4.3 Review

Efficacy of antiepileptic drugs in autoimmune epilepsy: A systematic review

Journal

SEIZURE-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPILEPSY
Volume 59, Issue -, Pages 72-76

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2018.05.004

Keywords

Autoimmune epilepsy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Review the evidence of the efficacy of AEDs (antiepileptic drugs) in autoimmune epilepsy. Material and methods: Literature research on Medline and Embase was carried out through January 2018. We included MeSH terms, free text and terms related to autoimmune epilepsy, autoimmune encephalitis, limbic encephalitis, autoimmune seizures, antiepileptic drug, seizure treatment, and epilepsy treatment. The research was carried out by two reviewers who independently examined titles, abstracts and selection criteria. The main outcome was AED efficacy. Results regarding types of AEDs and autoantibody presence and type in responding patients were considered secondary endpoints. Quality of evidence was analysed by reading the whole text and following Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines. Results: After an initial selection of 1656 articles, only six retrospective observational studies with a level of evidence between 2+ and 3 and a SIGN B recommendation degree remained. The total number of patients examined was 139. The estimated efficacy of AEDs with AE was 10.7%. There was response to AEDs in 18% of seronegative patients, 11% in VGKC positives and in 8% with GAD65. Seventy-three percent of responders to AEDs were in treatment with Na+ channel blockers in monotherapy or in combination. Conclusions: The efficacy of AEDs in AE was low, although this may be in part due to a selection bias. Nevertheless, patients could benefit from these drugs even after immunotherapy failure. Seronegative patients seemed to have a better response to AEDs. (C) 2018 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available