Abstract
Background
Antiseizure medication (ASM) as monotherapy or in combination is the treatment of choice for most patients with epilepsy. Therefore, knowledge about the typical adverse events (AEs) for ASMs and other coadministered drugs (CDs) is essential for practitioners and patients. Due to frequent polypharmacy, it is often difficult to clinically assess the AE profiles of ASMs and differentiate the influence of CDs.
Objective
This retrospective analysis aimed to determine typical AE profiles for ASMs and assess the impact of CDs on AEs in clinical practice.
Methods
The Liverpool AE Profile (LAEP) and its domains were used to identify the AE profiles of ASMs based on data from a large German multicenter study (Epi2020). Following established classifications, drugs were grouped according to their mode of action (ASMs) or clinical indication (CDs). Bivariate correlation, multivariate ordinal regression (MORA), and artificial neural network (ANNA) analyses were performed. Bivariate correlation with Fisher’s z-transformation was used to compare the correlation strength of LAEP with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy (NDDI-E) to avoid LAEP bias in the context of antidepressant therapy.
Results
Data from 486 patients were analyzed. The AE profiles of ASM categories and single ASMs matched those reported in the literature. Synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) and voltage-gated sodium channel (VGSC) modulators had favorable AE profiles, while brivaracetam was superior to levetiracetam regarding psychobehavioral AEs. MORA revealed that, in addition to seizure frequency, α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) modulators and antidepressants were the only independent predictors of high LAEP values. After Fisher’s z-transformation, correlations were significantly lower between LAEP and antidepressants than between LAEP and HADS or NDDI-E. Therefore, a bias in the results toward over interpreting the impact of antidepressants on LAEP was presumed. In the ANNA, perampanel, zonisamide, topiramate, and valproic acid were important nodes in the network, while VGSC and SV2A modulators had low relevance for predicting relevant AEs. Similarly, cardiovascular agents, analgesics, and antipsychotics were important CDs in the ANNA model.
Conclusion
ASMs have characteristic AE profiles that are highly reproducible and must be considered in therapeutic decision-making. Therapy using perampanel as an AMPA modulator should be considered cautiously due to its relatively high AE profile. Drugs acting via VGSCs and SV2A receptors are significantly better tolerated than other ASM categories or substances (e.g., topiramate, zonisamide, and valproate). Switching to brivaracetam is advisable in patients with psychobehavioral AEs who take levetiracetam. Because CDs frequently pharmacokinetically interact with ASMs, the cumulative AE profile must be considered.
Trial registration
DRKS00022024, U1111-1252-5331.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Adverse event (AE) profiles for antiseizure medications differ between modes of action and between single substances with the same molecular target. |
Perampanel is an AMPA receptor antagonist that is associated with an unfavorable AE profile. |
Topiramate, valproate, and zonisamide therapy are associated with an unfavorable AE profile. |
Brivaracetam produces fewer psychobehavioral AEs than levetiracetam. |
Voltage-gated sodium channel( modulators such as dibenzazepines, lamotrigine, and lacosamide have favorable AE profiles. |
1 Introduction
Despite rapid advances in epilepsy surgery and neuromodulatory procedures over the last decade, oral antiseizure medications (ASMs) remain the gold standard for treating most patients with epilepsy [1,2,3]. The large number of available ASMs makes the individualized selection of the agents, or their combination, by the treating physician indispensable [4, 5]. While national and international guidelines can be used as decision-making aids, the patient’s situation and the expected adverse event (AE) profile of the ASM must also be considered [6]. A desire for pregnancy in the short or medium term, the patient’s age, specific AE profiles of the ASM, and comorbidities are important factors [7,8,9]. For example, in patients with depression or bipolar disorder, lamotrigine (LTG), a typical voltage-gated sodium channel (VGSC) modulator, is preferred because of its synergistic mood-stabilizing effects, whereas the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) modulators levetiracetam (LEV) and (to a lesser extent) brivaracetam (BRV) may trigger or exacerbate psychobehavioral AEs [10,11,12]. Treatment with the α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor modulator perampanel (PER) is associated with an increased risk of psychosis [13]. Other ASMs, such as valproic acid (VPA) and topiramate (TPM), have been associated with a handicapping tremor and psychomotor retardation, respectively [14, 15]. In addition to these common examples, other less common AEs must be expected, especially in patients taking several ASMs or other drugs [16]. According to the literature, approximately 30% of patients with epilepsy are treated with potentially highly interactional combinations of ASMs, or ASMs and other coadministered drugs (CDs), which complicate the assessment of clinical AE profiles [17, 18]. Dramatic increases and decreases in ASM serum levels have been described, especially in patients with polypharmacy, which lead to intoxication, subtherapeutic levels, and even renal or liver failure [19,20,21,22,23,24,25].
This study aimed to determine the AE profiles of ASMs and analyze the impact of CDs on AE profiles in clinical practice based on data from a large, German, multicenter analysis.
2 Methods
2.1 Patients and Study Design
This analysis was part of the Epi2020 study, a prospective German multicenter study conducted between October and December 2020 that enrolled adult patients with confirmed epilepsy diagnosis at four epilepsy centers in Frankfurt am Main, Greifswald, Marburg, and Münster. The Epi2020 study was a large-scale study aiming to assess the medical care and other aspects [e.g., quality of life (QOL), depression, and telemedicine] of patients with epilepsy [26,27,28,29,30]. The evaluation of the AE spectrum presented here was a secondary outcome measure of the Epi2020 study, and it was not included in the study power calculation. All study centers offer specialized, interdisciplinary inpatient and outpatient care for patients with epilepsy, epileptic encephalopathies, or epilepsy-associated syndromes.
All adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of epilepsy were eligible for inclusion after providing written informed consent at one of the study centers. Patients with a questionable or doubtful diagnosis were not enrolled. Patients were asked to complete a comprehensive paper-based questionnaire that included epilepsy-specific, medical, utility, and sociodemographic questions and scores established in previous studies [27, 31, 32]. Based on the design of the questionnaire, it was not possible to distinguish between short-term AEs during uptitration and AEs associated with the long-term use of ASMs or CDs. All information provided by the patients was voluntary. Post hoc confirmation of the accuracy and completeness of the information was not feasible due to the study design.
To improve the evaluation and validity of the statements and to minimize potential biases, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and Reporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statements were followed [33, 34]. The Epi2020 study and further analyses of its collected data were approved by the local ethics committee at Goethe University prior to enrollment (reference: 19-440). The Epi2020 study was registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00022024; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1252-5331).
2.2 Scores and Metrics
2.2.1 Liverpool Adverse Events Profile
This analysis used the well-established and validated Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (LAEP) to measure ASM tolerability in clinical practice [35,36,37,38]. The LAEP is a self-reported scale comprising 19 items rated on a four-point Likert scale. The resulting total score ranges from 19 to 76, with a higher score indicating more frequent symptoms. The total LAEP score and the scores for its subdomains were mostly used descriptively. For the neuronal network-based analysis, LAEP was binary coded on the basis of a total score cut-off of 37 to distinguish clinically relevant (total score ≥ 37) and irrelevant (total score < 37) AE profiles [39].
2.2.2 Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to assess depressive symptoms. The HADS is a self-reported scale containing 14 items rated on a four-point Likert scale from 0 to 3. The items each comprise seven questions relating to anxiety and depression, resulting in a total score of 0 to 21 for each criterion [40].
2.2.3 Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy
The Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy (NDDI-E) was used to assess depressive symptoms. The NDDI-E is a self-reported scale containing six items rated on a four-point Likert scale from 1 to 4, resulting in a total score of 0 to 24. A total score ≥ 14 has been identified as a marker of clinically relevant depressive symptoms [41].
2.3 Categorization of Antiseizure Medications and Coadministered Drugs
To facilitate statistical analysis and comply with statistical recommendations on the minimum and maximum feasible number of variables in multivariate regression analysis, ASMs and CDs were divided into categories [42]. Based on an existing classification, the ASMs were categorized according to their primary mechanism of action [43, 44], although this may not reflect all the pharmacological properties of each ASM. This process resulted in the following ASM categories: VGSC modulators [carbamazepine (CBZ), eslicarbazepine (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), LTG, oxcarbazepine (OXC), phenytoin (PHT)], SV2A modulators (BRV, LEV), AMPA modulators (PER), gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) modulators [gabapentin (GBP), lorazepam (LZP), phenobarbital (PB), pregabalin (PGB), primidone (PRM)], and other drugs [cannabidiol (CBD), cenobamate (CNB), ethosuximide (ESM), TPM, VPA, zonisamide (ZNS)]. For the categorization of CDs, the well-established USP Therapeutic Categories Model Guidelines published by the US Food and Drug Administration were used [45]. To meet the specifications of the Local Ethics Committee and prevent post hoc identification of individual patients based on the processed data, no LAEP values are reported for drugs taken by two or fewer patients.
2.4 Statistical Analysis
2.4.1 General Aspects and Descriptive Statistics
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics 28 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, US). Descriptive data analyses are reported as appropriate for the individual variables as number (percent) or mean ± standard deviation (SD; median, minimum–maximum). Following univariate and multivariate analysis, p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Due to the multivariate and neural network-based analyses used in addition to the descriptive bivariate correlations, no post hoc correction for multiple testing was performed. Figures were created using Prism 9 (GraphPad Software. Inc., CA, US) and Pixelmator Pro (Pixelmator Team, Vilnius, LTU) software.
2.4.2 Bivariate Correlation Analysis
Pearson’s bivariate correlation coefficient (r) was used to assess correlations between ASM mono and dual therapies and AE profiles measured by the LAEP and its domains. Pearson’s r was visualized as a heatmap to assess the positive correlations between ASMs and LAEPs [46]. All negative values were coded on the basis of the color of the minimum value as there were no positive correlations between ASMs and AE profiles. Except for VGSC modulators, combinations within the same ASM category are uncommon and were not observed in the studied population; therefore, these fields are marked with a white “X”, while other unreported combinations are greyed out. Similarly, the correlation between LAEPs and the use of certain ASM categories was assessed independently of the therapeutic regimen and administered CDs. Due to their frequent clinical use, correlations between ASMs and LAEPs for the most common agents in the VGSC [e.g., LTG versus LCM or dibenzazepines (DBZ), such as CBZ, ESL, and OXC] and SV2A (LEV versus BRV) modulator categories were assessed separately. Bivariate correlation analysis was used to assess the impact of depressive symptoms on associations between LAEPs and antidepressant use, using Fischer’s z-transformation for statistical comparisons between ASM, LAEP, NDDI-E, and HADS correlation coefficients [47].
2.4.3 Multivariate Ordinal Regression Analysis
Due to the ordinal level of the LAEP and binary dummy coding of ASM variables, only a multivariate ordinal regression analysis (MORA) was feasible [48]. Regardless of the number of ASMs or CDs they took, all patients were included in the MORA to produce a robust statistical model. To avoid model bias due to the severity of epilepsy or cumulative effects of ASMs and CDs, the model included seizure frequency (ordinal coded: in remission, occasional seizures, or frequent seizures) and the number of ASMs and CDs. These analyses are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
2.4.4 Neuronal Network Analysis
Artificial neural network analysis (ANNA) was performed using the built-in multilayer perceptron model in SPSS Statistics 28. Neural networks use non-linear data modeling to analyze relationships and can improve the output of data analysis, especially in large and complex datasets [49]. To enable ANNA to detect non-linear correlations, a model with one input, one output, and two hidden interlayers was used [50]. The normalized importance of variables within the neural network was used as the output parameter. This calculated value can range from 0.0 (no relevance) to 1.0 (high relevance) and can be specified between 0% and 100% [51]. In the present analysis, ANNA was based on a binary-coded LAEP as the dependent variable, and ASM and CD categories were used as independent variables. Based on a previous study, a total score cut-off of 37 was used to distinguish relevant (total score ≥ 37) from irrelevant (total score < 37) AE profiles [39]. The neural network was trained on 70% of the data (random selection of variables) and evaluated on the remaining 30% of the data.
3 Results
3.1 Study Population, Scores, and Metrics
Four hundred eighty-six patients with a balanced sex distribution (58.2% female versus 41.8% male) and a mean age of 40.5 ± 15.5 years (median 38, range 18–83 years) were analyzed. Four hundred sixty-four (95%) patients reported regularly taking ASMs, with a mean of 1.8 ± 1.0 ASMs (median 2.0, range 0–6); of these patients, 142 (30.3%) reported taking at least one CD, with a mean of 0.8 ± 1.7 CDs (median 0.0, range 0–9). Focal and generalized epilepsy were diagnosed in 329 (67%) and 103 (21.2%) patients, respectively, while the epilepsy syndrome was unclear in 54 (11.1%) patients. Two hundred twelve (43.6%) patients reported ongoing frequent seizures, 79 (16.3%) reported occasional seizures, and 195 (40.1%) reported being seizure-free for ≥ 12 months.
The proportions of complete and usable responses for LAEP, HADS, and NDDI-E were 98.8%, 96.9%, and 95.1%, respectively. The general LAEP, HADS, and NDDI-E characteristics of the study population are shown in Supplementary Table 1.
3.2 Bivariate Correlation Analysis Between LAEPs and ASMs in Mono and Dual Therapy
The bivariate correlations between LAEPs and ASMs are shown as separate heatmaps for mono (Fig. 1a) and dual (Fig. 1b) therapies. Correlations between ASM therapies and total LAEP scores or individual LAEP subdomain scores are presented in Fig. 2a.
Detailed correlation analyses highlighting the AE profiles of individual drugs were performed for frequently used ASMs (i.e., SV2A and VGSC modulators). While there were no relevant correlations between total LAEP scores and DBZ, LTG, or LCM, which are the most relevant VGSC modulators, further analysis of LAEP subdomain scores indicated differences between these ASMs. DBZ use significantly correlated with memory problems, while LTG use correlated with skin problems and impaired concentration. There were no significant correlations between LCM use and any of the LAEP subdomains (Fig. 2b). Regarding SV2A modulators, LEV use correlated with increased AE profiles in many LAEP subdomains, especially those reflecting psychobehavioral symptoms (e.g., aggression, nervousness, and depression). In contrast, BRV had a generally well-tolerated AE profile (Fig. 2c).
3.3 Multivariate Analysis
MORA resulted in a significantly superior model for predicting LAEP (p < 0.001) compared with univariate analysis. The following independent variables remained significant in this model: AMPA receptor modulators (p = 0.044, OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.07–4.20), antidepressants (p = 0.004, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.38–5.31), and seizure frequency (p = 0.005, OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.09–1.57). All other parameters failed to achieve significance. The results of this analysis are presented as a forest plot in Fig. 3.
3.4 Correlation Analysis for LAEP and Depression
There were significant correlations between LAEP and reported antidepressant use (r = 0.024, p < 0.001), total NDDI-E score (r = 0.618, p < 0.001), and total HADS score (r = 0.590, p < 0.001). Fisher’s z-transformation of individual coefficients resulted in significantly stronger correlations between LAEP and NDDI-E (z = −10.776, p < 0.001) and HADS (z = −10.095, p < 0.001) than between LAEP and antidepressant use, indicating a significantly stronger correlation between LAEP and depressive symptoms than between LAEP and antidepressant therapy. There was no correlation between ASM use and relevant depressive symptoms. The number of ASMs correlated with depressive symptoms based on NDDI-E (r = 0.168, p < 0.001) but not HADS (r = 0.030, p = 0.512).
3.4.1 Neuronal Network Analysis
During training, the neural network correctly predicted an irrelevant AE profile in 42.5% of cases and a relevant AE profile in 72.2% of cases, leading to the correct assignment of AE profiles in 58.9% of cases. During the test phase, the neural network correctly predicted an irrelevant AE profile in 40.3% of cases and a relevant AE profile in 64.4% of cases, leading to the correct assignment of AE profiles in 53.9% of cases. The normalized importance of the single drug nodes for ASMs were 0.13, 0.23, 0.15, 0.43, 0.54, 0.81, and 0.60 for VGSC, GABA, SV2A, AMPA, VPA, TPM, and ZNS, respectively. For CDs, the normalized importance was 0.58 for analgesics, 0.99 for antidepressants, 0.26 for anticoagulants, 0.48 for cardiovascular agents, 0.24 for nutrients/minerals, 0.46 for antipsychotics, and 0.39 for hormones. The normalized importance values within the neuronal network are presented as percentages in separate polar plots for ASMs (Fig. 4a) and CDs (Fig. 4b).
4 Discussion
This retrospective analysis aimed to determine the typical AE profiles of ASMs and assess the impact of CDs on tolerability based on real-life data from 486 adult patients with epilepsy from a prospective German multicenter study (Epi2020) using MORA, ANNA, and bivariate correlation analyses.
In line with the MORA results emphasizing PER as an ASM with an unfavorable AE profile (Fig. 3) and the results of the descriptive analysis (Fig. 2a), several publications highlight psychobehavioral symptoms in addition to dizziness, unsteadiness, and concentration problems as frequently reported AEs and reasons for therapy discontinuation [11, 52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Analogous to other ASMs, the occurrence and severity of AEs associated with PER appear to be dose-dependent [59]. The mean and median PER dose in the present study population was 8 mg daily, which is a relatively high titrated dosage, especially compared with dose-finding and registration studies, which may have led to an overrepresentation of AEs [60]. PER, high seizure frequency, and regular antidepressant use were the only other significant predictors according to MORA (Fig. 3). An association between seizure frequency and high LAEP scores has been described previously and has been interpreted as overlap with a decreased health-related and general QOL in patients with epilepsy [35, 39, 61]. The significant contribution of a concomitant medication with antidepressants appears to be biased by an overlap with reduced QOL due to comorbid depression or increased depressive symptoms [62, 63]. This assumption is confirmed by the significantly higher correlation between LAEP and clinical presentation of relevant depressive symptoms (NDDI-E and HADS) compared with the correlation between LAEP and antidepressant use based on Fisher’s z-transformation. In contrast with other studies on this topic that report relevant interactions in up to 30% of cases [17, 18, 64], there were no indications of a relevant potentiation of the AE spectrum or the tolerability of ASMs by CDs detected in this study, which is partly attributable to the limited number of participants and other methodological aspects in the present study. Incompatible drug combinations can lead to relevant interactions, even when drugs are taken for only a short time, as described most recently in the context of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic for combinations of antivirals and ASMs [65, 66]. For example, whether, and to what extent, online interaction databases or apps could represent an approach to improve the detection of interactions requires further investigation, even if limited evidence suggests a potential benefit [17].
Based on the recently published results of the SANAD 2 study, VPA is currently the most recommendable choice for patients with generalized or unclassified epilepsy and is also commonly used in patients with focal epilepsy, namely men, while it is avoided in women of childbearing age due to its proven teratogenic effects [67, 68]. While VPA was not associated with increased LAEP in MORA (Fig. 3), ANNA revealed its relevant importance within the network (Fig. 4), which mirrors the often moderate tolerability of VPA in clinical practice, mainly due to hair loss, tremor, and weight gain (Fig. 2b) [14, 69].
Interestingly, several other ASMs commonly associated with relevant AE profiles (e.g., TPM and ZNS [70, 71]) did not reach significance within the MORA (Fig. 3) but were important variables for LAEP prediction in the ANNA (Fig. 4), which indicates a potential non-linear relationship between the variables within the model. However, this could also be due to the small number of patients receiving TPM or ZNS therapy in the study population. In line with the present findings of LAEP subdomains, impaired vision and dizziness have been described for TPM (Fig. 2b) [72, 73]. While there is some published evidence, the significant positive correlation between TPM use and the LAEP subdomains of headaches, skin problems, and disturbed sleep in the present analysis was clinically unapparent [74,75,76,77,78]. Unsteadiness and memory problems have also been described with ZNS use [79], which is in line with the results of the LAEP subdomain analysis (Fig. 2b).
Analogous to ZNS and TPM, GABA modulators in MORA (Fig. 3) were not predictive factors for poor ASM tolerability, but were relevant factors in ANNA (Fig. 4). Here, the significant positive correlations for unsteadiness, shaky hands, mouth problems, and memory problems (Fig. 2b) appear reasonable, as comparable effects have been described for the most important agents in this class: PGB, GBP, and PRM [80, 81]. Several GABA modulators are approved for epilepsy and the treatment of different tremor etiologies (e.g., PRM for essential tremor, and GBP for orthostatic tremor). In this context, their correlations with shaky hands are more attributable to a synergistic therapeutic use in patients with essential or other types of tremors than to an additional AE [82]. The validity of this study regarding the effects of GABA modulators on AE profiles is limited by the low number of patients treated with these drugs (Tables 1, 2), the analysis of AEs of benzodiazepines is complicated by the fact that they are often used as emergency medications when required 83.
In line with other publications, monotherapy or combination therapy with VGSC and SV2A modulators was well tolerated, according to MORA (Fig. 3) and ANNA (Fig. 4) [71, 84], 85. Nevertheless, both substance groups have different AE profiles that need to be considered when making a treatment decision [71], and these differences are reflected in the descriptive analysis of the LAEP subdomains (Fig. 2a–c). In line with numerous publications on the compatibility of SV2A modulators, LEV and BRV had significant differences in their AE spectra; BRV use was associated with significantly fewer psychobehavioral AEs than LEV (Fig. 2c) [86,87,88,89,90]. These findings highlight the benefit of a possible switch from LEV to BRV in case of psychobehavioral side effects, which is relatively easy without overlapping intake [91]. Despite a generally good AE profile, substance-specific differences are evident regarding the more frequently used VGSC modulators, LTG and LCM, and CBZ, ESL, and OXC as representative dibenzazepines (DBZ, Fig. 2a, b). Regarding VGSC modulators, significant correlations were found with the LAEP subdomains of concentration, shaky hands, and dizziness (Fig. 2a). Here, the mentioned AEs on concentration and shaky hands were attributable to LTG therapy (Fig. 2b) as common drug-specific AEs [92, 93], while memory problems were associated with DBZ therapy (Fig. 2b) [94]. A reliable statement on the AE profile of phenytoin was not possible due to the limited number of cases.
Like all retrospective data analyses, this study and its conclusions are subject to certain limitations and potential biases, most of which are due to the study design. Despite the multicenter approach, a local or national influence on the prevalence and perceptions of AEs is possible, although unlikely, according to the literature [95]. The impact of other stressful factors on the subjective perception of AEs cannot be excluded. For example, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was ongoing at the time of data collection, and it had secondary impacts on the care of chronically ill patients [26, 96]. Despite using the LAEP as an established metric, recording AEs through a questionnaire is associated with the risk of under reporting or incorrect reporting of AEs by the patients or their caregivers [97]. The questionnaire used for this study did not allow an estimation of the duration of ASM intake; therefore, no distinction could be made between short-term AEs during uptitration and AEs during long-term, chronic use. For the same reason, we could not analyze whether dose reduction would have led to an improvement or whether the AEs influenced therapy discontinuation. Correlations of CDs and ASMs with LAEP may be biased due to confounding by low QOL or comorbid depression [35, 98]. In addition, the different prescription preferences of ASMs may have biased the present results, especially regarding drugs, like PER, that are mostly used in complex polytherapy and in patients with more severe and drug-refractory epilepsies. The STROBE and RECORD statements were closely followed to improve the evaluation and validity of the statements and minimize potential biases [33, 34]. Given the limited number of patients, the results of this study can only provide an indication of the tolerability of ASM and CDs. Larger studies are needed to verify the results, especially regarding less frequently prescribed drugs.
5 Conclusions
ASMs have characteristic AE profiles that are highly reproducible and should be considered during therapeutic decision-making. Therapy with PER, which is the only currently available AMPA antagonist, should be considered carefully due to significantly more frequently reported AEs, especially in the nonspecific and psychobehavioral subdomains, compared with other ASMs. Drugs acting via VGSCs and SV2A receptors are significantly better tolerated than other ASM categories or agents (e.g., TPM, ZNS, and VPA). However, decision-making tools and guidance would be helpful in individual cases [99, 100]. As CDs frequently pharmacokinetically interact with ASMs, attention must be given to the cumulative AE profile.
References
Manford M. Recent advances in epilepsy. J Neurol. 2017;264(8):1811–24.
Piper RJ, Richardson RM, Worrell G, Carmichael DW, Baldeweg T, Litt B, et al. Towards network-guided neuromodulation for epilepsy. Brain. 2022;145(10):3347–62.
Joris V, Weil AG, Fallah A. Brain surgery for medically intractable epilepsy. Adv Pediatr. 2022;69(1):59–74.
Hochbaum M, Kienitz R, Rosenow F, Schulz J, Habermehl L, Langenbruch L, et al. Trends in antiseizure medication prescription patterns among all adults, women, and older adults with epilepsy: a German longitudinal analysis from 2008 to 2020. Epilepsy Behav. 2022;130: 108666.
Kanner AM, Bicchi MM. Antiseizure medications for adults with epilepsy: a review. JAMA. 2022;327(13):1269–81.
Sauro KM, Wiebe S, Dunkley C, Janszky J, Kumlien E, Moshe S, et al. The current state of epilepsy guidelines: a systematic review. Epilepsia. 2016;57(1):13–23.
Moores G, D’Souza R, Bui E. Antiseizure medications and pregnancy. CMAJ. 2021;193(32):E1253.
Jankovic SM, Dostic M. Choice of antiepileptic drugs for the elderly: possible drug interactions and adverse effects. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2012;8(1):81–91.
Hakami T. Neuropharmacology of antiseizure drugs. Neuropsychopharmacol Rep. 2021;41(3):336–51.
Miranda AS, Miranda AS, Teixeira AL. Lamotrigine as a mood stabilizer: insights from the pre-clinical evidence. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2019;14(2):179–90.
Strzelczyk A, Schubert-Bast S. Psychobehavioural and cognitive adverse events of anti-seizure medications for the treatment of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies. CNS Drugs. 2022;36(10):1079–111.
Steinhoff BJ, Klein P, Klitgaard H, Laloyaux C, Moseley BD, Ricchetti-Masterson K, et al. Behavioral adverse events with brivaracetam, levetiracetam, perampanel, and topiramate: a systematic review. Epilepsy Behav. 2021;118: 107939.
Mammi A, Ferlazzo E, Gasparini S, Bova V, Neri S, Labate A, et al. Psychiatric and behavioural side effects associated with perampanel in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. a real-world experience. Front Neurol. 2022;13:839985.
Zhang CQ, He BM, Hu ML, Sun HB. Risk of valproic acid-related tremor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Neurol. 2020;11: 576579.
Callisto SP, Illamola SM, Birnbaum AK, Barkley CM, Bathena SPR, Leppik IE, et al. Severity of topiramate-related working memory impairment is modulated by plasma concentration and working memory capacity. J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;60(9):1166–76.
Ayalew MB, Muche EA. Patient reported adverse events among epileptic patients taking antiepileptic drugs. SAGE Open Med. 2018;6:2050312118772471.
Bosak M, Slowik A, Iwanska A, Lipinska M, Turaj W. Co-medication and potential drug interactions among patients with epilepsy. Seizure. 2019;66:47–52.
Bruun E, Virta LJ, Kalviainen R, Keranen T. Co-morbidity and clinically significant interactions between antiepileptic drugs and other drugs in elderly patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2017;73:71–6.
Hagemann A, Klimpel D, Bien CG, Brandt C, May TW. Influence of dose and antiepileptic comedication on brivaracetam serum concentrations in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2020;61(5):e43–8.
Hirsch LJ, Arif H, Buchsbaum R, Weintraub D, Lee J, Chang JT, et al. Effect of age and comedication on levetiracetam pharmacokinetics and tolerability. Epilepsia. 2007;48(7):1351–9.
May TW, Helmer R, Bien CG, Brandt C. Influence of dose and antiepileptic comedication on lacosamide serum concentrations in patients with epilepsy of different ages. Ther Drug Monit. 2018;40(5):620–7.
Weintraub D, Buchsbaum R, Resor SR Jr, Hirsch LJ. Effect of antiepileptic drug comedication on lamotrigine clearance. Arch Neurol. 2005;62(9):1432–6.
Vidaurre J, Gedela S, Yarosz S. Antiepileptic drugs and liver disease. Pediatr Neurol. 2017;77:23–36.
Ahmed SN, Siddiqi ZA. Antiepileptic drugs and liver disease. Seizure. 2006;15(3):156–64.
Hamed SA. The effect of antiepileptic drugs on the kidney function and structure. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2017;10(9):993–1006.
Körbel K, Rosenow F, Maltseva M, Müller H, Schulz J, Tsalouchidou PE, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health status and care of adults with epilepsy in Germany. Neurol Res Pract. 2022;4(1):44.
Willems LM, Hochbaum M, Zöllner JP, Schulz J, Menzler K, Langenbruch L, et al. Trends in resource utilization and cost of illness in patients with active epilepsy in Germany from 2003 to 2020. Epilepsia. 2022;63(6):1591–602.
Mann C, Maltseva M, von Podewils F, Knake S, Kovac S, Rosenow F, et al. Supply problems of antiseizure medication are common among epilepsy patients in Germany. Epilepsy Behav. 2023;138: 108988.
Zöllner JP, Noda AH, McCoy J, Schulz J, Tsalouchidou PE, Langenbruch L, et al. Use of health-related apps and telehealth in adults with epilepsy in Germany: a multicenter cohort study. Telemed J E Health. 2022;29(4):540–50.
Willems LM, Hochbaum M, Frey K, Schulz J, Menzler K, Langenbruch L, et al. Multicenter, cross-sectional study of the costs of illness and cost-driving factors in adult patients with epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2022;63(4):904–18.
Strzelczyk A, Haag A, Reese JP, Nickolay T, Oertel WH, Dodel R, et al. Trends in resource utilization and prescription of anticonvulsants for patients with active epilepsy in Germany. Epilepsy Behav. 2013;27(3):433–8.
Willems LM, Richter S, Watermann N, Bauer S, Klein KM, Reese JP, et al. Trends in resource utilization and prescription of anticonvulsants for patients with active epilepsy in Germany from 2003 to 2013—a ten-year overview. Epilepsy Behav. 2018;9(83):28–35.
Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, Harron K, Moher D, Petersen I, et al. The reporting of studies conducted using observational routinely-collected health data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015;12(10): e1001885.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–9.
Panelli RJ, Kilpatrick C, Moore SM, Matkovic Z, D’Souza WJ, O’Brien TJ. The Liverpool Adverse Events Profile: relation to AED use and mood. Epilepsia. 2007;48(3):456–63.
Panelli RJ, Moore S, Kilpatrick C, Matkovic Z, D’Souza W, O’Brien T. The Liverpool adverse events profile (LAEP) reflects anxiety and depression rather than antiepileptic drug side effects in individual patients. Epilepsia. 2004;45:126.
Baker GA, Jacoby A, Francis P, Chadwick DW. The Liverpool adverse drug events profile. Epilepsia. 1995;36:S59.
Vary-O’Neal A, Miranzadeh S, Husein N, Holroyd-Leduc J, Sa’jobi TT, Wiebe S, et al. Association between frailty and antiseizure medication tolerability in older adults with epilepsy. Neurology. 2023;100(e1135):e1147.
Kwon OY, Park SP. Validity of the liverpool adverse events profile as a screening tool for detecting comorbid depression or anxiety disorder in people with epilepsy. J Epilepsy Res. 2018;8(2):74–80.
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70.
Gilliam FG, Barry JJ, Hermann BP, Meador KJ, Vahle V, Kanner AM. Rapid detection of major depression in epilepsy: a multicentre study. Lancet Neurol. 2006;5(5):399–405.
Bujang MA, Sa’at N, Sidik T, Joo LC. Sample size guidelines for logistic regression from observational studies with large population: emphasis on the accuracy between statistics and parameters based on real life clinical data. Malays J Med Sci. 2018;25(4):122–30.
Rogawski MA, Löscher W, Rho JM. Mechanisms of action of antiseizure drugs and the ketogenic diet. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2016;6(5).
Löscher W, Klein P. The pharmacology and clinical efficacy of antiseizure medications: from bromide salts to cenobamate and beyond. CNS Drugs. 2021;35(9):935–63.
U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). USP therapeutic categories model guidelines. 2018 [cited 2022 15.12.2022]; https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/fdaaa-implementation-chart/usp-therapeutic-categories-model-guidelines. Accessed 15 Dec 2022.
Miot HA. Correlation analysis in clinical and experimental studies. J Vasc Bras. 2018;17(4):275–9.
Willems LM, Knake S, Rosenow F, Reese JP, Conradi N, Strzelczyk A. EuroQOL-5D-3L does not adequately map quality-of-life deterioration in severely affected patients with epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2022;127: 108554.
Shanthi R. Multivariate data analysis using SPSS and AMOS. Chennai: MJP Publisher; 2019.
Almeida JS. Predictive non-linear modeling of complex data by artificial neural networks. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2002;13(1):72–6.
Grossberg S. Nonlinear neural networks: principles, mechanisms, and architectures. Neural Netw. 1988;1(1):17–61.
De Ona J, Garrido C. Extracting the contribution of independent variables in neural network models: a new approach to handle instability. Neural Comput Appl. 2014;25:859–69.
Santamarina E, Bertol V, Garayoa V, Garcia-Gomara MJ, Garamendi-Ruiz I, Giner P, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel as a first add-on therapy with different anti-seizure drugs. Seizure. 2020;83:48–56.
Villanueva V, D’Souza W, Goji H, Kim DW, Liguori C, McMurray R, et al. PERMIT study: a global pooled analysis study of the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel in routine clinical practice. J Neurol. 2022;269(4):1957–77.
D’Souza W, Trinka E, Wu T, Najm I, Malhotrea M, Ngo LY, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel in epilepsy patients treated in routine clinical practice: a global pooled analysis study (1640). Neurology. 2021;96 (15 Supplement) 1640.
Juhl S, Rubboli G. Add-on perampanel and aggressive behaviour in severe drug-resistant focal epilepsies. Funct Neurol. 2017;32(4):215–20.
Lee SA, Jeon JY, Kim HW. Effect of perampanel on aggression in patients with refractory focal epilepsy: a 6-month longitudinal study. Epilepsy Behav. 2020;102: 106658.
Zaccara G, Giovannelli F, Cincotta M, Verrotti A, Grillo E. The adverse event profile of perampanel: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Neurol. 2013;20(8):1204–11.
Liguori C, Santamarina E, Strzelczyk A, Rodriguez-Uranga JJ, Shankar R, Rodriguez-Osorio X, et al. Perampanel outcomes at different stages of treatment in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice: evidence from the PERMIT study. Front Neurol. 2023;14:1120150.
Rugg-Gunn F. Adverse effects and safety profile of perampanel: a review of pooled data. Epilepsia. 2014;55(Suppl 1):13–5.
Serratosa JM, Villanueva V, Kerling F, Kasper BS. Safety and tolerability of perampanel: a review of clinical trial data. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl. 2013;197:30–5.
Kim SK, Park SP, Kwon OY. Impact of depression and anxiety on adverse event profiles in Korean people with epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;46:185–91.
Lee SJ, Kim JE, Seo JG, Cho YW, Lee JJ, Moon HJ, et al. Predictors of quality of life and their interrelations in Korean people with epilepsy: a MEPSY study. Seizure. 2014;23(9):762–8.
Micoulaud-Franchi JA, Bartolomei F, Duncan R, McGonigal A. Evaluating quality of life in epilepsy: the role of screening for adverse drug effects, depression, and anxiety. Epilepsy Behav. 2017;75:18–24.
Lovric M, Cajic I, Petelin Gadze Z, Klarica Domjanovic I, Bozina N. Effect of antiepileptic drug comedication on lamotrigine concentrations. Croat Med J. 2018;59(1):13–9.
Jeong E, Nelson SD, Su Y, Malin B, Li L, Chen Y. Detecting drug-drug interactions between therapies for COVID-19 and concomitant medications through the FDA adverse event reporting system. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13: 938552.
Wanounou M, Caraco Y, Levy RH, Bialer M, Perucca E. Clinically relevant interactions between ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir and concomitant antiseizure medications: implications for the management of COVID-19 in patients with epilepsy. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2022;61(9):1219–36.
Marson A, Burnside G, Appleton R, Smith D, Leach JP, Sills G, et al. The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021;397(10282):1375–86.
Gianatsi M, Bresnahan R, Hill RA, Nevitt SJ, Marson AG, Tudur-Smith C. Valproate add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;2021:CD014701.
Kakunje A, Prabhu A, Sindhu Priya ES, Karkal R, Kumar P, Gupta N, et al. Valproate: it’s effects on hair. Int J Trichol. 2018;10(4):150–3.
Zhuo C, Jiang R, Li G, Shao M, Chen C, Chen G, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of second and third generation anti-epileptic drugs in refractory epilepsy: a network meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):2535.
Hakami T. Efficacy and tolerability of antiseizure drugs. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2021;14:17562864211037430.
Abtahi MA, Abtahi SH, Fazel F, Roomizadeh P, Etemadifar M, Jenab K, et al. Topiramate and the vision: a systematic review. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:117–31.
Sommer BR, Fenn HH. Review of topiramate for the treatment of epilepsy in elderly patients. Clin Interv Aging. 2010;26(5):89–99.
Bello-Hernandez Y, Espinoza-Hernandez J, Moreno-Coutino G. Acneiform rash caused by an unlikely drug: topiramate. Skin Append Disord. 2018;4(1):25–8.
Aggarwal A, Kumar R, Sharma RC, Sharma DD. Topiramate induced pruritus in a patient with alcohol dependence. Indian J Dermatol. 2011;56(4):421–2.
Bresnahan R, Hounsome J, Jette N, Hutton JL, Marson AG. Topiramate add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10(10):CD001417.
Romigi A, Vitrani G, D’Aniello A, Di Gennaro G. Topiramate-induced periodic limb movement disorder in a patient affected by focal epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav Case Rep. 2014;2:121–3.
Mathew T, Sarma GR, Nadig R, Varghese R. Topiramate-induced somnambulism in a migraineur: a probable idiosyncratic adverse effect. J Clin Sleep Med. 2012;8(2):197–8.
Park SP, Kim SY, Hwang YH, Lee HW, Suh CK, Kwon SH. Long-term efficacy and safety of zonisamide monotherapy in epilepsy patients. J Clin Neurol. 2007;3(4):175–80.
de Baat C, Zweers P, Vissink A. Medicaments and oral healthcare. Proliferation of the gingiva. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 2018;125(7–8):397–402.
Eddy CM, Rickards HE, Cavanna AE. The cognitive impact of antiepileptic drugs. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2011;4(6):385–407.
Alonso-Navarro H, Garcia-Martin E, Agundez JAG, Jimenez-Jimenez FJ. Current and future neuropharmacological options for the treatment of essential tremor. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2020;18(6):518–37.
Kienitz R, Kay L, Beuchat I, Gelhard S, von Brauchitsch S, Mann C, et al. Benzodiazepines in the Management of Seizures and Status Epilepticus: A Review of Routes of Delivery, Pharmacokinetics, Efficacy, and Tolerability. CNS Drugs. 2022;36(9):951–75.
Moavero R, Pisani LR, Pisani F, Curatolo P. Safety and tolerability profile of new antiepileptic drug treatment in children with epilepsy. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2018;17(10):1015–28.
Willems LM, Zöllner JP, Paule E, Schubert-Bast S, Rosenow F, Strzelczyk A. Eslicarbazepine acetate in epilepsies with focal and secondary generalised seizures: systematic review of current evidence. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2018;11(3):309–24.
Hirsch M, Hintz M, Specht A, Schulze-Bonhage A. Tolerability, efficacy and retention rate of brivaracetam in patients previously treated with levetiracetam: a monocenter retrospective outcome analysis. Seizure. 2018;61:98–103.
Steinhoff BJ, Bacher M, Bucurenciu I, Hillenbrand B, Intravooth T, Kornmeier R, et al. Real-life experience with brivaracetam in 101 patients with difficult-to-treat epilepsy—a monocenter survey. Seizure. 2017;48:11–4.
Steinig I, von Podewils F, Möddel G, Bauer S, Klein KM, Paule E, et al. Postmarketing experience with brivaracetam in the treatment of epilepsies: a multicenter cohort study from Germany. Epilepsia. 2017;58(7):1208–16.
Willems LM, Bertsche A, Bösebeck F, Hornemann F, Immisch I, Klein KM, et al. Efficacy, retention, and tolerability of brivaracetam in patients with epileptic encephalopathies: a multicenter cohort study from Germany. Front Neurol. 2018;23:9.
Strzelczyk A, Zaveta C, von Podewils F, Möddel G, Langenbruch L, Kovac S, et al. Long-term efficacy, tolerability, and retention of brivaracetam in epilepsy treatment: a longitudinal multicenter study with up to 5 years of follow-up. Epilepsia. 2021;62(12):2994–3004.
Yates SL, Fakhoury T, Liang W, Eckhardt K, Borghs S, D’Souza J. An open-label, prospective, exploratory study of patients with epilepsy switching from levetiracetam to brivaracetam. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;52(Pt A):165–8.
Kovacs A, Farkas Z, Kelemen A, Juhos V, Szucs A, Kamondi A. Lamotrigine induces tremor among epilepsy patients probably via cerebellar pathways. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2019;248(4):273–84.
Aldenkamp AP, Baker G. A systematic review of the effects of lamotrigine on cognitive function and quality of life. Epilepsy Behav. 2001;2(2):85–91.
Meador KJ, Loring DW, Ray PG, Murro AM, King DW, Perrine KR, et al. Differential cognitive and behavioral effects of carbamazepine and lamotrigine. Neurology. 2001;56(9):1177–82.
Baehr A, Pena JC, Hu DJ. Racial and ethnic disparities in adverse drug events: a systematic review of the literature. J Racial Ethn Health Dispar. 2015;2(4):527–36.
Willems LM, Balcik Y, Noda AH, Siebenbrodt K, Leimeister S, McCoy J, et al. SARS-CoV-2-related rapid reorganization of an epilepsy outpatient clinic from personal appointments to telemedicine services: a German single-center experience. Epilepsy Behav. 2020;112: 107483.
Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2006;29(5):385–96.
Welton JM, Walker C, Riney K, Ng A, Todd L, D’Souza WJ. Quality of life and its association with comorbidities and adverse events from antiepileptic medications: online survey of patients with epilepsy in Australia. Epilepsy Behav. 2020;104(Pt A): 106856.
Beniczky S, Rampp S, Asadi-Pooya AA, Rubboli G, Perucca E, Sperling MR. Optimal choice of antiseizure medication: agreement among experts and validation of a web-based decision support application. Epilepsia. 2021;62(1):220–7.
Kim H, Kim DW, Lee ST, Byun JI, Seo JG, No YJ, et al. Antiepileptic drug selection according to seizure type in adult patients with epilepsy. J Clin Neurol. 2020;16(4):547–55.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study was supported by the State of Hesse under the CEPTER LOEWE Grant for the Center of Personalized Translational Epilepsy Research.
Conflicts of interest
F. von Podewils reports personal fees from UCB Pharma, Arvelle Therapeutics/Angelini Pharma, Desitin Arzneimittel, Zogenix, Eisai, and GW/Jazz Pharmaceuticals and grants from the State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR). S. Knake reports personal fees and grants from Angelini Pharma, Bial, Desitin Arzneimittel, Epilog, Kanso, UCB Pharma, UNEEG, and Zogenix. S. Kovac reports grants from Biogen and speakers honoraria from Eisai and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. J. P. Zöllner reports personal fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals. F. Rosenow reports grants and personal fees from Roche Pharma, UCB Pharma, Arvelle Therapeutics, and Desitin Arzneimittel, personal fees from Eisai, GW Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Medtronic, Cerbomed, Sandoz, BayerVital, and Shire and grants from the European Union, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the LOEWE Programme of the State of Hesse, and the Detlev–Wrobel–Fonds for Epilepsy Research. A. Strzelczyk reports personal fees and grants from Angelini Pharma, Biocodex, Desitin Arzneimittel, Eisai, Jazz (GW) Pharmaceuticals, Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Takeda, UCB Pharma (Zogenix), and UNEEG. All other authors report no competing interests. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript apart from those disclosed. There is no funding to report.
Ethics approval
This study was approved by the Ethics Advisory Board of Goethe University (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) before its conduction (reference number 19-440).
Consent to participate
Study participation was voluntary. Subjects were only enrolled after written informed consent had been obtained.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Availability of data and material
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
A. Strzelczyk conceived the idea for the initial trial and was responsible for the survey. L.M. Willems developed the idea for this analysis. F. von Podewils, S. Knake, S. Kovac, J. P. Zöllner, F. Rosenow and A. Strzelczyk collected the data. M. van den Goten and L.M. Willems processed the data and performed the statistical analyses. L. M. Willems, M. van den Goten, J.P. Zöllner, and A. Strzelczyk drafted the initial manuscript. All authors wrote, edited, and significantly contributed to the final manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript for submission.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Willems, L.M., van der Goten, M., von Podewils, F. et al. Adverse Event Profiles of Antiseizure Medications and the Impact of Coadministration on Drug Tolerability in Adults with Epilepsy. CNS Drugs 37, 531–544 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-023-01013-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-023-01013-8