Lamotrigine add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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.

Panebianco M ，Bresnahan R ，Marson AG 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Immunomodulatory interventions for focal epilepsy.

Panebianco M ，Walker L ，Marson AG 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Perampanel add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy are considered to be drug-resistant, and usually need treatment with a combination of other antiepileptic drugs. Perampanel is a newer antiepileptic drug that has been investigated as add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. To evaluate the benefits and harms of perampanel as add-on therapy for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 20 October 2022. We included randomised controlled trials comparing add-on perampanel with placebo. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Our secondary outcomes were 2. seizure freedom, 3. treatment withdrawal due to any reason, 4. treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and 5. We used an intention-to-treat population for all primary analyses. We presented the results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), except for individual adverse effects, which we reported with 99% CIs to compensate for multiple testing. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. We included seven trials involving 2524 participants, all aged over 12 years. The trials were double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials with treatment duration of 12 to 19 weeks. We assessed four trials at overall low risk of bias, and three trials at overall unclear risk of bias, due to risk of detection, reporting, and other biases. Compared with placebo, participants receiving perampanel were more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.95; 7 trials, 2524 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, perampanel increased seizure freedom (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.54; 5 trials, 2323 participants; low-certainty evidence) and treatment withdrawal (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.63; 7 trials, 2524 participants; low-certainty evidence). Participants treated with perampanel were more likely to withdraw from treatment due to adverse effects compared to those receiving placebo (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.59 to 3.51; 7 trials, 2524 participants; low-certainty evidence). A higher proportion of participants receiving perampanel reported one or more adverse effects when compared to participants who received placebo (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.24; 7 trials, 2524 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared with placebo, participants receiving perampanel were more likely to experience ataxia (RR 14.32, 99% CI 1.09 to 188.31; 2 trials, 1098 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness (RR 2.87, 99% CI 1.45 to 5.70; 7 trials, 2524 participants; low-certainty evidence), and somnolence (RR 1.76, 99% CI 1.02 to 3.04; 7 trials, 2524 participants). Subgroup analysis indicated that a larger proportion of participants who received perampanel at a dose of 4 mg/day (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.83; 2 trials, 710 participants), 8 mg/day (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.22; 4 trials, 1227 participants), or 12 mg/day (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.04; 3 trials, 869 participants) achieved a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo; however, treatment with perampanel 12 mg/day also increased treatment withdrawal (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.40; 3 trials, 869 participants). Add-on perampanel is effective at reducing seizure frequency and may be effective at maintaining seizure freedom for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Although perampanel was well-tolerated, there was a higher proportion of treatment withdrawals with perampanel compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis suggested that 8 mg/day and 12 mg/day are the most efficacious perampanel doses; however, the use of 12 mg/day would likely increase the number of treatment withdrawals. Future research should focus on investigating the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel with longer-term follow-up, as well as exploring an optimal dose.

Bresnahan R ，Hill RA ，Wang J 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Cenobamate add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

Although most people with epilepsy achieve complete seizure cessation, approximately one-third of those with the condition continue experiencing seizures despite the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs) given as monotherapy or polytherapy. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) about cenobamate as an add-on treatment for focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant ASMs. To assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on oral cenobamate for the treatment of drug-resistant focal-onset seizures, defined as seizures persisting despite treatment with one or more ASMs. We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (September 2022). In addition, we contacted the manufacturer of cenobamate and experts in the field to enquire after any ongoing or unpublished studies. RCTs comparing add-on cenobamate to placebo or another ASM in people with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant ASMs. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, performed risk of bias assessment, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were at least a 50% reduction in total seizure frequency, seizure freedom, and the occurrence of adverse events. We used an intention-to-treat approach for our primary analyses. For each outcome we estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We summarised the estimates of effects and certainty of the evidence for each outcome in a summary of findings table. We included two studies (659 adult participants, 442 allocated to cenobamate and 217 to placebo). The overall RR for at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency for add-on cenobamate at any dose compared to placebo was 2.17 (52% versus 24%, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.84; 2 studies, 605 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The RR for seizure freedom for add-on cenobamate at any dose compared to placebo was 4.45 (16% versus 5%, 95% CI 2.25 to 8.78; 2 studies, 605 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The RR for the occurrence of adverse events for add-on cenobamate at any dose compared to placebo was 1.14 (77% versus 67%, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27; 2 studies, 659 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We judged the two included RCTs as at low or unclear risk of bias. Both studies were sponsored by the drug company that produces cenobamate. Add-on cenobamate is probably better than placebo in reducing the frequency of seizures by at least 50% and in achieving seizure freedom in adults with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant ASMs (moderate level of certainty). Its use is probably associated with an increased risk of adverse events (moderate level of certainty). Further prospective, controlled trials are required to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of add-on cenobamate compared to other ASMs. The efficacy and tolerability of cenobamate as adjunctive treatment for focal epilepsy in children should be further investigated. Finally, the long-term efficacy and tolerability of add-on cenobamate treatment in people with other epilepsy types (e.g. generalised epilepsy) or specific epilepsy syndromes, as well as its use as monotherapy, require additional study.

Brigo F ，Lattanzi S 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases.

People with central neurological disease or injury have a much higher risk of both faecal incontinence (FI) and constipation than the general population. There is often a fine line between the two symptoms, with management intended to ameliorate one risking precipitating the other. Bowel problems are observed to be the cause of much anxiety and may reduce quality of life in these people. Current bowel management is largely empirical, with a limited research base. The review is relevant to individuals with any disease directly and chronically affecting the central nervous system (post-traumatic, degenerative, ischaemic or neoplastic), such as multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, cerebrovascular disease, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2003, 2006 and 2014. To assess the effects of conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing FI and constipation in people with a neurological disease or injury affecting the central nervous system. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched 27 March 2023), which includes searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP as well as handsearching of journals and conference proceedings; and all reference lists of relevant articles. We included randomised, quasi-randomised (where allocation is not strictly random), cross-over and cluster-randomised trials evaluating any type of conservative, physical or surgical intervention against placebo, usual care or no intervention for the management of FI and constipation in people with central neurological disease or injury. At least two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in eligible trials using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and independently extracted data from the included trials using a range of prespecified outcome measures. We produced summary of findings tables for our main outcome measures and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 25 studies with 1598 participants. The studies were generally at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel to the intervention. Half of the included studies were also at high risk of bias in terms of selective reporting. Outcomes were often reported heterogeneously across studies, making it difficult to pool data. We did not find enough evidence to be able to analyse the effects of interventions on individual central neurological diseases. Additionally, very few studies reported on the primary outcomes of self-reported improvement in FI or constipation, or Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score. Conservative interventions compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo Thirteen studies assessed this comparison. The interventions included assessment-based nursing, holistic nursing, probiotics, psyllium, faecal microbiota transplantation, and a stepwise protocol of increasingly invasive evacuation methods. Conservative interventions may result in a large improvement in faecal incontinence (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.47 to -0.23; 3 studies; n = 410; low-certainty evidence). We interpreted SMD ≥ 0.80 as a large effect. It was not possible to pool all data from studies that assessed improvement in constipation, but the evidence suggested that conservative interventions may improve constipation symptoms (data not pooled; 8 studies; n = 612; low-certainty evidence). Conservative interventions may lead to a reduction in mean time taken on bowel care (data not pooled; 5 studies; n = 526; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain about the effects of conservative interventions on condition-specific quality of life and adverse events. Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score was not reported. Physical therapy compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo Twelve studies assessed this comparison. The interventions included massage therapy, standing, osteopathic manipulative treatment, electrical stimulation, transanal irrigation, and conventional physical therapy with visceral mobilisation. Physical therapies may make little to no difference to self-reported faecal continence assessed using the St Mark's Faecal Incontinence Score, where the minimally important difference is five, or the Cleveland Constipation Score (MD -2.60, 95% CI -4.91 to -0.29; 3 studies; n = 155; low-certainty evidence). Physical therapies may result in a moderate improvement in constipation symptoms (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.14; 9 studies; n = 431; low-certainty evidence). We interpreted SMD ≥ 0.5 as a moderate effect. However, physical therapies may make little to no difference in Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score as the minimally important difference for this tool is 3 (MD -1.94, 95% CI -3.36 to -0.51; 7 studies; n = 358; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of physical therapies on the time spent on bowel care, condition-specific quality of life and adverse effects (all very low-certainty evidence). Surgical interventions compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo No studies were found for surgical interventions that met the inclusion criteria for this review. There remains little research on this common and, for patients, very significant issue of bowel management. The available evidence is almost uniformly of low methodological quality. The clinical significance of some of the research findings presented here is difficult to interpret, not least because each intervention has only been addressed in individual trials, against control rather than compared against each other, and the interventions are very different from each other. Understanding whether there is a clinically-meaningful difference from the results of available trials is largely hampered by the lack of uniform outcome measures. This is due to an absence of core outcome sets, and development of these needs to be a research priority to allow studies to be compared directly. Some studies used validated constipation, incontinence or condition-specific measures; however, others used unvalidated analogue scales to report effectiveness. Some studies did not use any patient-reported outcomes and focused on physiological outcome measures, which is of relatively limited significance in terms of clinical implementation. There was evidence in favour of some conservative interventions, but these findings need to be confirmed by larger, well-designed controlled trials, which should include evaluation of the acceptability of the intervention to patients and the effect on their quality of life.

Todd CL ，Johnson EE ，Stewart F ，Wallace SA ，Bryant A ，Woodward S ，Norton C ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》