Search

Objective: The management of patients after a first unprovoked seizure (FUS) can benefit from stratification of the average 50% risk for further seizures. We characterized subjects with FUSs, out of a large generally healthy homogenous population of soldiers recruited by law to the Israeli Defense Forces, to investigate the role of the type of service, as a trigger burden surrogate, in the risk for additional seizures. Methods: Soldiers recruited between 2005 and 2014, who experienced an FUS during their service, were identified from military records. Subjects with a history of epilepsy or lack of documentation of FUS characteristics were excluded from the study. Data on demographics and military service and medical details were extracted for the eligible soldiers. Results: Of 816 252 newly recruited soldiers, representing 2 138 000 person‐years, 346 had an FUS, indicating an incidence rate of 16.2 per 100 000 person‐years. The FUS incidence rate was higher in combat versus noncombat male and female soldiers (p <.0001). Most subjects (75.7%) were prescribed antiseizure medications (ASMs), and 29.2% had additional seizures after the FUS. Service in combat units, abnormal magnetic resonance imaging, and being prescribed ASMs were correlated with a lower risk of having multiple seizures (95% confidence interval [CI] =.48–.97,.09–.86,.15–.28, respectively). On multivariate analysis, service in combat units (odds ratio [OR] =.48 for seizure recurrence, 95% CI =.26–.88) and taking medications (OR =.46, 95% CI =.24–.9) independently predicted not having additional seizures. Significance: FUS incidence rate was higher in combat soldiers, but they had a twofold lower risk of additional seizures than noncombat soldiers, emphasizing the value of strenuous triggers as negative predictors for developing epilepsy. This suggests a shift in the perception of epilepsy from a "yes or no" condition to a continuous trend of predisposition to seizures, warranting changes in the ways etiologies of epilepsy are weighted and treatments are delivered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have emerged as the fastest growing drug class. As such, mAbs are increasingly being co‐prescribed with other drugs, including antiseizure medications (ASMs). Although mAbs do not share direct targets or mechanisms of disposition with small‐molecule drugs (SMDs), combining therapeutics of both types can increase the risk of adverse effects and treatment failure. The primary goal of this literature review was identifying mAb‐ASM combinations requiring the attention of professionals who are treating patients with epilepsy. Systematic PubMed and Embase searches (1980–2021) were performed for terms relating to mAbs, ASMs, drug interactions, and their combinations. Additional information was obtained from documents from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Evidence was critically appraised ‐ key issues calling for clinicians' consideration and important knowledge gaps were identified, and practice recommendations were developed by a group of pharmacists and epileptologists. The majority of interactions were attributed to the indirect effects of cytokine‐modulating antibodies on drug metabolism. Conversely, strong inhibitors or inducers of drug‐metabolizing enzymes or drug transporters could potentially interact with the cytotoxic payload of antibody‐drug conjugates, and ASMs could alter mAb biodistribution. In addition, mAbs could potentiate adverse ASM effects. Unfortunately, few studies involved ASMs, requiring the formulation of class‐based recommendations. Based on the current literature, most mAb‐ASM interactions do not warrant special precautions. However, specific combinations should preferably be avoided, whereas others require monitoring and potentially adjustment of the ASM doses. Reduced drug efficacy or adverse effects could manifest days to weeks after mAb treatment onset or discontinuation, complicating the implication of drug interactions in potentially deleterious outcomes. Prescribers who treat patients with epilepsy should be familiar with mAb pharmacology to better anticipate potential mAb‐ASM interactions and avoid toxicity, loss of seizure control, or impaired efficacy of mAb treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]