, dose-response analysis, cognitive outcomes and quality of life. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% or 99% confidence intervals (CI)., Main Results: We identified 11 trials that included 756 participants (age range: 10 to 64 years). The trials tested vigabatrin doses between 1 g/day and 6 g/day. All 11 trials displayed a risk of bias across at least three risk of bias domains. Predominantly, the risk of bias was associated with: allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Participants treated with vigabatrin may be two to three times more likely to obtain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared with those treated with placebo (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.63; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Those treated with vigabatrin may also be three times more likely to have treatment withdrawn although we are uncertain (RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.25 to 6.55; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, participants given vigabatrin were more likely to experience adverse effects: dizziness/light-headedness (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.87; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence), fatigue (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.51; 9 studies; low-certainty evidence), drowsiness (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.44; 8 studies) and depression (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.30 to 8.27; 6 studies). Although the incidence rates were higher among participants receiving vigabatrin compared to those receiving placebo, the effect was not significant for the following adverse effects: ataxia (RR 2.76, 95% CI 0.96 to 7.94; 7 studies; very low-certainty evidence), nausea (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.63 to 20.30; 4 studies), abnormal vision (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.02; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence), headache (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.92; 9 studies), diplopia (RR 1.76, 99% CI 0.94 to 3.30) and nystagmus (RR 1.53, 99% CI 0.62 to 3.76; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Vigabatrin had little to no effect on cognitive outcomes or quality of life., Authors' Conclusions: Vigabatrin may significantly reduce seizure frequency in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The results largely apply to adults and should not be extrapolated to children under 10 years old. Short-term follow-up of participants showed that some adverse effects were associated with its use. Analysis of longer-term observational studies elsewhere, however, has demonstrated that vigabatrin use can lead to the development of visual field defects., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Predictive models within epilepsy are frequently developed via Cox's proportional hazards models. These models estimate risk of a specified event such as 12-month remission. They are relatively simple to produce, have familiar output, and are useful to answer questions about short-term prognosis. However, the Cox model only considers time to first event rather than all seizures after starting treatment for example. This makes assessing change in seizure rates over time difficult. Variants to the Cox model exist enabling recurrent events to be modelled. One such variant is the Prentice, Williams and Peterson - Total Time (PWP-TT) model. An alternative is the negative binomial model for event counts. This study aims to demonstrate the differences between the three approaches, and to consider the benefits of the PWP-TT approach for assessing change in seizure rates over time., Methods: Time to 12-month remission and time to first seizure after randomisation were modelled using the Cox model. Risk of seizure recurrence was modelled using the PWP-TT model, including all seizures across the whole follow-up period. Seizure counts were modelled using negative binomial regression. Differences between the approaches were demonstrated using participants recruited to the UK-based multi-centre Standard versus New Antiepileptic Drug (SANAD) study., Results: Results from the PWP-TT model were similar to those from the conventional Cox and negative binomial models. In general, the direction of effect was consistent although the variables included in the models and the significance of the predictors varied. The confidence intervals obtained via the PWP-TT model tended to be narrower due to the increase in statistical power of the model., Conclusions: The Cox model is useful for determining the initial response to treatment and potentially informing when the next intervention may be required. The negative binomial model is useful for modelling event counts. The PWP-TT model extends the Cox model to all included events. This is useful in determining the longer-term effects of treatment policy. Such a model should be considered when designing future clinical trials in medical conditions typified by recurrent events to improve efficiency and statistical power as well as providing evidence regarding changes in event rates over time.

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

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

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2016. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy, the majority of which may be able to achieve remission with a single antiepileptic drug (AED).The correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance and should be based on the highest-quality evidence available regarding the potential benefits and harms of various treatments for an individual.Topiramate and carbamazepine are commonly used AEDs. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of results of outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability, and may help inform a choice between the two drugs., Objectives: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with topiramate compared with carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (Ovid); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to 22 May 2018. We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monotherapy with either topiramate or carbamazepine in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: IPD were available for 1151 of 1239 eligible individuals from two of three eligible studies (93% of the potential data). A small proportion of individuals recruited into these trials had 'unclassified seizures;' for analysis purposes, these individuals are grouped with those with generalised onset seizures. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine, and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for topiramate.The main overall results for the primary outcome, time to treatment failure, given as pooled HR adjusted for seizure type were: time to failure for any reason related to treatment 1.16 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.38); time to failure due to adverse events 1.02 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.27); and time to failure due to lack of efficacy 1.46 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.98). Overall results for secondary outcomes were time to first seizure 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.29); and time to six-month remission 0.88 (0.76 to 1.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs. A statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to 12-month remission: 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.99).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 81% of individuals included within the analysis experienced seizures of this type at baseline. For individuals with focal onset seizures, a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to failure for any reason related to treatment (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.46), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.02), and time to 12-month remission (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99). There was no statistically significant difference between topiramate and carbamazepine for 'time to first seizure' and 'time to six-month remission'.Evidence for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (9% of participants contributing to the analysis), and unclassified seizure types (10% of participants contributing to the analysis) was very limited; no statistically significant differences were found but CIs were wide; therefore we cannot exclude an advantage to either drug, or a difference between drugs.The most commonly reported adverse events with both drugs were drowsiness or fatigue, "pins and needles" (tingling sensation), headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and anxiety or depression. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.We judged the methodological quality of the included trials generally to be good; however, there was some evidence that the open-label design of the larger of the two trials may have influenced the treatment failure rate within the trial. Hence, we judged the certainty of the evidence for treatment failure to be moderate for individuals with focal onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the certainty of evidence from this review to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset or unclassified seizures., Authors' Conclusions: For individuals with focal onset seizures, there is moderate-certainty evidence that carbamazepine is less likely to be withdrawn and high-certainty evidence that 12-month remission will be achieved earlier than with topiramate. We did not find any differences between the drugs in terms of the other outcomes measured in the review and for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures or unclassified epilepsy; however, we encourage caution in the interpretation of results including small numbers of participants with these seizure types.Future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible and take into consideration masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Objectives: Newly diagnosed focal epilepsy (NDfE) is rarely studied, particularly using advanced neuroimaging techniques. Many patients with NDfE experience cognitive impairments, particularly with respect to memory, sustained attention, mental flexibility, and executive functioning. Cognitive impairments have been related to alterations in resting-state functional brain networks in patients with neurological disorders. In the present study, we investigated whether patients with NDfE had altered connectivity in large-scale functional networks using resting-state functional MRI., Methods: We recruited 27 adults with NDfE and 36 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Resting-state functional MRI was analyzed using the Functional Connectivity Toolbox (CONN). We investigate reproducibly determined large-scale functional networks, including the default mode, salience, fronto-parietal attention, sensorimotor, and language networks using a seed-based approach. Network comparisons between patients and controls were thresholded using a FDR cluster-level correction approach., Results: We found no significant differences in functional connectivity between seeds within the default mode, salience, sensorimotor, and language networks and other regions of the brain between patients and controls. However, patients with NDfE had significantly reduced connectivity between intraparietal seeds within the fronto-parietal attention network and predominantly frontal and temporal cortical regions relative to controls; this finding was demonstrated including and excluding the patients with brain lesions. No common alteration in brain structure was observed in patients using voxel-based morphometry. Findings were not influenced by treatment outcome at 1 year., Conclusions: Patients with focal epilepsy have brain functional connectivity alterations at diagnosis. Functional brain abnormalities are not necessarily a consequence of the chronicity of epilepsy and are present when seizures first emerge., (© 2018 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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

Background: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2016. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenobarbitone are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for focal onset seizures, and is used in the USA and Europe. Phenobarbitone is no longer considered a first-line treatment because of concerns over associated adverse events, particularly documented behavioural adverse events in children treated with the drug. However, phenobarbitone is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these trials are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy., Objectives: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 24 May 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or phenobarbitone in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: We included 13 trials in this review and IPD were available for 836 individuals out of 1455 eligible individuals from six trials, 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 676 participants: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 619 participants: 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97, low-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 487 participants: 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78, moderate-quality evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 822 participants: 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38, moderate-quality evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 683 participants: 1.09, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40, low-quality evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 683 participants: 1.01, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).Results of these secondary outcomes suggest that there may be an association between treatment effect in terms of efficacy and seizure type; that is, that participants with focal onset seizures experience seizure recurrence later and hence remission of seizures earlier on phenobarbitone than carbamazepine, and vice versa for individuals with generalised seizures. It is likely that the analyses of these outcomes were confounded by several methodological issues and misclassification of seizure type, which could have introduced the heterogeneity and bias into the results of this review.Limited information was available regarding adverse events in the trials and we could not compare the rates of adverse events between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. Some adverse events reported on both drugs were abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, drowsiness, motor and cognitive disturbances, dysmorphic side effects (such as rash), and behavioural side effects in three paediatric trials., Authors' Conclusions: Moderate-quality evidence from this review suggests that carbamazepine is likely to be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate- to low-quality evidence from this review also suggests an association between treatment efficacy and seizure type in terms of seizure recurrence and seizure remission, with an advantage for phenobarbitone for focal onset seizures and an advantage for carbamazepine for generalised onset seizures.However, some of the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and inconsistencies that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2013. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, phenytoin is a commonly used antiepileptic drug. It is important to know how newer drugs, such as oxcarbazepine, compare with commonly used standard treatments., Objectives: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with oxcarbazepine compared to phenytoin, when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: We searched the following databases on 20 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 August 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either oxcarbazepine or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month and 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: Individual participant data were available for 480 out of a total of 517 participants (93%), from two out of three included trials. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for oxcarbazepine.The results for time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment showed a potential advantage of oxcarbazepine over phenytoin, but this was not statistically significant (pooled HR adjusted for epilepsy type: 0.78 95% CI 0.53 to 1.14, 476 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence). Our analysis showed that treatment failure due to adverse events occurred later on with oxcarbazepine than phenytoin (pooled HR for all participants: 0.22 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.51, 480 participants, two trials, high-quality evidence). Our analysis of time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy showed no clear difference between the drugs (pooled HR for all participants: 1.17 (95% CI 0.31 to 4.35), 480 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence).We found no clear or statistically significant differences between drugs for any of the secondary outcomes of the review: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for epilepsy type: 0.97 95% CI 0.75 to 1.26, 468 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence); time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for epilepsy type 1.04 95% CI 0.77 to 1.41, 468 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for epilepsy type: 1.06 95% CI 0.82 to 1.36, 468 participants, two trials, moderate-quality evidence).The most common adverse events reported in more than 10% of participants on either drug were somnolence (28% of total participants, with similar rates for both drugs), headache (15% of total participants, with similar rates for both drugs), dizziness (14.5% of total participants, reported by slightly more participants on phenytoin (18%) than oxcarbazepine (11%)) and gum hyperplasia (reported by substantially more participants on phenytoin (18%) than oxcarbazepine (2%)).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 70% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. The two studies included in IPD meta-analysis were generally of good methodological quality but the design of the studies may have biased the results for the secondary outcomes (time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month and 12-month remission) as seizure recurrence data were not collected following treatment failure or withdrawal from the study. In addition, misclassification of epilepsy type may have impacted on results, particularly for individuals with generalised onset seizures., Authors' Conclusions: High-quality evidence provided by this review indicates that treatment failure due to adverse events occurs significantly later with oxcarbazepine than phenytoin. For individuals with focal onset seizures, moderate-quality evidence suggests that oxcarbazepine may be superior to phenytoin in terms of treatment failure for any reason, seizure recurrence and seizure remission. Therefore, oxcarbazepine may be a preferable alternative treatment than phenytoin, particularly for individuals with focal onset seizures. The evidence in this review which relates to individuals with generalised onset seizures is of low quality and does not inform current treatment policy.We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with regards to choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up (including continued follow-up after failure or withdrawal of randomised treatment), choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free, and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, sodium valproate and phenytoin are commonly used antiepileptic drugs for monotherapy treatment. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for focal onset seizures, and that sodium pvalproate is more effective for generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons. This is the latest updated version of the review first published in 2001, and updated in 2013 and 2016., Objectives: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of sodium valproate compared to phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP on 19 February 2018. We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monotherapy with either sodium valproate or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month, and 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: We included 11 trials in this review and IPD were available for 669 individuals out of 1119 eligible individuals from five out of 11 trials, 60% of the potential data. Results apply to focal onset seizures (simple, complex and secondary generalised tonic-clonic seizures), and generalised tonic-clonic seizures, but not other generalised seizure types (absence or myoclonus seizure types). For remission outcomes, a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin, and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for sodium valproate.The main overall results were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.27; 5 studies; 528 participants; moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 0.77, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.37; 4 studies; 418 participants; moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR for all participants 1.16 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 5 studies; 451 participants; moderate-quality evidence). These results suggest that treatment failure for any reason related to treatment and treatment failure due to adverse events may occur earlier on phenytoin compared to sodium valproate, while treatment failure due to lack of efficacy may occur earlier on sodium valproate than phenytoin; however none of these results were statistically significant.Results for time to first seizure (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; 5 studies; 639 participants; low-quality evidence) suggest that first seizure recurrence may occur slightly earlier on sodium valproate compared to phenytoin. There were no clear differences between drugs in terms of time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28; 4 studies; 514 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; 5 studies; 639 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Limited information was available regarding adverse events in the trials and we could not make comparisons between the rates of adverse events on sodium valproate and phenytoin. Some adverse events reported with both drugs were drowsiness, rash, dizziness, nausea and gastrointestinal problems. Weight gain was also reported with sodium valproate and gingival hypertrophy/hyperplasia was reported on phenytoin.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however four out of the five trials providing IPD for analysis were of an open-label design, therefore all results were at risk of detection bias. There was also evidence that misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review, particularly for the outcome 'time to first seizure' and heterogeneity was present in analysis of treatment failure outcomes which could not be explained by subgroup analysis by epilepsy type or by sensitivity analysis for misclassification of seizure type. Therefore, for treatment failure outcomes we judged the quality of the evidence to be moderate to low, for 'time to first seizure' we judged the quality of the evidence to be low, and for remission outcomes we judged the quality of the evidence to be moderate., Authors' Conclusions: We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between valproate and phenytoin for any of the outcomes examined in this review. However detection bias, classification bias and heterogeneity may have impacted on the results of this review. We did not find any outright evidence to support or refute current treatment policies. We recommend that future trials be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 11, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free, and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are recommended as first-line treatments for new onset focal seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs., Objectives: To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: We conducted the first searches for this review in 1997. For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Clinical Trials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 26 February 2018, without language restrictions SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: We included 14 trials in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3787 eligible individuals from nine out of 14 trials: 68% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for carbamazepine; and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.82, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.55 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.66, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR for all participants: 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.41), moderate-quality evidence) showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine in terms of treatment failure for any reason related to treatment and treatment failure due to adverse events, but no different between drugs for treatment failure due to lack of efficacy.Time to first seizure (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 1.26, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41, high-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.97, high-quality evidence), showed a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (pooled HR for all participants 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07, high-quality evidence) or time to 24-month remission (HR for all participants 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25, high-quality evidence), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the treatment failure and withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment failure to be moderate for individuals with focal onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures., Authors' Conclusions: Moderate quality evidence indicates that treatment failure for any reason related to treatment or due to adverse events occurs significantly earlier on carbamazepine than lamotrigine, but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. The choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 2, 2002 and its subsequent updates in 2010 and 2015.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which recurrent, unprovoked seizures are caused by abnormal electrical discharges from the brain. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly-used broad spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for partial onset seizures in the USA and Europe. Phenytoin is no longer considered a first-line treatment due to concerns over adverse events associated with its use, but the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials, although the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide. Differences in efficacy may therefore be shown by synthesising the data of the individual trials., Objectives: To review the time to withdrawal, six- and 12-month remission, and first seizure with carbamazepine compared to phenytoin, used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial, or secondarily generalised tonic-clonic seizures), or generalised tonic-clonic seizures, with or without other generalised seizure types., Search Methods: For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (1st November 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 1st November 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 1 November 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (1 November 2016), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 1st November 2016). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (1823 to 16th September 2014) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures, comparing carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: This is an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, and our secondary outcomes were time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and time to first seizure post-randomisation. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1192 eligible individuals, from four out of 12 trials (i.e. 50% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. The methodological quality of the four studies providing IPD was generally good and we rated it at low risk of bias overall in the analyses.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to withdrawal of allocated treatment: 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.39; three trials, 546 participants); time to 12-month remission: 1.01 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.31; three trials, 551 participants); time to six-month remission: 1.11 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.37; three trials, 551 participants); and time to first seizure: 0.85 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.04; four trials, 582 participants). The results suggest no overall statistically significant difference between the drugs for these outcomes. There is some evidence of an advantage for phenytoin for individuals with generalised onset seizures for our primary outcome (time to withdrawal of allocated treatment): pooled HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.96; two trials, 118 participants); and a statistical interaction between treatment effect and epilepsy type (partial versus generalised) for this outcome (P = 0.02). However, misclassification of seizure type for up to 48 individuals (32% of those with generalised epilepsy) may have confounded the results of this review. Despite concerns over side effects leading to the withdrawal of phenytoin as a first-line treatment in the USA and Europe, we found no evidence that phenytoin is more likely to be associated with serious side effects than carbamazepine; 26 individuals withdrew from 290 randomised (9%) to carbamazepine due to adverse effects, compared to 12 out of 299 (4%) randomised to phenytoin from four studies conducted in the USA and Europe (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80, P = 0.014). We rated the quality of the evidence as low to moderate according to GRADE criteria, due to imprecision and potential misclassification of seizure type., Authors' Conclusions: We have not found evidence for a statistically significant difference between carbamazepine and phenytoin for the efficacy outcomes examined in this review, but CIs are wide and we cannot exclude the possibility of important differences. There is no evidence in this review that phenytoin is more strongly associated with serious adverse events than carbamazepine. There is some evidence that people with generalised seizures may be less likely to withdraw early from phenytoin than from carbamazepine, but misclassification of seizure type may have impacted upon our results. We recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review, and do not recommend that our results alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenytoin. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible, with considerations of allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, first published in Issue 1, 2003 and updated in 2015. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenobarbitone are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for partial onset seizures, and is used in the USA and Europe. Phenobarbitone is no longer considered a first-line treatment because of concerns over associated adverse events, particularly documented behavioural adverse events in children treated with the drug. However, phenobarbitone is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy., Objectives: To review the time to withdrawal, remission, and first seizure of carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 18 August 2016: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (from 1823) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: RCTs in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenobarbitone monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'adverse events'. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: IPD were available for 836 participants out of 1455 eligible individuals from six out of 13 trials; 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for phenobarbitone, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were HR 1.50 for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; P = 0.003); HR 0.93 for time to achieve 12-month remission (95% CI 0.72 to 1.20; P = 0.57); HR 0.99 for time to achieve six-month remission (95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; P = 0.95); and HR 0.87 for time to first seizure (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06; P = 0.18). Results suggest an advantage for carbamazepine over phenobarbitone in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and no statistically significant evidence between the drugs for the other outcomes. We found evidence of a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (Chi² test for subgroup differences P = 0.03), where phenobarbitone was favoured for partial onset seizures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02) and carbamazepine was favoured for generalised onset seizures (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.77; P = 0.27). We found no evidence of an interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for the other outcomes. However, methodological quality of the included studies was variable, with 10 out of the 13 included studies (4 out of 6 studies contributing IPD) judged at high risk of bias for at least one methodological aspect, leading to variable individual study results, and therefore, heterogeneity in the analyses of this review. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of poor methodological aspects, where possible., Authors' Conclusions: Overall, we found evidence suggestive of an advantage for carbamazepine in terms of drug effectiveness compared with phenobarbitone (retention of the drug in terms of seizure control and adverse events) and evidence suggestive of an association between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (phenobarbitone favoured for partial seizures and carbamazepine favoured for generalised seizures). However, this evidence was judged to be of low quality due to poor methodological quality and the potential impact on individual study results (and therefore variability (heterogeneity) present in the analysis within this review), we encourage caution when interpreting the results of this review and do not advocate that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations for allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy, the majority of which may be able to achieve remission with a single antiepileptic drug (AED).The correct choice of first-line antiepileptic therapy for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AED for an individual is based on the highest-quality evidence available regarding the potential benefits and harms of various treatments. It is also important to compare the efficacy and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types.Topiramate and carbamazepine are commonly used AEDs. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of results of outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability, and may help inform a choice between the two drugs., Objectives: To assess the effects of topiramate monotherapy versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy in people with partial-onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (14 April 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (14 April 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 14 April 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial-onset seizures or generalised-onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types with a comparison of monotherapy with either topiramate or carbamazepine., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to first seizure post randomisation', 'time to 6-month remission, 'time to 12-month remission' and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and used the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HRs and 95% CIs., Main Results: IPD were available for 1151 of 1239 eligible individuals from two of three eligible studies (93% of the potential data). A small proportion of individuals recruited into these trials had 'unclassified seizures;' for analysis purposes, these individuals are grouped with those with generalised onset seizures. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for topiramate.The main overall results, given as pooled HR adjusted for seizure type (95% CI) were: for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.16 (0.98 to 1.38); time to first seizure 1.11 (0.96 to 1.29); and time to 6-month remission 0.88 (0.76 to 1.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs. A statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to 12-month remission: 0.84 (0.71 to 1.00).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial-onset seizures; 85% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. For individuals with partial-onset seizures, a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.45) and time to 12-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00). No statistically significant differences were apparent between the drugs for other outcomes and for the limited number of individuals with generalised-onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types or unclassified seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events with both drugs were drowsiness or fatigue, 'pins and needles' (tingling sensation), headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and anxiety or depression The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.We judged the methodological quality of the included trials generally to be good; however, there was some evidence that the open-label design of the larger of the two trials may have influenced the withdrawal rate from the trial. Hence, we judged the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment withdrawal to be moderate for individuals with partial-onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised-onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the evidence from this review to be high for individuals with partial-onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised-onset or unclassified seizures., Authors' Conclusions: For individuals with partial-onset seizures, there is evidence that carbamazepine is less likely to be withdrawn and that 12-month remission will be achieved earlier than with topiramate. No differences were found between the drugs in terms of the outcomes measured in the review for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other seizure types or unclassified epilepsy; however, we encourage caution in the interpretation of these results due to the small numbers of participants with these seizure types.We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible and take into consideration masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line antiepileptic therapy for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments. It is also important that the effectiveness and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types are compared to one another.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are first-line recommended treatments for new onset partial seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs., Objectives: To review the time to withdrawal, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: The first searches for this review were run in 1997. For the most recent update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (17 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 17 October 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 17 October 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: We included 13 studies in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3394 eligible individuals from nine out of 13 trials: 78% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were: time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), time to first seizure (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.37) and time to six-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94), showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine for withdrawal but a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07) or time to 24-month remission (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so the evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment withdrawal to be moderate for individuals with partial onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with partial onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures., Authors' Conclusions: Lamotrigine was significantly less likely to be withdrawn than carbamazepine but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. A choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Data from clinical trials in adults, extrapolated to predict benefits in paediatric patients, could result in fewer or smaller trials being required to obtain a new drug licence for paediatrics. This article outlines the place of such extrapolation in the development of drugs for use in paediatric epilepsies. Based on consensus expert opinion, a proposal is presented for a new paradigm for the clinical development of drugs for focal epilepsies. Phase I data should continue to be collected in adults, and phase II and III trials should simultaneously recruit adults and paediatric patients aged above 2 years. Drugs would be provisionally licensed for children subject to phase IV collection of neurodevelopmental safety data in this age group. A single programme of trials would suffice to license the drug for use as either adjunctive therapy or monotherapy. Patients, clinicians and sponsors would all benefit from this new structure through cost reduction and earlier access to novel treatments. Further work is needed to elicit the views of patients, their parents and guardians as appropriate, regulatory authorities and bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK)., Competing Interests: Compliance with Ethical Standards Funding The meeting on which the contents of this article are based was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR-RMOFS-2013-03-05). IW and TJ have received funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR-RMOFS-2013-03-05 IW; NIHR-CDF-2010-03-32 TJ). IW has also received funding from the Medical Research Council (MR/M013510/1). LVH has received funding from the Medical Research Council (MR/J014079/1). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors. The funders had no role in the design or delivery of the Expert Group meeting, or writing of the report. The corresponding author (LVH) had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. The Medical Research Council (grant MR/J014079/1) funded the open access fee for this manuscript. Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest IW reports grants from National Institute for Health Research during the conduct of the study; and grants from Medical Research Council and grants from the pharmaceutical industry, outside the submitted work. TJ reports grants from National Institute for Health Research, during the conduct of the study; and grants from the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, and other funding from the pharmaceutical industry, outside the study. GJS reports grants from National Institute for Health Research during the conduct of the study; and speaker fees from GSK, UCB Pharma and Eisai, and conference fees UCB Pharma, outside the submitted work. RA reports educational support, grants and honoraria from Desitin Pharma Ltd, Eisai, Shire, UCB Pharma and Viropharma, outside the submitted work before 2015. JHC has received (all paid to her department) a research grant from Vitaflo, honoraria for advisory boards from Nutricia, Shire, Takeda and UCB, and honoraria for speaking by Nutricia, Eisai, UCB and Shire, outside the submitted work. AGM reports grants from UCB Pharma, Eisai and GSK, and honorarium from UCB Pharma and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. TM reports travel grants from Viropharma, and personal speaking fees from Eisai, outside the submitted work. AM has received travel grants from UCB, Eisai and Cyberonics, meeting sponsorship from UCB, and honoraria from Eisai and UCB, outside the submitted work. PEMS reports grants from UCB Pharma, outside the submitted work. JMP reports grants and other funding from National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NIH/NINDS), Eisai, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Questcor, UCB Pharmaceuticals and Upshur Smith, grants from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Health Resources and Services Administration (CDC/HRSA) and Marinus Pharmaceuticals, and other funding from Acorda, Bial, Catalyst, GlaxoSmithKline, GLG, Guidepointe Global, Medscape, Neuropace, Sepracor and Sunovion, outside the submitted work. LVH reports grants from National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council, during the conduct of the study; and grants from the pharmaceutical industry, outside the submitted work.

Background: This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1.Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder, affecting almost 0.5% to 1% of the population. For nearly 30% of these people, their epilepsy is refractory to currently available drugs. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Lamotrigine is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs and is the topic of this review. Lamotrigine in combination with other antiepileptic drugs (add-on) can reduce seizures, but with some adverse effects. The aim of this systematic review was to overview the current evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine when used as an adjunctive treatment for people with refractory partial epilepsy., Objectives: To determine the effects of lamotrigine on (1) seizures, (2) adverse effect profile, and (3) cognition and quality of life, compared to placebo controls, when used as an add-on treatment for people with refractory partial epilepsy., Search Methods: For the previous version of the review, the authors searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (January 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2010), and reference lists of articles.For this update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (28 May 2015), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to May 2015), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted the manufacturers of lamotrigine (GlaxoSmithKline). No language restrictions were imposed., Selection Criteria: Randomised placebo-controlled trials of people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy of any age, in which an adequate method of concealment of randomisation was used. The studies were double-, single- or unblinded. For cross-over studies, the first treatment period was treated as a parallel trial. Eligible participants were adults or children with drug-resistant partial epilepsy., Data Collection and Analysis: For this update, two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion, and extracted data. Outcomes included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal (any reason), adverse effects, effects on cognition and quality of life. Primary analyses were by intention-to-treat. Sensitivity best and worse case analyses were undertaken to account for missing outcome data. Pooled Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl) were estimated for the primary outcomes of seizure frequency and treatment withdrawal. For adverse effects, pooled RRs and 99% Cls were calculated., Main Results: We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the results are unchanged.For the previous version of the review, the authors found five parallel add-on studies and eight cross-over studies in adults or children with refractory focal epilepsy, and one parallel add-on study with a responder-enriched design in infants. In total, these 14 studies included 1958 participants (38 infants, 199 children, and 1721 adults). Baseline phases ranged from 4 to 12 weeks; treatment phases from 8 to 36 weeks. Overall, eleven studies (n = 1243 participants) were rated as having a low risk of bias, and three (n = 715 participants) had un unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. Effective blinding of studies was reported in three studies (n = 504 participants). The overall risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.80 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.23; 12 RCTs) for twelve studies (n = 1322 participants, adults and children) indicating that lamotrigine was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing seizure frequency. The overall RR for treatment withdrawal (for any reason) was 1.11 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.36; 14 RCTs) for fourteen studies (n = 1958 participants). The adverse events significantly associated with lamotrigine were: ataxia, dizziness, diplopia, and nausea. The RR of these adverse effects were as follows: ataxia 3.34 (99% Cl 2.01 to 5.55; 12 RCTs; n = 1524); dizziness 2.00 (99% Cl 1.51 to 2.64;13 RCTs; n = 1767); diplopia 3.79 (99% Cl 2.15 to 6.68; 3 RCTs; n = 943); nausea 1.81 (99% Cl 1.22 to 2.68; 12 RCTs; n = 1486). The limited data available precluded any conclusions about effects on cognition and quality of life. No important heterogeneity between studies was found for any of the outcomes. Overall, we assessed the evidence as high to moderate quality, due to incomplete data for some outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: Lamotrigine as an add-on treatment for partial seizures appears to be effective in reducing seizure frequency, and seems to be fairly well tolerated. However, the trials were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for the long-term. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of lamotrigine, and to compare it with other add-on drugs.Since we did not find any new studies, our conclusions remain unchanged.

Background: Worldwide, phenytoin and valproate are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for partial onset seizures, and that valproate is more effective for generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons. This is the latest updated version of the review first published in 2001 and updated in 2013., Objectives: To review the time to withdrawal, remission and first seizure of phenytoin compared to valproate when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (19 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to 19 May 2015), SCOPUS (19 February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (19 May 2015), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (19 May 2015). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of valproate monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Outcomes were time to: (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment (retention time); (b) achieve 12-month remission (seizure-free period); (c) achieve six-month remission (seizure-free period); and (d) first seizure (post-randomisation). We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: IPD were available for 669 individuals out of 1119 eligible individuals from five out of 11 trials, 60% of the potential data. Results apply to partial onset seizures (simple, complex and secondary generalised tonic-clonic seizures), and generalised tonic-clonic seizures, but not other generalised seizure types (absence or myoclonus seizure types). For remission outcomes: HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes: HR > 1 indicates an advantage for valproate.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to: (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.09 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.55); (b) achieve 12-month remission 0.98 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.23); (c) achieve six-month remission 0.95 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.15); and (d) first seizure 0.93 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.14). The results suggest no overall difference between the drugs for these outcomes. We did not find any statistical interaction between treatment and seizure type (partial versus generalised)., Authors' Conclusions: We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between phenytoin and valproate for the outcomes examined in this review. However misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review. Results do not apply to absence or myoclonus seizure types. No outright evidence was found to support or refute current treatment policies.

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002 and its subsequent update in 2010.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which recurrent, unprovoked seizures are caused by abnormal electrical discharges from the brain. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly used broad spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first line treatment for partial onset seizures in the USA and Europe. Phenytoin is no longer considered a first line treatment due to concerns over adverse events associated with its use, however the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries due to it's low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials, however the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide. Therefore, differences in efficacy may be shown by synthesising the data of the individual trials., Objectives: To review the time to withdrawal, six- and 12-month remission, and first seizure of carbamazepine compared to phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial, or secondarily generalised tonic-clonic seizures) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures, with or without other generalised seizure types., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (16 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to 16 September 2014), SCOPUS (1823 to 16 September 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 September 2014), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (18 September 2014). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, and our secondary outcomes were time to 12-month remission, time to six-month remission and time to first seizure post-randomisation. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1192 eligible individuals, from four out of 12 trials (i.e. 50% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. Methodological quality of the four studies providing IPD was generally good and we rated it at low risk of bias overall in the analyses.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to withdrawal of allocated treatment: 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.39); time to 12-month remission: 1.01 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.31); time to six-month remission: 1.11 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.37); and time to first seizure: 0.85 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.04). The results suggest no overall statistically significant difference between the drugs for these outcomes. There is some evidence of an advantage for phenytoin for individuals with generalised onset seizures for our primary outcome (time to withdrawal of allocated treatment): pooled HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.96); and a statistical interaction between treatment effect and epilepsy type (partial versus generalised) for this outcome (P = 0.02), however misclassification of seizure type for up to 48 individuals (32% of those with generalised epilepsy) may have confounded the results of this review. Despite concerns over side effects leading to the withdrawal of phenytoin as first line treatment in the USA and Europe, we found no evidence that phenytoin is more likely to be associated with serious side effects than carbamazepine; 26 individuals withdrew from 290 randomised (9%) to carbamazepine due to adverse effects compared to 12 out of 299 (4%) randomised to phenytoin from four studies conducted in the USA and Europe (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80, P = 0.014). We rated the quality of the evidence as low - moderate according to GRADE criteria, due to imprecision and potential misclassification of seizure type., Authors' Conclusions: We have not found evidence that a statistically significant difference exists between carbamazepine and phenytoin for the efficacy outcomes examined in this review, however, CIs are wide and the possibility of important differences existing has not been excluded. There is no evidence in this review that phenytoin is more strongly associated with serious adverse events than carbamazepine. There is some evidence that participants with generalised seizures may be less likely to withdraw early from phenytoin than carbamazepine, but misclassification of seizure type may have impacted upon the results of this review. We recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review, and do not recommend that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenytoin. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations on allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Numerous diverse biological pathways are dysregulated in the epileptic focus. Which of these pathways are most critical in producing the biological abnormalities that lead to epilepsy? Answering this question is key to identifying the primary causes of epilepsy and for discovering new therapeutic strategies with greater efficacy than currently available antiepileptics (AEDs). We have performed the largest genome-wide transcriptomic analysis to date comparing epileptic with normal human hippocampi. We have identified 118 differentially expressed and, for the first time, differentially connected pathways in the epileptic focus. Using network mapping techniques, we have shown that these dysregulated pathways, though seemingly disparate, form a coherent interconnected central network. Using closeness centrality analysis, we have identified that the most influential hub pathways in this network are signalling through G protein-coupled receptors, in particular opioid receptors, and their downstream effectors PKA/CREB and DAG/IP3. Next, we have objectively demonstrated that genetic association of gene sets in independent genome-wide association studies (GWASs) can be used to identify causally relevant gene sets: we show that proven causal epilepsy genes, which cause familial Mendelian epilepsy syndromes, are associated in published sporadic epilepsy GWAS results. Using the same technique, we have shown that central pathways identified (opioid receptor and PKA/CREB and DAG/IP3 signalling pathways) are genetically associated with focal epilepsy and, hence, likely causal. Published functional studies in animal models provide evidence of a role for these pathways in epilepsy. Our work shows that these pathways play a central role in human focal epilepsy and that they are important currently unexploited antiepileptic drug targets., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic drug; many will require add-on treatment with another drug. Sometimes multiple treatment combinations are tried to achieve maximum seizure control, although around a third of people do not achieve complete seizure control. Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug that has been licensed as an add-on treatment for partial epilepsy., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide when used as an add-on treatment for patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (21 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL , The Cochrane Library Issue 4, April 2015), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 21 May 2015), Scopus (1823 to 13 November 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (21 May 2015) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 21 May 2015). We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted UCB (sponsors of lacosamide) and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of add-on lacosamide in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (2) seizure freedom; (3) treatment withdrawal for any reason; and (4) adverse events. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. Summary risk ratios were estimated for each outcome., Main Results: We included three trials in our review (1311 participants), which were classified as having low risk of bias. All trials were placebo-controlled and assessed doses ranging from 200 mg to 600 mg per day. Trial duration ranged from 24 to 26 weeks. All trials used adequate methods of randomisation and were double-blind. Overall the quality of the evidence was rated as moderate to high. The overall risk ratio for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38 to 2.10); for seizure freedom for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 2.50 (95% CI 0.85 to 7.34); and for treatment withdrawal for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.88 (95% CI 1.40 to 2.52). Adverse effects significantly associated with lacosamide were abnormal co-ordination (risk ratio (RR) 6.12, 99% CI 1.35 to 27.77), diplopia (RR 5.29, 99% CI 1.97 to 14.23), dizziness (RR 3.53, 99% CI 2.20 to 5.68), nausea (RR 2.37, 99% CI 1.23 to 4.58) and vomiting (RR 3.49, 99% CI 1.43 to 8.54). Adverse effects that were not statistically significant were headache (RR 1.34, 99% CI 0.83 to 2.18), fatigue (RR 2.11, 99% CI 0.92 to 4.85), nystagmus (RR 1.47, 99% CI 0.61 to 3.52) and somnolence (RR 1.44, 99% CI 0.67 to 3.09)., Authors' Conclusions: This review has shown lacosamide to be effective and fairly well tolerated in the short term when used as add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy in adults. Higher doses of lacosamide may be more associated with adverse effects and withdrawal of the drug than lower doses. Additional evidence on children is needed, and longer-term efficacy is unknown.

Background: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory treatment that is used as an adjunctive therapy for treating people with medically refractory epilepsy. VNS consists of chronic intermittent electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, delivered by a programmable pulse generator. The majority of people given a diagnosis of epilepsy have a good prognosis, and their seizures will be controlled by treatment with a single antiepileptic drug (AED), but up to 20%-30% of patients will develop drug-resistant epilepsy, often requiring treatment with combinations of AEDs. The aim of this systematic review was to overview the current evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of vagus nerve stimulation when used as an adjunctive treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review published in Issue 7, 2010., Objectives: To determine:(1) The effects on seizures of VNS compared to controls e.g. high-level stimulation compared to low-level stimulation (presumed sub-therapeutic dose); and(2) The adverse effect profile of VNS compared to controls e.g. high-level stimulation compared to low-level stimulation., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (23 February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 23 February 2015), MEDLINE (1946 to 23 February 2015), SCOPUS (1823 to 23 February 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (23 February 2015) and ICTRP (23 February 2015). No language restrictions were imposed., Selection Criteria: The following study designs were eligible for inclusion: randomised, double-blind, parallel or crossover studies, controlled trials of VNS as add-on treatment comparing high and low stimulation paradigms (including three different stimulation paradigms - duty cycle: rapid, mid and slow) and VNS stimulation versus no stimulation or a different intervention. Eligible participants were adults or children with drug-resistant partial seizures not eligible for surgery or who failed surgery., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. The following outcomes were assessed: (a) 50% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency; (b) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (c) adverse effects; (d) quality of life; (e) cognition; (f) mood. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. Sensitivity best and worst case analyses were also undertaken to account for missing outcome data. Pooled Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl) were estimated for the primary outcomes of seizure frequency and treatment withdrawal. For adverse effects, pooled RRs and 99% CI's were calculated., Main Results: Five trials recruited a total of 439 participants and between them compared different types of VNS stimulation therapy. Baseline phase ranged from 4 to 12 weeks and double-blind treatment phases from 12 to 20 weeks in the five trials. Overall, two studies were rated as having a low risk of bias and three had an unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. Effective blinding of studies of VNS is difficult due to the frequency of stimulation-related side effects such as voice alteration; this may limit the validity of the observed treatment effects. Four trials compared high frequency stimulation to low frequency stimulation and were included in quantitative syntheses (meta-analyses).The overall risk ratio (95% CI) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency across all studies was 1.73 (1.13 to 2.64) showing that high frequency VNS was over one and a half times more effective than low frequency VNS. For this outcome, we rated the evidence as being moderate in quality due to incomplete outcome data in one included study; however results did not vary substantially and remained statistically significant for both the best and worst case scenarios. The risk ratio (RR) for treatment withdrawal was 2.56 (0.51 to 12.71), however evidence for this outcome was rated as low quality due to imprecision of the result and incomplete outcome data in one included study. The RR of adverse effects were as follows: (a) voice alteration and hoarseness 2.17 (99% CI 1.49 to 3.17); (b) cough 1.09 (99% CI 0.74 to 1.62); (c) dyspnea 2.45 (99% CI 1.07 to 5.60); (d) pain 1.01 (99% CI 0.60 to 1.68); (e) paresthesia 0.78 (99% CI 0.39 to 1.53); (f) nausea 0.89 (99% CI 0.42 to 1.90); (g) headache 0.90 (99% CI 0.48 to 1.69); evidence of adverse effects was rated as moderate to low quality due to imprecision of the result and/or incomplete outcome data in one included study. No important heterogeneity between studies was found for any of the outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: VNS for partial seizures appears to be an effective and well tolerated treatment in 439 included participants from five trials. Results of the overall efficacy analysis show that VNS stimulation using the high stimulation paradigm was significantly better than low stimulation in reducing frequency of seizures. Results for the outcome "withdrawal of allocated treatment" suggest that VNS is well tolerated as withdrawals were rare. No significant difference was found in withdrawal rates between the high and low stimulation groups, however limited information was available from the evidence included in this review so important differences between high and low stimulation cannot be excluded . Adverse effects associated with implantation and stimulation were primarily hoarseness, cough, dyspnea, pain, paresthesia, nausea and headache, with hoarseness and dyspnea more likely to occur on high stimulation than low stimulation. However, the evidence on these outcomes is limited and of moderate to low quality. Further high quality research is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS for drug resistant partial seizures.

Introduction: Epilepsy is the most common neurological condition worldwide with significant psychosocial and physical morbidity. Its management requires expertise and good pharmacological knowledge of the available options., Areas Covered: This review covers the management of focal epilepsy addressing the common questions arising through the patients' journey, including timing of starting initial treatment, monotherapy options, add-on treatment for refractory cases and withdrawal of medication during remission., Expert Opinion: Initiating anti-epileptic drug (AED) treatment requires assessment of patient preferences and of evidence of benefit and harm. Evidence of benefit will come primarily from randomised controlled trials, although in epilepsy, most trials are undertaken to inform regulatory decision and have important limitations for informing clinical decisions. Evidence about harm may come not only from randomised trials but also from other sources. Most patients will start treatment following a second focal seizure. Carbamazepine and lamotrigine are good initial monotherapy options. Newer AEDs have proof of efficacy as monotherapy but evidence is insufficient to recommend them as first-line treatments. For refractory cases, there are an increasing number of AEDs available, but evidence of efficacy is primarily from placebo-controlled trials, and there is no robust evidence to inform a choice among treatments.

Background: Epilepsy is a common chronic neurological disease with an estimated prevalence of 1% in the UK. Approximately one third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. In order to try to improve outcomes a number of new antiepileptic drugs have been developed and pregabalin is one of these. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review (Pulman 2008); no further studies have been added since the previous update in 2012 and only one study has been identified as an ongoing trial., Objectives: To summarise evidence from randomised controlled trials regarding the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on antiepileptic treatment in drug-resistant partial epilepsy. The definitions of drug resistance used were those employed by the authors of the included trials., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (Jan 2014), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 09/01/2014) and contacted Pfizer Ltd. (the manufacturers of pregabalin) to identify published, unpublished and ongoing trials., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Outcomes included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal for adverse events and nature of adverse events., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors (JP and AGM) independently selected and assessed suitable trials and extracted data. Primary analyses were by intention-to-treat (ITT). Results are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Included studies were assessed for risk of bias by two authors using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool., Main Results: Six suitable industry-sponsored trials (2009 participants) were identified and included in the analysis. Trials tested doses of pregabalin ranging from 50 mg/day to 600 mg/day. For the primary outcome, 50% or higher seizure reduction was significantly more likely in patients randomised to pregabalin than to placebo (RR 2.61; 95% CI 1.70 to 4.01). A dose-response analysis suggested increasing effect with increasing dose. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 2.59; 95% CI 1.05 to 6.36). Patients were significantly more likely to have withdrawn from pregabalin treatment than placebo treatment for any reason (RR 1.39; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.72) or for adverse effects (RR 2.69; 95% CI 1.88 to 3.86). Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence and weight gain were significantly associated with pregabalin. The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.76 to 2.54). Overall, the evidence was rated as low/unclear risk of bias due to the possibility of publication bias. The quality of the evidence was rated as moderate using the GRADE approach., Authors' Conclusions: Pregabalin, when used as an add-on drug for treatment-resistant partial epilepsy, is significantly more effective than placebo at achieving a 50% or greater seizure reduction and significantly increasing seizure freedom. Results demonstrate efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses. The trials included in this review were of short duration and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision making better.

Background: The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are controlled by a single antiepileptic drug. However, up to 20% of patients from population-based studies and up to 30% from clinical series (not population-based) develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially those with partial onset seizures. In this review we summarise the current evidence regarding topiramate, an antiepileptic drug first marketed in 1996, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 1999., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of topiramate when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (June 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5); MEDLINE (1946 to 2013); SCOPUS (1823 to 2013); ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted the manufacturers of topiramate and researchers in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled or active drug controlled add-on trials of topiramate, recruiting people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: (a) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (b) seizure freedom; (c) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (d) side effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat and summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) are presented. We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment for each included study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach, which we presented in a 'Summary of findings' table., Main Results: Eleven trials were included, representing 1401 randomised participants. Baseline phases ranged from 4 to 12 weeks and double-blind phases from 11 to 19 weeks. The RR for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo was 2.97 (95% CI 2.38 to 3.72). Dose regression analysis shows increasing effect with increasing dose, but found no advantage for doses over 300 or 400 mg per day. The RR for seizure freedom (95% CI) compared to placebo was 3.41 (95% CI 1.37 to 8.51). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 2.44 (95% CI 1.64 to 3.62). The RRs for the following side effects indicate that they are significantly associated with topiramate: ataxia 2.29 (99% CI 1.10 to 4.77); concentration difficulties 7.81 (2.08 to 29.29); dizziness 1.54 (99% CI 1.07 to 2.22); fatigue 2.19 (99% CI 1.42 to 3.40); paraesthesia 3.91 (1.51 to 10.12); somnolence 2.29 (99% CI 1.49 to 3.51); 'thinking abnormally' 5.70 (99% CI 2.26 to 14.38) and weight loss 3.47 (1.55 to 7.79). Evidence of publication bias was found (P-value from the Egger test was P=0.003). We rated all studies included in the review as having either low or unclear risk of bias. Overall, we assessed the evidence as moderate quality due to the evidence of publication bias., Authors' Conclusions: Topiramate has efficacy as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy in that it is three times more effective compared to a placebo in reducing seizures. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of topiramate. In the short term topiramate as an add-on has been shown to be associated with several adverse events. The results of this review cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or treatment of other epilepsy types and future research should consider examining the effect of dose.

Background: 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 partial seizures. In this review we summarise the current evidence regarding zonisamide, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (12 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1) (January 2013), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 February 2013), SCOPUS (13 February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (12 February 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (13 February 2013). In addition, we contacted Eisai Limited (makers and licensees of zonisamide) and experts in the field to seek any ongoing/unpublished studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled, add-on trials of zonisamide in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes were: (1) 50% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency; (2) treatment withdrawal; (3) adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) for each outcome. All studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and presented in a summary of findings table., Main Results: Five trials (949 participants) were included. The overall RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for 300 to 500 mg/day of zonisamide was 2.00 (95% CI 1.58 to 2.54). The RR for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for any dose of zonisamide (100 to 500 mg per day) was 1.92 (95% CI 1.52 to 2.42). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 6 for this outcome. Two trials provide evidence of a dose response relationship for this outcome. The RR for treatment withdrawal for 300 to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.64 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.25) and for 100 to 500 mg per day was 1.47 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.01). NNT for this outcome was 21. The CIs of the following adverse effects indicate that they are significantly associated with zonisamide: ataxia 3.77 (99% CI 1.28 to 11.11); somnolence 1.83 (99% CI 1.08 to 3.11); agitation 2.35 (99% CI 1.05 to 5.27) and anorexia 2.71 (99% CI 1.29 to 5.69). Across the 5 studies, risk of bias domains were rated as low is bias or unclear. None of the evidence for outcomes was downgraded for quality., Authors' Conclusions: Zonisamide has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. In this review minimum effective and maximum tolerated doses cannot be identified. The trials reviewed were of a maximum stable-dose phase of 18 weeks in duration and results cannot be used to confirm longer periods of effectiveness in seizure control. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other seizure types or epilepsy syndromes.

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.

Background: This is an updated version of the previously published Cochrane review (Issue 4, 2009)Worldwide, phenytoin and valproate are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for partial onset seizures, and that valproate is more effective for generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types., Objectives: To review the best evidence comparing phenytoin and valproate when used as monotherapy in individuals with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (19 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1, The Cochrane Library, January 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 February 2013), SCOPUS (19 February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (19 February 2013), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (19 February 2013). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of valproate monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual patient data review. Outcomes were time to (a) treatment withdrawal (b) 12-month remission (c) six-month remission and (d) first seizure post randomisation. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI., Main Results: Individual patient data were available for 669 individuals out of 1119 eligible individuals from five out of 11 trials, 60% of the potential data. Results apply to generalised tonic-clonic seizures, but not absence or myoclonus seizure types. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes HR > 1 indicates an advantage for valproateThe main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were time to (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.09 (0.76 to 1.55); (b) 12-month remission 0.98 (0.78 to 1.23); (c) six-month remission 0.95 (0.78 to 1.15) and (d) first seizure 0.93 (0.75 to 1.14). The results suggest no overall difference between the drugs for these outcomes. No statistical interaction between treatment and seizure type (partial versus generalised) was found, but misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review., Authors' Conclusions: We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between phenytoin and valproate for the outcomes examined in this review. However misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review. Results do not apply to absence or myoclonus seizure types. No outright evidence was found to support or refute current treatment policies.

Background: The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially those with partial seizures. In this review we summarise the current evidence regarding the antiepileptic drug gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy., Search Methods: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (14 May 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4, The Cochrane Library) (April 2013) and MEDLINE (1946 to 14 May 2013). We imposed no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Trials using an active drug control group or which compared doses of gabapentin were also included in the review., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: (a) seizure frequency and seizure freedom; (b) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (c) adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models., Main Results: Eleven trials were included representing 2125 randomised participants. We combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) shows increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to 1800 mg of gabapentin compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. Risk ratios were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06). No significant differences were found for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73). Overall the studies together are rated as low/unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available., Authors' Conclusions: Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types.

Background: Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder made particularly disabling in the 30% of patients who do not achieve freedom from seizures despite multiple trials of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Experimental and clinical evidence supports a role for inflammatory pathway activation in the pathogenesis of epilepsy which, if effectively targeted by immunomodulatory interventions, highlights a potentially novel therapeutic strategy., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of immunomodulatory interventions as additional therapy in focal epilepsy syndromes in adults., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (2 August 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to July week 3, 2012), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry (2 August 2012), ClinicalTrials.gov (2 August 2012) and the Current Controlled Trials International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (2 August 2012). There were no language restrictions. We reviewed the bibliographies of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of add-on immunomodulatory drug interventions for the treatment of focal epilepsy in adults (aged over 16 years)., Data Collection and Analysis: Three review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcomes were 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and seizure freedom; the secondary outcomes included serious and commonly occurring adverse effects, allergy, withdrawal and quality of life assessment., Main Results: We identified one study involving both children and adults (n=61) that assessed the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) as add-on therapy for the treatment of epilepsy. The authors found no significant difference between IVIG and placebo for the primary outcomes of seizure freedom or 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. The study reported a statistically significant effect for global blind assessment (rating scale involving multiple seizure-related parameters) in favour of IVIG. Secondary outcomes including adverse effects and allergies were not demonstrated., Authors' Conclusions: It is not possible to draw any conclusions about the role of immunomodulatory interventions in reducing seizure frequency or the safety of these agents in adults with epilepsy. Further randomised controlled trials are needed.

Background: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition which affects between 0.5% and 1% of the population. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy do not respond to treatment with currently available drugs. The majority of these people have partial epilepsy. Vigabatrin is an antiepileptic drug licensed for use in the treatment of refractory epilepsy. No major side effects associated with the use of vigabatrin were detected by initial randomised controlled trials of the drug. However, longer-term observational studies have subsequently identified that its use is associated with asymptomatic visual field constriction., Objectives: The objective of this review was to synthesise evidence from short-term, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of vigabatrin. We summarised the effects of vigabatrin on seizures and short-term side effects when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. A review of longer-term observational studies and estimates of proportions of patients developing visual field constrictions is currently being undertaken and results will be cited in this review in due course., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (12 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1946 to October week 1, 2012) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted the manufacturers of vigabatrin (Hoechst Marion Roussel)., Selection Criteria: We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully published trials of vigabatrin in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat (ITT). Outcomes evaluated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal and side effects observable in the short term. Results are presented on the risk ratio (RR) scale with 95% or 99% confidence intervals (CI)., Main Results: Eleven suitable trials that tested vigabatrin doses between 1000 mg and 6000 mg were identified and included in the analysis. There were 982 observations on 747 patients in the primary ITT analysis of treatment efficacy. Patients treated with vigabatrin were significantly more likely to obtain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared with those treated with placebo (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.57). Those treated with vigabatrin were also significantly more likely to have treatment withdrawn (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.05 to 5.88), and were more likely to experience a number of side effects, significantly so for fatigue or drowsiness. There was some evidence of small study effect bias, with smaller studies tending to report greater estimates of RR than larger studies. It is possible, therefore, that the actual RR of obtaining 50% reduction in seizure frequency is less than that obtained by a meta-analysis of fully published studies., Authors' Conclusions: This review of randomised controlled trials showed that vigabatrin can reduce seizure frequency in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Short-term follow-up of patients showed that some side effects were associated with its use. Further analysis of longer-term observational studies is required to evaluate how likely patients are to develop visual field defects and whether such side effects are associated with dose and duration of drug use.

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2001, Issue 4.Worldwide, particularly in the developing world, phenytoin and phenobarbitone are commonly used antiepileptic drugs, primarily because they are inexpensive. The aim of this review is to summarise data from existing trials comparing phenytoin and phenobarbitone., Objectives: To review the best evidence comparing phenobarbitone and phenytoin when used as monotherapy in participants with partial onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group trials register (31 May 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 5 of 12, The Cochrane Library 2012) and MEDLINE (1946 to May week 4, 2012). We hand-searched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.  , Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of phenobarbitone monotherapy with phenytoin monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Outcomes were time to (a) treatment withdrawal (b) 12-month remission (c) six-month remission and (d) first seizure post randomisation. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled estimate of HRs and 95% CIs., Main Results: Data have been obtained for four of eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria, amounting to 599 individuals, or approximately 63% of the potential data.The main overall results (pooled HR, 95% CI) were (a) time to treatment withdrawal 1.62 (1.23 to 2.14); (b) time to 12-month remission 0.90 (0.69 to 1.18) (c) time to six-month remission 0.92 (0.73 to 1.16) and (d) time to first seizure 0.85 (0.68 to 1.05). These results indicate a statistically significant clinical advantage for phenytoin in terms of treatment withdrawal. However, this result may have been confounded by several factors including substantial statistical heterogeneity between studies and lack of blinding in two studies., Authors' Conclusions: The results of this review show that phenobarbitone was significantly more likely to be withdrawn than phenytoin. Given that no significant differences for seizure outcomes were found, the higher withdrawal rate with phenobarbitone may be due to adverse effects. Several factors may have confounded the results of this review.

Background: Epilepsy is an important neurological condition and drug resistance in epilepsy is particularly common in individuals with focal seizures. In this review, we summarise the current evidence regarding a new antiepileptic drug, levetiracetam, when used as add-on treatment for controlling drug-resistant focal epilepsy. This is an update to a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2001., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of levetiracetam, added on to usual care, in treating drug-resistant focal epilepsy., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (August 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 7, 2012), and MEDLINE (1946 to August week 1, 2012). We also contacted the manufacturers of levetiracetam and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of add-on levetiracetam treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for bias, extracted data, and evaluated the overall quality of evidence. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency (response); less than 50% reduction in focal seizure frequency (non-response); treatment withdrawal; adverse effects (including a specific analysis of changes in behaviour); cognitive effects and quality of life (QoL). Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as measures of effect (99% CIs for adverse effects). Primary analyses were Intention-to-Treat (ITT). Dose response and inter-trial heterogeneity were evaluated in regression models., Main Results: Eleven trials (1861 participants) were included. They predominantly possessed low risks of bias. Participants were adults in nine trials (1565 participants) and children in the remaining two trials (296 participants). The dose of levetiracetam tested was 1000 to 4000 mg/day in adults, and 60 mg/kg/day in children. Treatment ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. For the 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency outcome, the RR was significantly in favour of levetiracetam at all doses. The naive estimates, ignoring dose, showed children (52% responded) as better responders than adults (39% responded) on levetiracetam. 25% of children and 16% of adults responded to placebo. The Number Needed to Treat for an additional beneficial outcome for children and adults was four (95% CI three to seven) and five (95% CI four to six), respectively. The significant levels of statistical heterogeneity between trials on adults precluded valid provision of an overall RR (ignoring dose). Results for the two trials that tested levetiracetam 2000 mg on adults were sufficiently similar to be combined to give an RR for 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency of 4.91 (95% CI 2.75 to 8.77), with an RR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.77) for non-response. At this dose, 37% and 8% of adults were responders in the levetiracetam and placebo groups, respectively. Regression analysis demonstrated that much of the heterogeneity between adult trials was likely to be explained by different doses of levetiracetam tested and different years of trial publication. There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity between trials on children. For these trials, the RR for 50% or greater reduction in focal seizure frequency was 1.91 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.63), with an RR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.81) for non-response. 27% of children responded. Participants were not significantly more likely to have levetiracetam withdrawn (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.32 and RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.46 for adults and children, respectively). For adults, somnolence (RR 1.51; 99% CI 1.06 to 2.17) and infection (RR 1.76; 99% CI 1.03 to 3.02) were significantly associated with levetiracetam. Accidental injury was significantly associated with placebo (RR 0.60; 99% CI 0.39 to 0.92). No individual adverse effect was significantly associated with levetiracetam in children. Changes in behaviour were negligible in adults (1% affected; RR 1.79; 99% CI 0.59 to 5.41) but significant in children (23% affected; RR 1.90; 99% CI 1.16 to 3.11). Cognitive effect and QoL outcomes suggested that levetiracetam had a positive effect on cognition and some aspects of QoL in adults. In children, levetiracetam did not appear to alter cognitive function but there was evidence of worsening in certain aspects of child behaviour. The overall quality of evidence used was high., Authors' Conclusions: This update adds seven more trials to the original review, which contained four trials. At every dose analysed, levetiracetam significantly reduced focal seizure frequency relative to placebo. This indicates that levetiracetam can significantly reduce focal seizure frequency when it is used as an add-on treatment for both adults and children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. As there was evidence of significant levels of statistical heterogeneity within this positive effect it is difficult to be precise about the relative magnitude of the effect. At a dose of 2000 mg, levetiracetam may be expected to be 3.9 times more effective than placebo; with 30% of adults being responders at this dose. At a dose of 60 mg/kg/day, levetiracetam may be expected to be 0.9 times more effective than placebo; with 25% of children being responders at this dose. When dose was ignored, children were better responders than adults by around 4% to 13%. The results grossly suggest that one child or adult may respond to levetiracetam for every four or five children or adults, respectively, that have received levetiracetam rather than placebo. The drug seems to be well tolerated in both adults and children although non-specific changes in behaviour may be experienced in as high as 20% of children. This aspect of the adverse-effect profile of levetiracetam was analysed crudely and requires further investigation and validation. It seems reasonable to continue the use of levetiracetam in both adults and children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The results cannot be used to confirm longer-term or monotherapy effects of levetiracetam or its effects on generalised seizures. The conclusions are largely unchanged from those in the original review. The most significant contribution of this update is the addition of paediatric data into the analysis.

Background: Patients who present with only simple or complex partial seizures have a poorly documented prognosis. Treatment may be advocated to prevent future secondary generalised seizures, reduce the frequency of further simple or complex partial seizures or a combination of both., Methods: A full statistical analysis on 1334 patients was carried out. The outcomes measured were post-randomisation times to first seizure of any type and first tonic-clonic seizure. Methodology was adopted that accounted for individuals' underlying pre-randomisation seizure counts and allowed for the possibility that there may be a proportion of the sample that will not experience post-randomisation seizure recurrence., Results: 103 subjects randomised to the MESS (Multicentre Study of Early Epilepsy and Single Seizures) study had only partial seizures at randomisation. Only 17 of these had a tonic-clonic seizure during follow-up. The presence of an abnormal EEG at randomisation influenced this risk: an estimated 23% of those with EEG abnormality were at risk of tonic-clonic seizures during follow-up compared with 16% of those with a normal EEG. The group did, however, continue to have partial seizures during follow-up, and modelling showed that the impact of treatment on these seizures was significantly less than the effects of treatment on the frequency of tonic-clonic seizures in those patients with such pre-randomisation seizures., Conclusion: Patients presenting with a history of only partial seizures are at low risk of subsequent tonic-clonic seizures in the period of time to which therapeutic decisions are relevant. The effects of the antiepileptic drugs used in the MESS study are greater for tonic-clonic seizures than they are for partial seizures.

Background: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, affecting almost 0.5 to 1% of the population. Nearly 30% of people with epilepsy are resistant to currently available drugs. Tiagabine is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs and its effects as an adjunct (add-on) to standard drugs are assessed in this review., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of add-on treatment with tiagabine upon seizures, adverse effects, cognition and quality of life for people with drug-resistant localisation related seizures., Search Methods: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in issue 10, 2010. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (December 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, issue 4, 2011 of The Cochrane Library), and MEDLINE (1948 to November 2011). No language restrictions were imposed. We also contacted the manufacturers of tiagabine and experts in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised placebo controlled add-on trials of people of any age with localisation related seizures, in which an adequate method of concealment of randomisation was used were included. The studies could be double, single or unblinded and be of parallel or crossover design. They had to have a minimum treatment period of eight weeks. Trials using an active drug control group were also included., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. Outcomes investigated included 50% 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. Worst case and best case analyses were also calculated for seizure outcomes. Dose response was evaluated in regression models., Main Results: Four parallel group and two crossover group trials were included. The overall relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (tiagabine versus placebo) was 3.16 (95% CI 1.97 to 5.07). Due to differences in response rates among trials, regression models were unable to provide reliable estimates of responses to individual doses. The RR for treatment withdrawal was 1.81 (95% CI 1.25 to 2.62). The 99% CIs for the following adverse effects: dizziness; fatigue; nervousness and tremor did not include unity, indicating that they are significantly associated with tiagabine. For cognitive and quality of life outcomes the limited data available suggested that there were no significant effects on cognition and mood and adjustment., Authors' Conclusions: Tiagabine reduces seizure frequency but is associated with some adverse effects when used as an add-on for people with drug-resistant localisation-related seizures.

Background: Epilepsy is a heterogeneous disorder, with outcomes ranging from immediate remission after taking a first antiepileptic drug to frequent unremitting seizures with multiple treatment failures. Few prognostic models enable prediction of outcome; we therefore aimed to use data from the SANAD study to predict outcome overall and for patients receiving specific treatments., Methods: The SANAD study was a randomised controlled trial in which standard antiepileptic drugs were compared with new treatments. Arm A included patients for whom carbamazepine was considered the first-line treatment, most of whom were newly diagnosed with focal epilepsy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate. Outcomes were time to treatment failure overall, because of inadequate seizure control, and because of adverse events, and time to 12 months of remission from seizures. In this post-hoc study we used regression multivariable modelling to investigate how clinical factors affect the probability of treatment failure and the probability of achieving 12 months of remission., Findings: For time to treatment failure, we identified several significant risk factors: sex (male vs female, hazard ratio [HR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·75-0·99), treatment history (taking non-SANAD antiepileptic drugs [other than those listed above] vs treatment naive, 1·27, 1·05-1·53), age (eg, older than 71 years vs 10 years or younger, 0·68, 0·51-0·91), total number of seizures (eg, four to 11 seizures vs two or fewer, 1·08, 1·05-1·11), electroencephalogram results (epileptiform abnormality vs normal, 1·26, 1·07-1·50), seizure type (eg, secondary generalised vs simple or complex partial only, 0·78, 0·66-0·91), site of onset (not localised vs temporal lobe, 1·25, 1·06-1·47), and treatment (lamotrigine vs carbamazepine, 0·76, 0·61-0·95). Significant factors for time to 12 months of remission were sex (male vs female, 1·19, 1·05-1·35), treatment history (taking a non-SANAD antiepileptic drug vs treatment naive, 0·64, 0·52-0·78), age (eg, older than 71 years vs 10 years or younger, 1·60, 1·26-2·03), time from first seizure (60-239 months vs ≥2 months, 1·14, 1·01-1·29; >240 months vs ≤2 months, 1·39, 1·04-1·86), neurological insult (present vs absent, 0·75, 0·61-0·93), total number of seizures before randomisation (eg, four to 11 vs two or fewer, 0·87, 0·85-0·90), and treatment (gabapentin vs carbamazepine, 0·71, 0·59-0·86; topiramate vs carbamazepine, 0·81, 0·68-0·98)., Interpretation: We present a thorough investigation of prognostic factors from a large randomised controlled trial in patients starting antiepileptic monotherapy. If validated, our models could aid in individual patient risk stratification and the design and analysis of epilepsy trials., Funding: National Institute for Health Research (UK)., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Vigabatrin is an efficacious antiepileptic drug licensed as add-on therapy in refractory epilepsy and used in infantile spasms. Eight years after licensing, there emerged a strong and possibly causative association with bilateral visual field loss. We report a systematic review ascertaining the magnitude of risk of vigabatrin associated visual field loss (VAVFL) and any clinical predictors of risk., Methods: Electronic searches, including MEDLINE (1966-2009), EMBASE (1974-2009), and CINAHL (1982-2009), were conducted. Reports, published in full, of observational studies investigating the prevalence of visual field loss in patients with partial epilepsy treated with vigabatrin were included. Outcomes were the proportion with visual field loss, and the relative risk of VAVFL compared to similar nonexposed patients with epilepsy., Key Findings: Thirty-two studies were identified, which included 1,678 patients exposed to vigabatrin and 406 controls. Of the 1,678 exposed patients, 738 (44%) had visual field loss compared to just 30 (7%) among the 406 controls. The random-effects estimate for the proportion of adults with visual field loss was 52% [95% confidence interval (CI) 46-59]. The estimate for children was lower at 34% (95% CI 25-42). The relative risk for field loss in vigabatrin-exposed patients was 4.0 (95% CI 2.9-5.5). Larger mean cumulative dose of vigabatrin and increasing age were associated with a higher proportion of patients with visual field loss., Significance: Vigabatrin should be reserved for patients with epilepsy for whom there is no other alternative or for patients who have determined the benefit of ongoing treatment to outweigh the risk of VAVFL., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2010 International League Against Epilepsy.)