PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9827238

Monotherapy or polytherapy for epilepsy?

Abstract

Monotherapy has been promoted as the ideal in epilepsy treatment because of reduced side effects, absence of drug interactions, better compliance, lower cost and, in many cases, improved seizure control compared to polytherapy. The question of monotherapy vs. polytherapy has assumed increasing importance with the availability of multiple new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), initially tested as add-on agents. The new drugs clobazam, lamotrigine, vigabatrin, gabapentin and topiramate, have also been shown to be effective as monotherapy. These data bring up the possibility of using them as first-line agents. However, a high percentage of patients with resistant epilepsy are treated with polytherapy, which probably benefits only a minority of them. The availability of multiple drugs with different mechanisms of action favours the possibility of "rational polytherapy", taking advantage of possible synergism, a yet unproven concept. This article reviews the theoretical advantages of monotherapy and monotherapy with traditional and newer AEDs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Guberman. 1998. Monotherapy or polytherapy for epilepsy?. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0317167100034892

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A double-blind placebo-controlled trial of zonisamide (zonegran) in the treatment of essential tremor.

Medical therapy for essential tremor (ET), a common movement disorder, is often inadequate. We performed a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide (ZNS), an antiepileptic agent, in treating ET. Twenty patients (mean age, 60 +/- 15 years) with ET were randomized to receive ZNS or placebo. ZNS was initiated at a dosage of 100 mg/day and escalated to 200 mg/day at day 14. Patients were evaluated by accelerometry and the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin (FTM) rating scale at baseline and days 14 and 28, as well as the Clinical Global Impression (CGI-C) scale at day 28. At endpoint, subjects assigned to ZNS were taking a mean dosage of 160 +/- 50 mg/day. There were no significant improvements in the FTM total score or its subsections. Tremor amplitude as assessed by accelerometry significantly improved in the ZNS group compared to the placebo group at endpoint relative to baseline (-0.50 +/- 0.72 vs. 0.30 +/- 0.79 m/s(2); P = 0.03). On the CGI-C, 60% (n = 6) of patients in the ZNS group felt that their tremor was unchanged, while the remaining patients felt that their tremor was "minimally improved." Thirty percent (n = 3) of patients taking ZNS discontinued the study due to side effects (fatigue, headache, paresthesias) while taking 100 mg per day. ZNS did not provide significant improvements in clinical rating scales at study endpoint compared to placebo and was only modestly well tolerated. ZNS was effective in reducing tremor amplitude as measured by accelerometry.

Anticonvulsants↗