Summary: Idiosyncratic drug reactions may be defined as adverse effects that cannot be explained by the known mechanisms of action of the offending agent, do not occur at any dose in most patients, and develop mostly unpredictably in susceptible individuals only. These reactions are generally thought to account for up to 10% of all adverse drug reactions, but their frequency may be higher depending on the definition adopted. Idiosyncratic reactions are a major source of concern because they encompass most life-threatening effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), as well as many other reactions requiring discontinuation of treatment. Based on the underlying mechanisms, idiosyncratic reactions can be differentiated into (1) immunemediated hypersensitivity reactions, which may range from benign skin rashes to serious conditions such as drug-related rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms; (2) reactions involving unusual nonimmune-mediated individual susceptibility, often related to abnormal production or defective detoxification of reactive cytotoxic metabolites (as in valproate-induced liver toxicity); and (3) off-target pharmacology, whereby a drug interacts directly with a system other than that for which it is intended, an example being some types of AED-induced dyskinesias. Although no AED is free from the potential of inducing idiosyncratic reactions, the magnitude of risk and the most common manifestations vary from one drug to another, a consideration that impacts on treatment choices. Serious consequences of idiosyncratic reactions can be minimized by knowledge of risk factors, avoidance of specific AEDs in subpopulations at risk, cautious dose titration, and careful monitoring of clinical response.

Interactions between antiepileptic drugs, or between antiepileptic drugs and other drugs, can be pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic in nature. Pharmacokinetic interactions involve changes in absorption, distribution or elimination, whereas pharmacodynamic interactions involve synergism and antagonism at the site of action. Most clinically important interactions of antiepileptic drugs result from induction or inhibition of drug metabolism. Carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital and primidone are strong inducers of cytochrome P450 and glucuronizing enzymes (as well as P‐glycoprotein) and can reduce the efficacy of co‐administered medications such as oral anticoagulants, calcium antagonists, steroids, antimicrobial and antineoplastic drugs through this mechanism. Oxcarbazepine, eslicarbazepine acetate, felbamate, rufinamide, topiramate (at doses ≥200 mg/day) and perampanel (at doses ≥8 mg/day) have weaker inducing properties, and a lower propensity to cause interactions mediated by enzyme induction. Unlike enzyme induction, enzyme inhibition results in decreased metabolic clearance of the affected drug, the serum concentration of which may increase leading to toxic effects. Examples of important interactions mediated by enzyme inhibition include the increase in the serum concentration of phenobarbital and lamotrigine caused by valproic acid. There are also interactions whereby other drugs induce or inhibit the metabolism of antiepileptic drugs, examples being the increase in serum carbamazepine concentration by erythromycin, and the decrease in serum lamotrigine concentration by oestrogen‐containing contraceptives. Pharmacodynamic interactions between antiepileptic drugs may also be clinically important. These interactions can have potentially beneficial effects, such as the therapeutic synergism of valproic acid combined with lamotrigine, or adverse effects, such as the reciprocal potentiation of neurotoxicity observed in patients treated with a combination of sodium channel blocking antiepileptic drugs.

The incidence of acute symptomatic seizures is the highest reported in patients with first stroke with prospective follow-up. Hemorrhagic stroke and cortical lesion were independent predictors of acute symptomatic seizures. Hyperlipidemia was a protective factor for hemorrhagic stroke.

Background Approximately one-third of patients with epilepsy presents seizures despite adequate treatment. Hence, there is the need to search for new therapeutic options. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a major chemical component of the resin of Cannabis sativa plant, most commonly known as marijuana. The anti-seizure properties of CBD do not relate to the direct action on cannabinoid receptors, but are mediated by a multitude of mechanisms that include the agonist and antagonist effects on ionic channels, neurotransmitter transporters, and multiple 7-transmembrane receptors. In contrast to tetra-hydrocannabinol, CBD lacks psychoactive properties, does not produce euphoric or intrusive side effects, and is largely devoid of abuse liability. Objective The aim of the study was to estimate the efficacy and safety of CBD as adjunctive treatment in patients with epilepsy using meta-analytical techniques. Methods Randomized, placebo-controlled, single-or double-blinded add-on trials of oral CBD in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy were identified. Main outcomes included the percentage change and the proportion of patients with ≥ 50% reduction in monthly seizure frequency during the treatment period and the incidence of treatment withdrawal and adverse events (AEs). Results Four trials involving 550 patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) and Dravet syndrome (DS) were included. The pooled average difference in change in seizure frequency during the treatment period resulted 19.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.1-31.0; p = 0.001] percentage points between the CBD 10 mg and placebo groups and 19.9 (95% CI 11.8-28.1; p < 0.001) percentage points between the CBD 20 mg and placebo arms, in favor of CBD. The reduction in all-types seizure frequency by at least 50% occurred in 37.2% of the patients in the CBD 20 mg group and 21.2% of the placebo-treated participants [risk ratio (RR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.07-2.88; p = 0.025]. Across the trials, drug withdrawal for any reason occurred in 11.1% and 2.6% of participants receiving CBD and placebo, respectively (RR 3.54,; p = 0.003) [Chi squared = 2.53, degrees of freedom (df) = 3, p = 0.506; I 2 = 0.0%]. The RRs to discontinue treatment were 1.45 (95% CI 0.28-7.41; p = 0.657) and 4.20 (95% CI 1.82-9.68; p = 0.001) for CBD at the doses of 10 and 20 mg/kg/day, respectively, in comparison to placebo. Treatment was discontinued due to AEs in 8.9% and 1.8% of patients in the active and control arms, respectively (RR 5.59,; p = 0.002). The corresponding RRs for CBD at the doses of 10 and 20 mg/kg/ day were 1.66 (95% CI 0.22-12.86; p = 0.626) and 6.89 (95% CI 2.28-20.80; p = 0.001). AEs occurred in 87.9% and 72.2% of patients treated with CBD and placebo (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.11-1.33; p < 0.001). AEs significantly associated with CBD were somnolence, decreased appetite, diarrhea, and increased serum aminotransferases. Conclusions Adjunctive CBD in patients with LGS or DS experiencing seizures uncontrolled by concomitant anti-epileptic treatment regimens is associated with a greater reduction in seizure ...

SUMMARYPurpose: Despite the widespread use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) across different neurologic and psychiatric disorders, no study has systematically reviewed all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of a given AED to fully uncover its tolerability profile. We aimed at identifying treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) associated with pregabalin through a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available RCTs. We also assessed the association between serious AEs and pregabalin, and investigated whether pregabalin AEs display a dose-response relationship. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL to February 2010 for RCTs. Additional studies were identified from reference lists of retrieved papers and from online clinical databases. We selected placebocontrolled, double-blind RCTs investigating the therapeutic effects of pregabalin in adults with any condition. Studies had to include at least 20 subjects per arm and have a duration of at least 4 weeks. AEs were assessed for their association with pregabalin after identification/ exclusion of synonyms, rare AEs, and nonassessable AEs due to methodologic limitations. We used relative risks (RRs) to assess the association of any [99% confidence intervals (CIs)] or serious AEs (95% CIs) with pregabalin, and risk differences (RDs, 95% CIs) to investigate doseresponse relationships of pregabalin AEs. Key findings: Thirty-eight RCTs were included in our study. Of 39 AEs, 20 (51%) were significantly associated with pregabalin (dizziness, vertigo, incoordination, balance disorder, ataxia, diplopia, blurred vision, amblyopia, tremor, somnolence, confusional state, disturbance in attention, thinking abnormal, euphoria, asthenia, fatigue, edema, peripheral edema, dry mouth, constipation). The highest RRs were found for cognition/coordination AEs. There was no significant association between serious AEs and pregabalin. There was a selective dose-response pattern in the onset of pregabalin AEs, with certain AEs appearing at lower doses than others. Significance: Individuals starting treatment with pregabalin are at increased risk for several AEs, particularly those affecting cognition/coordination. Pregabalin AEs appear according to a selective dose-response pattern, possibly reflecting the severity of dysfunction of distinct anatomic structures. These findings may aid clinicians in providing better patient management, and support the value of including in meta-analyses of AED tolerability profiles RCTs performed in different conditions.