Practice Update: Review of Anticonvulsant Therapy

  • Derek J. ChongEmail author
  • Andrew M. Lerman
Epilepsy (C. W. Bazil, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Epilepsy


Since 2010, the Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of four new anti-epilepsy drugs (AEDs) for the treatment of epilepsy in the USA: clobazam (Onfi), ezogabine (Potiga), perampanel (Fycompa), and eslicarbazepine (Aptiom) as well as two extended release formulations, topiramate ER (Qudexy XR and Trokendi) and oxcarbazepine ER (Oxtellar). This not only provides practitioners ample choice to match medication profiles to their patients’ preferences and co-morbidities better, but also challenges us to be proficient in the use of all. In addition to providing a brief overview of these new medications and of the current medical management of epilepsy, this review discusses new data regarding vitamin D and AED-related osteoporosis, pregnancy registries, suicidality, marijuana-related compounds for epilepsy, and the recently published guidelines on the approach and management of a first unprovoked seizure in adults and guidelines for when to stop AEDs.


Antiepileptic agents Seizures Drug therapy Adverse effects Disease management Selection 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Andrew M. Lerman declares that he has no conflict of interest. Derek J Chong has received royalties from Oxford University Press.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Chong DJ, Bazil CW. Update on anticonvulsant drugs. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2010;10(4):308–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer M et al. In vivo P-glycoprotein function before and after epilepsy surgery. Neurology. 2014;83(15):1326–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.•
    Callaghan B et al. Remission and relapse in a drug-resistant epilepsy population followed prospectively. Epilepsia. 2011;52(3):619–26. Of 246 patients followed, 59 (24%) achieved a 1-year remission (41 with medication changes, 8 without any intervention and 10 with surgery). The number of AEDs attempted was negatively correlated with remission potential. This study provides hope that long-term seizure remission can occur with medical management alone.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sake JK et al. A pooled analysis of lacosamide clinical trial data grouped by mechanism of action of concomitant antiepileptic drugs. CNS Drugs. 2010;24(12):1055–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards HB et al. Minimizing pharmacodynamic interactions of high doses of lacosamide. Acta Neurol Scand. 2012;125(4):228–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hauser WA, Beghi E. First seizure definitions and worldwide incidence and mortality. Epilepsia. 2008;49:8–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.••
    Krumholz A et al. Evidence-based guideline: management of an unprovoked first seizure in adults: report of the guideline development subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society. Neurology. 2015;84(16):1705–13. New AAN evidence-based guidelines for starting AEDs after a first seizure, and recommendations for stopping AEDs.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Strozzi I et al. Early versus late antiepileptic drug withdrawal for people with epilepsy in remission. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2:CD001902.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Practice parameter: a guideline for discontinuing antiepileptic drugs in seizure-free patients—summary statement. Report of the quality standards subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 1996;47 2:600–2.Google Scholar
  10. 10.•
    Bonnett LJ et al. Seizure recurrence after antiepileptic drug withdrawal and the implications for driving: further results from the MRC Antiepileptic Drug Withdrawal Study and a systematic review. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011;82(12):1328–33. A randomized, controlled study of patients accepting the risk of AED discontinuation, that demonstrated that this risk drops from 30 to 15% if patients have no seizures for the first 3 months after discontinuing AEDs, and to 9% if no seizures at 6 months. This may help clinicians decide what level of risk they accept when making driving recommendations to patients.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montouris G, Abou-Khalil B. The first line of therapy in a girl with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy: should it be valproate or a new agent? Epilepsia. 2009;50 Suppl 8:16–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marson AG et al. The SANAD study of effectiveness of valproate, lamotrigine, or topiramate for generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007;369(9566):1016–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marson AG, et al. A randomised controlled trial examining the longer-term outcomes of standard versus new antiepileptic drugs. The SANAD trial. Health Technol Assess 2007. 11(37): p. iii-iv, ix-x, 1–134.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Afra P, Adamolekun B. Lacosamide treatment of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy. Seizure. 2012;21(3):202–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yorns Jr WR et al. Efficacy of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in children with refractory epilepsy. J Child Neurol. 2014;29(1):23–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panayiotopoulos CP, Obeid T, Tahan AR. Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy: a 5-year prospective study. Epilepsia. 1994;35(2):285–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Striano P et al. An open-label trial of levetiracetam in severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy. Neurology. 2007;69(3):250–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    French JA et al. Efficacy and tolerability of the new antiepileptic drugs II: treatment of refractory epilepsy: report of the therapeutics and technology assessment subcommittee and quality standards subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society. Neurology. 2004;62(8):1261–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    French JA et al. Efficacy and tolerability of the new antiepileptic drugs I: treatment of new onset epilepsy: report of the therapeutics and technology assessment subcommittee and quality standards subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society. Neurology. 2004;62(8):1252–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glauser T et al. ILAE treatment guidelines: evidence-based analysis of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes. Epilepsia. 2006;47(7):1094–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baulac M et al. Efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide versus controlled-release carbamazepine for newly diagnosed partial epilepsy: a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11(7):579–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baulac M, Patten A, Giorgi L. Long-term safety and efficacy of zonisamide versus carbamazepine monotherapy for treatment of partial seizures in adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy: results of a phase III, randomized, double-blind study. Epilepsia. 2014;55(10):1534–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhou Q et al. Pregabalin monotherapy for epilepsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD009429.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rossetti AO et al. Levetiracetam and pregabalin for antiepileptic monotherapy in patients with primary brain tumors. A phase II randomized study. Neuro-Oncology. 2014;16(4):584–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kwan P, Brodie MJ. Effectiveness of first antiepileptic drug. Epilepsia. 2001;42(10):1255–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kanner AM, Balabanov AJ. The use of monotherapy in patients with epilepsy: an appraisal of the new antiepileptic drugs. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2005;5(4):322–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kwan P, Brodie MJ. Epilepsy after the first drug fails: substitution or add-on? Seizure. 2000;9(7):464–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liow K et al. Position statement on the coverage of anticonvulsant drugs for the treatment of epilepsy. Neurology. 2007;68(16):1249–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Privitera M. Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs: what’s a clinician to do? Neurol Clin Pract. 2013;3(2):161–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Patsalos PN et al. Antiepileptic drugs—best practice guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring: a position paper by the subcommission on therapeutic drug monitoring. ILAE Commission on Therapeutic Strategies. Epilepsia. 2008;49(7):1239–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.••
    Vecht CJ, Kerkhof M, Duran-Pena A. Seizure prognosis in brain tumors: new insights and evidence-based management. Oncologist. 2014;19(7):751–9. A current and thorough review article summarizing current treatment preferences regarding seizures in neuro-oncology.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Franciotta D, Kwan P, Perucca E. Genetic basis for idiosyncratic reactions to antiepileptic drugs. Curr Opin Neurol. 2009;22(2):144–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cheung YK et al. HLA-B alleles associated with severe cutaneous reactions to antiepileptic drugs in Han Chinese. Epilepsia. 2013;54(7):1307–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chung WH et al. Genetic variants associated with phenytoin-related severe cutaneous adverse reactions. JAMA. 2014;312(5):525–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bagary M. Epilepsy, antiepileptic drugs and suicidality. Curr Opin Neurol. 2011;24(2):177–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.•
    Fountoulakis KN., et al. Report of the WPA section of pharmacopsychiatry on the relationship of antiepileptic drugs with suicidality in epilepsy. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract, 2015:1–10. Meta-analysis, commentary and clinical advice from the World Psychiatry Association on suicidality as it pertains to epilepsy and AEDs.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gilliam FG et al. Rapid detection of major depression in epilepsy: a multicentre study. Lancet Neurol. 2006;5(5):399–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Holick MF. Vitamin D deficiency in 2010: health benefits of vitamin D and sunlight: a D-bate. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2011;7(2):73–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Teagarden DL, Meador KJ, Loring DW. Low vitamin D levels are common in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2014;108(8):1352–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fong CY, Riney CJ. Vitamin D deficiency among children with epilepsy in South Queensland. J Child Neurol. 2014;29(3):368–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Espinosa PS et al. Association of antiepileptic drugs, vitamin D, and calcium supplementation with bone fracture occurrence in epilepsy patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2011;113(7):548–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.•
    Lazzari AA et al. Prevention of bone loss and vertebral fractures in patients with chronic epilepsy—antiepileptic drug and osteoporosis prevention trial. Epilepsia. 2013;54(11):1997–2004. The ‘ADOPT’ study was a 2-year prospective trial of calcium + vitamin D versus calcium + vitamin D + bisphosphonate in 80 veterans, with an outcome of both bone density losses and actual vertebral fractures. Compliance and doses were not evaluated, but it showed improvements from baseline in both groups, but particularly better spine scores lack of any vertebral fractures in the bisphosphonate group.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mikati MA et al. Two randomized vitamin D trials in ambulatory patients on anticonvulsants: impact on bone. Neurology. 2006;67(11):2005–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Coppola G et al. Bone mineral density in children, adolescents, and young adults with epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2009;50(9):2140–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Meador K et al. Pregnancy outcomes in women with epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published pregnancy registries and cohorts. Epilepsy Res. 2008;81(1):1–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chen YH et al. Affect of seizures during gestation on pregnancy outcomes in women with epilepsy. Arch Neurol. 2009;66(8):979–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Adab N et al. The longer term outcome of children born to mothers with epilepsy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004;75(11):1575–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.••
    Bromley R et al. Treatment for epilepsy in pregnancy: neurodevelopmental outcomes in the child. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;10:CD010236. This was a typically extensive Cochrane Collaboration review that identified 22 prospective cohort studies and 6 registries. The negative associations with VPA was identified as has been found previously. It also resolved conflicting data particularly for CBZ, to report that neurodevelopment is not impacted negatively following in utero CBZ exposure.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cohen MJ et al. Fetal antiepileptic drug exposure: adaptive and emotional/behavioral functioning at age 6 years. Epilepsy Behav. 2013;29(2):308–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pennell PB et al. Differential effects of antiepileptic drugs on neonatal outcomes. Epilepsy Behav. 2012;24(4):449–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.••
    The North American Antiepileptic Drug Pregnancy Registry. Massachusetts General Hospital. A large prospectively acquired observational registry. A quick view of their bar graph provides a gestalt for major congenital malformation rates for 11 AEDs. Their most recent newsletter is available for download at:
  52. 52.
    Mawhinney E et al. Levetiracetam in pregnancy: results from the UK and Ireland epilepsy and pregnancy registers. Neurology. 2013;80(4):400–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shallcross R et al. In utero exposure to levetiracetam vs valproate: development and language at 3 years of age. Neurology. 2014;82(3):213–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Meador KJ et al. Fetal antiepileptic drug exposure and cognitive outcomes at age 6 years (NEAD study): a prospective observational study. Lancet Neurol. 2013;12(3):244–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Crawford P. Epilepsy and pregnancy. Seizure. 2002;11(Suppl A):212–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    MacDonald SC, et al. Mortality and morbidity during delivery hospitalization among pregnant women with epilepsy in the United States. JAMA Neurol 2015Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Veiby G, Engelsen BA, Gilhus NE. Early child development and exposure to antiepileptic drugs prenatally and through breastfeeding: a prospective cohort study on children of women with epilepsy. JAMA Neurol. 2013;70(11):1367–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Meador KJ et al. Breastfeeding in children of women taking antiepileptic drugs: cognitive outcomes at age 6 years. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(8):729–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Veiby G et al. Epilepsy and recommendations for breastfeeding. Seizure. 2015;28:57–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Harden CL et al. Management issues for women with epilepsy—focus on pregnancy (an evidence-based review): III. Vitamin K, folic acid, blood levels, and breast-feeding: Report of the quality standards subcommittee and therapeutics and technology assessment subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society. Epilepsia. 2009;50(5):1247–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Steinhoff BJ. Introduction: perampanel—new mode of action and new option for patients with epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2014;55 Suppl 1:1–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    French JA et al. Adjunctive perampanel for refractory partial-onset seizures: randomized phase III study 304. Neurology. 2012;79(6):589–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    French JA, et al. Evaluation of adjunctive perampanel in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures: results of randomized global phase III study 305. Epilepsia, 2012Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Krauss GL et al. Randomized phase III study 306: adjunctive perampanel for refractory partial-onset seizures. Neurology. 2012;78(18):1408–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    French JA et al. Perampanel for tonic-clonic seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy: a randomized trial. Neurology. 2015;85(11):950–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Steinhoff BJ. Efficacy of perampanel: a review of pooled data. Epilepsia. 2014;55 Suppl 1:9–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Patsalos PN. The clinical pharmacology profile of the new antiepileptic drug perampanel: a novel noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist. Epilepsia. 2015;56(1):12–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Cada DJ, Levien TL, Baker DE. Perampanel. Hosp Pharm. 2013;48(4):321–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Brodie MJ et al. Efficacy and safety of adjunctive ezogabine (retigabine) in refractory partial epilepsy. Neurology. 2010;75(20):1817–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    French JA et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ezogabine (retigabine) in partial epilepsy. Neurology. 2011;76(18):1555–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tompson DJ, Crean CS. Clinical pharmacokinetics of retigabine/ezogabine. Curr Clin Pharmacol. 2013;8(4):319–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Splinter MY. Ezogabine (retigabine) and its role in the treatment of partial-onset seizures: a review. Clin Ther. 2012;34(9):1845–56. e1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Brickel N et al. The urinary safety profile and secondary renal effects of retigabine (ezogabine): a first-in-class antiepileptic drug that targets KCNQ (K(v)7) potassium channels. Epilepsia. 2012;53(4):606–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    FDA Potiga (Ezogabine): Drug safety communication—linked to retinal abnormalities and blue skin discoloration. 2013Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Elger C et al. Eslicarbazepine acetate: a double-blind, add-on, placebo-controlled exploratory trial in adult patients with partial-onset seizures. Epilepsia. 2007;48(3):497–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Almeida L et al. Single-dose and steady-state pharmacokinetics of eslicarbazepine acetate (BIA 2–093) in healthy elderly and young subjects. J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;45(9):1062–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Almeida L, Soares-da-Silva P. Safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic profile of BIA 2–093, a novel putative antiepileptic agent, during first administration to humans. Drugs R&D. 2003;4(5):269–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.••
    Patsalos PN. Drug interactions with the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)—Part 2: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between AEDs and drugs used to treat non-epilepsy disorders. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013;52(12):1045–61. An extensive review of AED to non-AED interactions.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Almeida L, Soares-da-Silva P. Eslicarbazepine acetate (BIA 2–093). Neurotherapeutics. 2007;4(1):88–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ng YT et al. Randomized, phase III study results of clobazam in Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Neurology. 2011;77(15):1473–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ng YT, Collins SD. Clobazam. Neurotherapeutics. 2007;4(1):138–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    de Leon J, Spina E, Diaz FJ. Clobazam therapeutic drug monitoring: a comprehensive review of the literature with proposals to improve future studies. Ther Drug Monit. 2013;35(1):30–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Purcarin G, Ng YT. Experience in the use of clobazam in the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2014;7(3):169–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Remy C. Clobazam in the treatment of epilepsy: a review of the literature. Epilepsia. 1994;35 Suppl 5:S88–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Geffrey AL et al. Drug-drug interaction between clobazam and cannabidiol in children with refractory epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2015;56(8):1246–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Conry JA et al. Clobazam in the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Epilepsia. 2009;50(5):1158–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Faulkner MA. Comprehensive overview: efficacy, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness of clobazam in Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2015;8:905–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Chung SS et al. Once-daily USL255 as adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures: randomized phase III study. Epilepsia. 2014;55(7):1077–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Bialer M et al. Comparative steady-state pharmacokinetic evaluation of immediate-release topiramate and USL255, a once-daily extended-release topiramate formulation. Epilepsia. 2013;54(8):1444–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Chung SS. A review of the efficacy and safety of extended-release topiramate in the adjunctive treatment for refractory partial-onset seizures. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2015;8(3):131–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.••
    Patsalos PN. Drug interactions with the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)--part 1: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between AEDs. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013;52(11):927–66. An extensive and extremely detailed review of AED-AED interactions.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    FDA, Quedexy XR - Package Insert, U.-S. Laboratories, Editor. 2014Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    French JA et al. Efficacy and safety of extended-release oxcarbazepine (Oxtellar XR) as adjunctive therapy in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Neurol Scand. 2014;129(3):143–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Steinhoff BJ. Oxcarbazepine extended-release formulation in epilepsy. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2009;2(2):155–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.•
    Soltesz I et al. Weeding out bad waves: towards selective cannabinoid circuit control in epilepsy. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015;16(5):264–77. An indepth review of the native oscillations of different regions of the brain, of the endocannibinoid system and their interaction. It outlines our knowledge of endocannibinoid interaction at a molecular level to explain effects we may see in epilepsy.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Brodie MJ et al. Enzyme induction with antiepileptic drugs: cause for concern? Epilepsia. 2013;54(1):11–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurology, Comprehensive Epilepsy CenterNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations