Epilepsy

Vagal nerve stimulation device: its role in medically refractory partial epilepsy and reports of weight loss

 

Virginia Thornley, Neurologist, Epileptologist

@VThornleyMD

April 15, 2018

Introduction

The vagal nerve stimulation device is an implanted device that exerts its effort by pulses of electrical activity that stimulates the vagal nerve or cranial nerve X. It had initially been found to work in animal studies in the 1990’s then later applied in clinical studies.

Mechanism of action 

For years, the mechanism was unknown and was used rather effectively in the clinical realm. The elucidated mechanisms were thought to be that the vagal nerve stimulator modifies the highly synchronized electrical activity that occurs in epilepsy through desynchronization via the vagal nerve. In addition, there is increased regional cerebral perfusion, and there is increased GABA neurotransmitters which are inhibitory towards electrical activity causing seizures and a decrease in glutamate which is known to increase excitation with the brain. There are GABA-A receptor increases, an increase in locus ceruleus produced noradrenergic substances which are released through the vagal nerve and an increase in serotonin transmissions through the raphe nucleus.

Role in controlling seizures

In the original open-label trial in 5 clinical trials, the vagal nerve stimulation device was found to be effective in reducing seizures by 50%. 454 patients had the implanted device and clinical information was obtained from 440. A cardiac stimulation device was implanted along with a coil in the ipsilateral vagal nerve. At 1 year of implantation, more than 50% of reduction of seizures occurred in 36.8% of patients at year 1, 43.2% year 2, and 42.7% at year 3.  The most common side effect at year 2 was hoarseness of about 9.8% and headache in 4.5% and at 3 years there was shortness of breath in 3% (4).

In one retrospective study from 1997 to 2008, 436 patients were found with implanted vagal nerve stimulation devices from ages 1-76, 220 were women and 216 were men. 33 had poor follow-up and 3 had removal due to infection. The mean frequency of seizures was better at 50% reduction.  There was 90% better control on 90 patients, >75% control in 162 patients and 50% control in 255 patients, <50% control in 145 patients. Permanent damage to the vagal nerve happened in 2.8% or 11 patients out of the 400 patients (after the removal of the ones lost to follow-up and infected) (5).

Long-term value of vagal nerve stimulating device, effectiveness after 5 years

There have been many studies reported that it may be effective short-term. But there was one pediatric study that reported success in seizure control in longer than 5 years. In a study of 56 pediatric patients ages 4-17, >9.8% were seizure free after 9 months, 24% after 2 years, 46.4% after 3 years and 54% after 5 years.11 out of the 56 patients became seizure free. After 5 years 62% of the patients had fewer seizures after 5 years.

What happens from diagnosis to implantation to use

A patient is identified as medically refractory, meaning a patient who has already failed 2 or more agents. Once control is failed after 2 anti-epileptic drugs after an adequate dosage and trial,  the likelihood of being seizure free becomes significantly less.  It is usually applied to patients with partial seizures, the most common being temporal lobe epilepsy. After appropriate identification is done, the patient undergoes a procedure where a cardiac device is implanted under the skin which generates an electrical impulse. A wire or coil is attached to the vagal nerve which reacts to this signal and emits an electrical pulse which inhibits the seizure which is electrical activity in the brain by disrupting this through various mechanisms. The device can be programmed to have a set frequency, amount of power and can be set to automatic with features where the patient can apply a magnet to inhibit the seizure when it is about to occur. The magnet is typically swiped over the cardiac device which was implanted over the left side of the chest. The settings can be changed in the doctor’s office adjusting according to the number and frequency of seizures.

Common side effects

Some of the most common side effects reported include hoarseness, cough, throat irritation, dyspnea, insomnia, dyspepsia, and vomiting. The symptoms are related to the location of the device near the nerve causing local irritation and likely due to the functions subserved by the vagal nerve.

Incidental weight loss effect

Vagal nerve stimulation device was applied to treatment-resistant patients with depression where an incidental effect on weight loss was found. One study in 33 patients showed that the vagal nerve stimulator implanted in patients seemed to alter cravings for sweet food which may play a part in weight loss (2). There have been some conflicting studies proving that there is no weight loss in vagal nerve stimulating device at the settings recommended in epilepsy in 21 patients (3). In a large study of 503 patients from 15 study centers, vagal nerve blockade was applied intrabdominally. 294 patients were randomized to treated (192) and to control groups (102). Therapy involved electrical stimulation through an external power source to the vagal nerves in the subdiaphragm which inhibits afferent and efferent vagal transmission. At 12 months, the excess weight loss in the treated group was 17% and in the control group, it was 16%. There was no statistic difference between the two groups, however, the post-study analysis demonstrated a possible result in weight loss related to the system check of the devices using low charges which may have caused weight loss in the control group (6).

In conclusion

There is strong evidence that the vagal nerve stimulation device is effective at reducing seizures of >50% of the medication-resistant epilepsy patient. It is effective even after 5 years of implantation. There are very little side effects which are mild to moderate. In addition, it can cause weight loss.

References:

  1. Serdaroglu, et al, “Long-term effect of vagus nerve stimulation in pediatric intractable epilepsy: an extended follow-up,” Child’s Nervous System, 2016, 32 (4):641-646.
  2. Bodenlos, “Vagus nerve stimulation acutely alters food craving in adults with depression,” Appetite, 2007, 48: 145-153.
  3. Koren, et al, “Vagus nerve stimulation does not lead to significant changes in body weight in patients with epilepsy,” Epilepsy Behav. 2006;8:246–249.
  4. Morris, et al, “Long-term treatment with vagus nerve stimulation with refractory epilepsy,” Neurology, 1999, 53 (8):1731-1735.
  5. Elliot, et al, “Vagus nerve stimulation in 436 consecutive patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy: long-term outcomes and predictors of response,” Epilepsy Behavior, 2011, Jan., 20(1):57-83.
  6. Sarr, et al, “The EMPOWER study:randomized, prospective, double-blind, multicenter trial of vagal blockade to induce weight loss in morbid obesity,” Obes. Surg., 2012, Nov., 22 (11):1771-82.

 

Standard
Epilepsy, Glaucoma, pain, Peripheral neuropathy, Tumor

Medical Marijuana: why the huge disconnect between physicians, laws, policies, and patients?

Virginia Thornley, M.D., Neurologist, Epileptologist

March 11, 2018

Introduction

A patient comes to you asking “Doc, my seizures are getting worse, I really hate the side effects of my medications, I really want to go a different route. Have you heard about medical marijuana?” You start sweating profusely, fidgeting in your seat, thinking of every single reason why not to recommend it and come up with  the standard response, “uh, well, I’m not qualified to recommend it and it’s not FDA approved, plus we don’t really know much about it there could be so many side effects.” And then we have the oldie but goodie response, “there’s not enough large randomized control trials to recommend it.” This scene plays 100,000 times over if not a million times over in physician offices across the country. Patients who are disillusioned with adverse effects of medications are looking towards alternative therapy. As surprising as it sounds, patients with chronic pain do not want to get intoxicated by opioids. In fact, some want to be tapered off of them or refuse them all together. Patients with end-stage cancer at the terminal stage of their lives wish to live a comfortable and humane existence without the need for more chemotherapeutic medications or pain medications that consistently make them feel like a zombie. While other patients with epilepsy may be on 4 different anti-epileptic agents and can no longer function or have a good quality of life because of side effects. There are two sides to every coin.

Why you should be educated on cannabidiol and THC use in medical conditions

If patients do not get their answers from their trusted physicians who they trust with their well-being, their health, the temples of their souls, they will go to great lengths in procuring this knowledge. This is via various sites on the internet some of the dubious nature others are from high quality companies that have been in business even before this seeming treatment fad started. Or, the information may be obtained from their brother-in-law’s friend’s hair stylist who is now pain-free after going through a long course of pain medications including ablative treatments, physical therapy, and acupuncture and has a physician who does recommend it. Like it or not, cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol are alternative treatment options and are gaining more and more traction. To ignore it is to be complacent with the changing direction and landscape of medicine. As patients become more and more disillusioned by the limitation of conventional treatments, attention is directed towards alternative regimens. It is not just for the yoga-practicing patient looking for more natural methods, one sees the sweet 83-year-old gentleman who must be someone’s grandfather with the chronic hip pain of 50 years who have failed opioids and is simply looking for pain relief.

IMG_1818_preview.jpeg

Is there any evidence that it works?

The endocannabinoid pathway is found naturally in the system. It is responsible for the runner’s sense of wellbeing one gets after a 5-mile run and the pleasant mood you get after a 1-hour work-out with Zumba. There are 2 receptors in the system CB1 receptor which has the highest number of brain cells and the CB2 receptor which is found predominantly in the immune system. There are 2 common cannabinoids cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol which exert various medical effects. Cannabidiol (CBD) has a weak affinity for the CB1 receptor and one needs 100 times the amount to get the same euphoria that one gets from tetrahydrocannabinol, the bane of every ER physician. Unfortunately, the side effects of euphoria of THC have preceded its popularity as a medical product. Little do we know it was once used for hundreds of years as a medication before the psychoactive properties were exploited for recreational purposes. In urologic culture cell lines, it is found that cannabinoids may reduce proliferation of cancer cells and reduce the pro-inflammatory microenvironment that is necessary for metastatic conditions (1). Human studies are still needed to determine a reduction in tumor loads. THC receptors are found in retinal cells and may be found to reduce intraocular pressure in glaucoma (5, 6). Cannabidiol is found to bind to the 5HT1 receptor which reduces anxiety. THC has been well-established in the mouse model to promote the inhibitory control of excitatory pathways in the hippocampus, where seizures commonly arise (8). There is an increase in CB1 receptors after prolonged seizures suggesting a compensatory response.  It has been used in combination and found in several randomized control trials to reduce the frequency of seizures by as much as 36% in medically refractory patients (2). It is well-established that cannabinoids reduce pain refractory to conventional medications (3). It has been found in bench research to be an antioxidant and have anti-inflammatory properties (4, 7). Some studies cite side effects of somnolence, nausea, dysphoria, however, it is not clear what was the quality of cannabinoids or dosages were used. At high doses, while THC can reduce pain it may also result in side effects, which is why it is usually used in combination with CBD which ameliorates the side effects of THC.  In addition, cannabidiol by itself has no euphoria and it takes 100 times the amount to achieve intoxication seen with THC use. Synthetic products will have more side effects than products that are organic meaning only of natural materials.

Given the huge amount of evidence in several different medical conditions (3), the results should overwhelmingly be towards a push in using cannabinoids more frequently. However, because of the cynicism of the public, physicians even of patients, who have been exposed more frequently to the harmful psychoactive side effects, the benefits are far overshadowed. More clinical randomized controlled trials are needed. Most literature cites small numbers of patients enrolled in studies or review multiple medical centers where the conditions are not uniform. In addition, some of the patients that would benefit the most are the least in numbers such as those with rare neurological conditions such as Dravet syndrome or Lennox-Gastuat syndrome.

29727_414385818840_8046507_n

In conclusion

As it still stands, many states still do not recognize the medicinal value of cannabidiol or tetrahydrocannabinol. In some states, medical physicians are not allowed to recommend it and put themselves at risk for FBI questioning in even suggesting its use. It is not uncommon for patients to move states or order from other states or countries to procure this liquid gold that is supposed to work wonders. Only time will tell if this is a passing fad and if there are long-standing side effects, however, as of current standing, medical marijuana is here to stay. As far as the literature goes, there are beneficial results but it is a cautionary tale as more studies in large human trials are still needed. As with any new preclinical data, the preclinical status may get ahead of itself and human trials do not replicate the desired results. But from the small clinical trials in seizures, pain, nausea, anxiety, and loss of appetite, the results are promising while more research is needed for anti-tumor effects in humans.

As with any medication, there will be clear-cut side effects just as with any other medication which is why more studies are needed to determine the least amount with the least amount of side effects. In some studies,  amounts upwards of 50mg/kg (2) is used the high amounts likely responsible for causing side effects, which is far higher than that cautioned by medical marijuana dispensaries. It will take patients time to wrap their heads around taking guidance from a fresh-faced 20-year-old millennial at the spa-like dispensary which is currently the norm at most dispensaries, who likely knows much more than even most medical professionals. It seems it will take even longer in Congress to understand the potential benefit of cannabinoids from a medical standpoint especially with the present opioid epidemic. Countries in Europe have far surpassed the United States when it comes to cutting-edge treatments. Perhaps, it will take even longer for the medical community to see the medical potential with their exposure to the sinister side of tetrahydrocannabinol seen in patients in the ER for non-medical reasons, which may be one of the most challenging stumbling blocks.

barcelona 1 181_preview

Introduction/Disclaimer

References:

  1. Ghandhi, et al, “Systemic review of the potential role of cannabinoids as anti-proliferative agents for urological cancer,” Can. Urol. Assoc. J., 2017, May,-April., 11(3-4):E138-E142.
  2. Devinsky, et al, “Cannabidiol in patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy: an open-label interventional trial,” Lancet Neurology, 2016, Mar., 15(3):270-280.
  3. Petzke, et al, “Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids for chronic neuropathic pain: a systemic review of randomized controlled studies,” Schmerz, 2016, Feb., 30(1):62-88.
  4. Rajan. et al, “Gingival stromal cells as an in vitro model: cannabidiol modulates genes linked with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, 2017, Apr., 118(4):819-828.
  5. ElSohly, et al, “Cannabinoids in glaucoma II: the effect of different cannabinoids on intraocular pressure on rabbits,”Current Eye Research, 1984, Jun., 3(6):841-50.
  6. Jarvinen, T., “Cannabinoids in the treatment of glaucoma,” Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2002, Aug., 95(2):203-20.
  7. Carroll, et al, “9-Tetrahydrocannabinol exerts a direct neuroprotective effect in human cell culture model of Parkinson’s disease,” Neuropathology and Applied Neuropharmacology, 2012, Oct., 38(6):3535-547.
  8. Kaplan, et al, “Cannabidiol attenuates seizures and social deficits in a mouse model in Dravet syndrome,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 2017, Oct.
Standard