-
The Lancet. Neurology Jul 2017People with epilepsy who became seizure-free while taking antiepileptic drugs might consider discontinuing their medication, with the possibility of increased quality of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Individualised prediction model of seizure recurrence and long-term outcomes after withdrawal of antiepileptic drugs in seizure-free patients: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
People with epilepsy who became seizure-free while taking antiepileptic drugs might consider discontinuing their medication, with the possibility of increased quality of life because of the elimination of adverse events. The risk with this action, however, is seizure recurrence. The objectives of our study were to identify predictors of seizure recurrence and long-term seizure outcomes and to produce nomograms for estimation of individualised outcomes.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis, and identified eligible articles and candidate predictors, using PubMed and Embase databases with a last update on Nov 6, 2014. Eligible articles had to report on cohorts of patients with epilepsy who were seizure-free and had started withdrawal of antiepileptic drugs; articles also had to contain information regarding seizure recurrences during and after withdrawal. We excluded surgical cohorts, reports with fewer than 30 patients, and reports on acute symptomatic seizures because these topics were beyond the scope of our objective. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies system. Data analysis was based on individual participant data. Survival curves and proportional hazards were computed. The strongest predictors were selected with backward selection. Models were converted to nomograms and a web-based tool to determine individual risks.
FINDINGS
We identified 45 studies with 7082 patients; ten studies (22%) with 1769 patients (25%) were included in the meta-analysis. Median follow-up was 5·3 years (IQR 3·0-10·0, maximum 23 years). Prospective and retrospective studies and randomised controlled trials were included, covering non-selected and selected populations of both children and adults. Relapse occurred in 812 (46%) of 1769 patients; 136 (9%) of 1455 for whom data were available had seizures in their last year of follow-up, suggesting enduring seizure control was not regained by this timepoint. Independent predictors of seizure recurrence were epilepsy duration before remission, seizure-free interval before antiepileptic drug withdrawal, age at onset of epilepsy, history of febrile seizures, number of seizures before remission, absence of a self-limiting epilepsy syndrome, developmental delay, and epileptiform abnormality on electroencephalogram (EEG) before withdrawal. Independent predictors of seizures in the last year of follow-up were epilepsy duration before remission, seizure-free interval before antiepileptic drug withdrawal, number of antiepileptic drugs before withdrawal, female sex, family history of epilepsy, number of seizures before remission, focal seizures, and epileptiform abnormality on EEG before withdrawal. Adjusted concordance statistics were 0·65 (95% CI 0·65-0·66) for predicting seizure recurrence and 0·71 (0·70-0·71) for predicting long-term seizure freedom. Validation was stable across the individual study populations.
INTERPRETATION
We present evidence-based nomograms with robust performance across populations of children and adults. The nomograms facilitate prediction of outcomes following drug withdrawal for the individual patient, including both the risk of relapse and the chance of long-term freedom from seizures. The main limitations were the absence of a control group continuing antiepileptic drug treatment and a consistent definition of long-term seizure freedom.
FUNDING
Epilepsiefonds.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Child; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Recurrence; Remission Induction; Seizures
PubMed: 28483337
DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30114-X -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Febrile seizures occurring in a child older than one month during an episode of fever affect 2-4% of children in Great Britain and the United States and recur in 30%.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Febrile seizures occurring in a child older than one month during an episode of fever affect 2-4% of children in Great Britain and the United States and recur in 30%. Rapid-acting antiepileptics and antipyretics given during subsequent fever episodes have been used to avoid the adverse effects of continuous antiepileptic drugs. This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate primarily the effectiveness and safety of antiepileptic and antipyretic drugs used prophylactically to treat children with febrile seizures; and also to evaluate any other drug intervention where there is a sound biological rationale for its use.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 3 February 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 31 January 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We imposed no language restrictions and contacted researchers to identify continuing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials using randomised or quasi-randomised participant allocation that compared the use of antiepileptics, antipyretics or recognised Central Nervous System active agents with each other, placebo, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For the original review, two review authors independently applied predefined criteria to select trials for inclusion and extracted the predefined relevant data, recording methods for randomisation, blinding, and exclusions. For the 2016 update, a third review author checked all original inclusions, data analyses, and updated the search. For the 2020 update, one review author updated the search and performed the data analysis following a peer-review process with the original review authors. We assessed seizure recurrence at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 months, and where data were available at age 5 to 6 years along with recorded adverse effects. We evaluated the presence of publication bias using funnel plots.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 42 articles describing 32 randomised trials, with 4431 randomised participants used in the analysis of this review. We analysed 15 interventions of continuous or intermittent prophylaxis and their control treatments. Methodological quality was moderate to poor in most studies. We found no significant benefit for intermittent phenobarbital, phenytoin, valproate, pyridoxine, ibuprofen, or zinc sulfate versus placebo or no treatment; nor for diclofenac versus placebo followed by ibuprofen, paracetamol, or placebo; nor for continuous phenobarbital versus diazepam, intermittent rectal diazepam versus intermittent valproate, or oral diazepam versus clobazam. There was a significant reduction of recurrent febrile seizures with intermittent diazepam versus placebo or no treatment at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.85; 6 studies, 1151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 12 months (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; 8 studies, 1416 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 18 months (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence), 24 months (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 4 studies, 739 participants; high-certainty evidence), 36 months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; 1 study, 139 participants; low-certainty evidence), 48 months (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 1 study, 110 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with no benefit at 60 to 72 months (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.31; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus placebo or no treatment reduced seizures at six months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83; 6 studies, 833 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 12 months (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; 7 studies, 807 participants; low-certainty evidence), and 24 months (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89; 3 studies, 533 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not at 18 months (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.05; 2 studies, 264 participants) or 60 to 72 months follow-up (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.69; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Intermittent clobazam compared to placebo at six months resulted in a RR of 0.36 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.64; 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence), an effect found against an extremely high (83.3%) recurrence rate in the controls, a result that needs replication. When compared to intermittent diazepam, intermittent oral melatonin did not significantly reduce seizures at six months (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.15; 1 study, 60 participants; very-low certainty evidence). When compared to placebo, intermittent oral levetiracetam significantly reduced recurrent seizures at 12 months (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; 1 study, 115 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The recording of adverse effects was variable. Two studies reported lower comprehension scores in phenobarbital-treated children. Adverse effects were recorded in up to 30% of children in the phenobarbital-treated groups and 36% in benzodiazepine-treated groups. We found evidence of publication bias in the meta-analyses of comparisons for phenobarbital versus placebo (seven studies) at 12 months but not at six months (six studies); and valproate versus placebo (four studies) at 12 months. There were too few studies to identify publication bias for the other comparisons. The methodological quality of most of the included studies was low or very low. Methods of randomisation and allocation concealment often did not meet current standards, and 'treatment versus no treatment' was more commonly seen than 'treatment versus placebo', leading to obvious risks of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found reduced recurrence rates for intermittent diazepam and continuous phenobarbital, with adverse effects in up to 30% of children. The apparent benefit for clobazam treatment in one trial needs to be replicated. Levetiracetam also shows benefit with a good safety profile; however, further study is required. Given the benign nature of recurrent febrile seizures, and the high prevalence of adverse effects of these drugs, parents and families should be supported with adequate contact details of medical services and information on recurrence, first aid management, and, most importantly, the benign nature of the phenomenon.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antipyretics; Child; Child, Preschool; Confidence Intervals; Humans; Infant; Placebos; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Seizures, Febrile
PubMed: 34131913
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003031.pub4 -
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, eventrate, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: eventrate 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and eventrate was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or eventrate in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), eventrate 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, eventrate, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug eventrate, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and eventrate would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Child; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Phenytoin
PubMed: 35363878
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub4 -
Advances in Therapy Jul 2020Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is defined as the neuropathic pain that arises either acutely or in the chronic phase of a cerebrovascular event and is a result of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is defined as the neuropathic pain that arises either acutely or in the chronic phase of a cerebrovascular event and is a result of central lesions of the somatosensory tract. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish the prevalence of CPSP, to describe its characteristics, and to discuss the associated management challenges.
METHODS
After a systematic Medline search, we identified 69 papers eligible to be included.
RESULTS
The pooled prevalence of CPSP in patients with stroke at any location was 11% (95% CI 7-18%), which can increase to more than 50% in the subgroups of patients with medullary or thalamic strokes. CPSP onset coincides with stroke occurrence in 26% of patients (95% CI 18-35%); CPSP manifests within a month since symptom onset in 31% of patients (95% CI 22-42%), and occurs between the first month and the first year in 41% of patients (95% CI 33.9-49.0%). CPSP develops more than 12 months after stroke onset in 5% of patients (95% CI 3-8%).
CONCLUSIONS
Clinicians should look for any evidence of central neuropathic pain for at least 12 months after stroke. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions can be used for the management of CPSP. Lamotrigine has the strongest evidence (Level II of evidence, derived from small randomized controlled trials) for being effective in the management of CPSP. Future research should focus on well-designed trials of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions aiming to relief CPSP, which is a very common but often neglected pain syndrome.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anticonvulsants; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neuralgia; Prevalence; Stroke
PubMed: 32451951
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01388-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder with repetitive mania/hypomania as well as depressive episodes, which eventually results in marked impairment in overall... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder with repetitive mania/hypomania as well as depressive episodes, which eventually results in marked impairment in overall functioning and health-related quality of life. A worldwide prevalence rate of 2.4% has been reported. The risk of suicide is higher in people with bipolar disorder than those with other mental disorders. Therefore, effective management of bipolar disorder in the maintenance period is warranted to minimize the risk of relapse or recurrence. Although lithium has been the standard treatment of bipolar disorder for many years, it is associated with adverse effects and teratogenicity. Lamotrigine is approved to be expected for prevention of recurrence for the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. In addition, lamotrigine is as effective as lithium. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to confirm the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialized Register (CCMDCTR) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to 21 May 2021. We also searched international trial registries and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with bipolar disorder who were treated with lamotrigine, placebo or lithium.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviews authors independently checked the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a standardized form. Data extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcome measures in the term of efficacy and tolerability. Study information were then entered into RevMan web.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies with a total of 2314 participants in this review; 1146 were randomized to lamotrigine, 869 were randomized to placebo and, 299 to lithium. We rated all studies as having an unclear risk of bias in at least one domain of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias, with the most commonly observed weakness being selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment). We judged five studies to be at a high risk of detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment). These potential biases pose as major threat to the validity of the included studies in this review. Outcomes of efficacy showed a possible advantage of lamotrigine over placebo. The estimated risk ratio (RR) for recurrence of manic symptom at one year as measured by the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) was 0.67, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.87; 3 studies, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence) in favor of lamotrigine. The RR of clinical worsening with the need for additional psychotropic treatment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98; 4 studies, 756 participants) based on moderate-certainty evidence. The possible benefits of lamotrigine were also seen for the outcome of treatment withdrawal due to any reason at 6-12 months after treatment (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; 4 studies, 700 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding tolerability, our analyses showed that the incidence rates of adverse effects were similar between the lamotrigine group and the placebo group (short-term effect: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.42; 5 studies, 1138 participants; very low-certainty evidence; long-term effect: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; 4 studies, 756 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the comparison between lamotrigine and lithium, efficacy was similar between groups except for recurrence of mania episode at one year. Recurrence of manic symptoms was higher in the lamotrigine group than that of the lithium group (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.44; 3 studies, 602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Analysis of adverse effects at 6-12 months showed that a lower proportion of participants experienced at least one adverse effect when treated with lamotrigine compared to lithium (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; 4 studies, 691 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- to moderate-certainty evidence collectively suggests that lamotrigine may be superior to placebo as a treatment modality for bipolar disorder. In comparison to lithium, people with bipolar disorder seem to tolerate lamotrigine better in the long run; however, the demonstrated efficacy in the maintenance of bipolar disorder was similar between the two groups.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lamotrigine; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34523118
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013575.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Tonic-clonic convulsions and convulsive status epilepticus (currently defined as a tonic-clonic convulsion lasting at least 30 minutes) are medical emergencies and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tonic-clonic convulsions and convulsive status epilepticus (currently defined as a tonic-clonic convulsion lasting at least 30 minutes) are medical emergencies and require urgent and appropriate anticonvulsant treatment. International consensus is that an anticonvulsant drug should be administered for any tonic-clonic convulsion that has been continuing for at least five minutes. Benzodiazepines (diazepam, lorazepam, midazolam) are traditionally regarded as first-line drugs and phenobarbital, phenytoin and paraldehyde as second-line drugs. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and updated in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anticonvulsant drugs used to treat any acute tonic-clonic convulsion of any duration, including established convulsive (tonic-clonic) status epilepticus in children who present to a hospital or emergency medical department.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (23 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 23 May 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 23 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (23 May 2017), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 23 May 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing any anticonvulsant drugs used for the treatment of an acute tonic-clonic convulsion including convulsive status epilepticus in children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes 18 randomised trials involving 2199 participants, and a range of drug treatment options, doses and routes of administration (rectal, buccal, nasal, intramuscular and intravenous). The studies vary by design, setting and population, both in terms of their ages and also in their clinical situation. We have made many comparisons of drugs and of routes of administration of drugs in this review; our key findings are as follows:(1) This review provides only low- to very low-quality evidence comparing buccal midazolam with rectal diazepam for the treatment of acute tonic-clonic convulsions (risk ratio (RR) for seizure cessation 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.38; 4 trials; 690 children). However, there is uncertainty about the effect and therefore insufficient evidence to support its use. There were no included studies which compare intranasal and buccal midazolam.(2) Buccal and intranasal anticonvulsants were shown to lead to similar rates of seizure cessation as intravenous anticonvulsants, e.g. intranasal lorazepam appears to be as effective as intravenous lorazepam (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 1 trial; 141 children; high-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam was equivalent to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; 2 trials; 122 children; moderate-quality evidence).(3) Intramuscular midazolam also showed a similar rate of seizure cessation to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09; 2 trials; 105 children; low-quality evidence).(4) For intravenous routes of administration, lorazepam appears to be as effective as diazepam in stopping acute tonic clonic convulsions: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 3 trials; 414 children; low-quality evidence. Furthermore, we found no statistically significant or clinically important differences between intravenous midazolam and diazepam (RR for seizure cessation 1.08, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate-quality evidence) or intravenous midazolam and lorazepam (RR for seizure cessation 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate-quality evidence). In general, intravenously-administered anticonvulsants led to more rapid seizure cessation but this was usually compromised by the time taken to establish intravenous access.(5) There is limited evidence from a single trial to suggest that intranasal lorazepam may be more effective than intramuscular paraldehyde in stopping acute tonic-clonic convulsions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.52; 160 children; moderate-quality evidence).(6) Adverse side effects were observed and reported very infrequently in the included studies. Respiratory depression was the most common and most clinically relevant side effect and, where reported, the frequency of this adverse event was observed in 0% to up to 18% of children. None of the studies individually demonstrated any difference in the rates of respiratory depression between the different anticonvulsants or their different routes of administration; but when pooled, three studies (439 children) provided moderate-quality evidence that lorazepam was significantly associated with fewer occurrences of respiratory depression than diazepam (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93).Much of the evidence provided in this review is of mostly moderate to high quality. However, the quality of the evidence provided for some important outcomes is low to very low, particularly for comparisons of non-intravenous routes of drug administration. Low- to very low-quality evidence was provided where limited data and imprecise results were available for analysis, methodological inadequacies were present in some studies which may have introduced bias into the results, study settings were not applicable to wider clinical practice, and where inconsistency was present in some pooled analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have not identified any new high-quality evidence on the efficacy or safety of an anticonvulsant in stopping an acute tonic-clonic convulsion that would inform clinical practice. There appears to be a very low risk of adverse events, specifically respiratory depression. Intravenous lorazepam and diazepam appear to be associated with similar rates of seizure cessation and respiratory depression. Although intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam lead to more rapid seizure cessation, the time taken to obtain intravenous access may undermine this effect. In the absence of intravenous access, buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam are therefore acceptable first-line anticonvulsants for the treatment of an acute tonic-clonic convulsion that has lasted at least five minutes. There is no evidence provided by this review to support the use of intranasal midazolam or lorazepam as alternatives to buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Administration, Rectal; Anticonvulsants; Child; Diazepam; Epilepsy, Tonic-Clonic; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Injections, Intravenous; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 29320603
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001905.pub3 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Jan 2022Uncertainty remains regarding the relative efficacy of maintenance pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder (BD), and available data require updating. The present systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Uncertainty remains regarding the relative efficacy of maintenance pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder (BD), and available data require updating. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to consolidate the evidence from the highest quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to July 2021, overcoming the limitations of earlier reviews. The PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for double-blind RCTs involving lithium, mood stabilizing anticonvulsants (MSAs), antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other treatments. Rates of new mood episodes with test vs. reference treatments (placebo or alternative active agent) were compared by random-effects meta-analysis. Polarity index was calculated for each treatment type. Eligible trials involved ≥6 months of maintenance follow up. Of 2,158 identified reports, 22 met study eligibility criteria, and involved 7,773 subjects stabilized for 1-12 weeks and followed-up for 24-104 weeks. Psychotropic monotherapy overall (including lithium, MSAs, and second generation antipsychotics (SGA) was more effective in preventing new BD episodes than placebo (odds ratio, OR=0.42; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.34-0.51, p<0.00001). Significantly lower risk of new BD episodes was observed with the following individual drugs: aripiprazole, asenapine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone long-acting (ORs varied 0.19-0.46). Adding aripiprazole, divalproex, quetiapine, or olanzapine/risperidone to lithium or an MSA was more effective compared with lithium or MSA monotherapy (OR=0.37; 95%CI 0.25-0.55, p<0.00001). Active treatment favored prevention of mania over depression. The key limitations were "responder-enriched" design in most trials and high outcomes heterogeneity. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020162663.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lithium; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone
PubMed: 34489127
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.08.264 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Aug 2022Rapid cycling is a phase of bipolar disorder with increased episode frequencies. It is a severe and disabling condition that often poses a major challenge to the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Rapid cycling is a phase of bipolar disorder with increased episode frequencies. It is a severe and disabling condition that often poses a major challenge to the clinician. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the evidence-based treatment options for rapid cycling.
METHODS
A systematic search on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases from inception until December 2021 was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. An additional search on clinicaltrials.gov was done. References of retrieved papers and key reviews were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials including at least 10 patients with bipolar disorder, rapid cycling, reporting an objective outcome measure were selected.
RESULTS
Our search, initially revealing 1330 articles, resulted in 16 papers about treatment of an acute mood episode, relapse prevention or both. Lithium, anticonvulsants, second generation antipsychotics, antidepressants and thyroid hormone were assessed as treatment options in the presented data. Evidence supporting the use of aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, valproate and lamotrigine for treatment of rapid cycling bipolar disorder was found.
LIMITATIONS
Small sample sizes, different index episodes and variety of outcome measures.
CONCLUSION
Evidence regarding treatment of rapid cycling remains scarce. Evidence supports the use of aripiprazole, olanzapine, and valproate for acute manic or mixed episodes, quetiapine for acute depressive episodes and aripiprazole and lamotrigine for relapse prevention. Given the paucity of available evidence, and the burden that accompanies rapid cycling, future research is warranted.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35545157
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.05.017 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Feb 2018Lamotrigine is a broad-spectrum anticonvulsant commonly used to treat seizure and bipolar mood disorders. Evidence from case series and retrospective studies indicate...
CONTEXT
Lamotrigine is a broad-spectrum anticonvulsant commonly used to treat seizure and bipolar mood disorders. Evidence from case series and retrospective studies indicate that lamotrigine overdose is usually benign. However, there are reported cases of cardiac arrest and mortality following lamotrigine overdose. We undertook a systematic review of the literature on lamotrigine overdoses to better understand the clinical severity, the relevance of serum concentrations, and therapeutic interventions for overdose.
OBJECTIVES
To characterize manifestations of acute lamotrigine overdose, determine if serum concentrations predict poisoning severity, and evaluate the effectiveness of overdose management interventions.
METHODS
We performed a literature search across eight databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, from database inception to April 2014. Major bibliographic databases were updated on 31 May 2017. Articles were eligible if they described acute or acute on chronic lamotrigine overdose. At least one serum lamotrigine concentration had to be reported for inclusion. Reports on chronic poisoning, studies describing adverse effects of therapeutic use, and animal studies were excluded.
RESULTS
We retrieved 6238 records; 48 (51 cases) met the inclusion criteria. Cases primarily involved adults (70.6%). Potentially life-threatening symptoms of overdose included seizures (55%), Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8 (20%), hypotension (12%), and wide complex tachycardia (WCT) and cardiac arrest (6%). Among the 25 cases exposed to lamotrigine alone (13 adult; 12 pediatric), 2 adult fatalities occurred (4 g and 7.5 g ingested) and 8 pediatric cases experienced seizures (all children ≤3.5-years-old, 75% without an underlying seizure disorder, ≥ 525 mg ingested). The lowest seizure-associated serum concentration was 3.8 mg/L and 25.6 mg/L for pediatric and adult patients, respectively, suggesting children may be more susceptible to CNS toxicity. Cardiovascular toxicities occurred primarily in adult patients (threshold >25 mg/L). Overdose interventions included benzodiazepines (53%), propofol or barbiturates (14%), NaHCO (20%), lipid therapy (12%), and extracorporeal elimination (10%). NaHCO yielded no response in four of nine cases with conduction delays; however, two of the four cases subsequently responded with lipid therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Most cases reporting lamotrigine exposures observed mild or no toxicity; however, large exposures were associated with severe CNS depression, seizures, cardiac conduction delays, wide complex tachycardia, and death. In adults with a serum concentration >25 mg/L, severe toxicity may occur. In patients ≤3.5 years of age, ingestions of ≥525 mg may produce severe CNS depression and seizures.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Child; Drug Overdose; Humans; Lamotrigine; Renal Dialysis
PubMed: 28862044
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2017.1370096 -
CNS Drugs Mar 2021Cannabidiol (CBD), which is one major constituent of the Cannabis sativa plant, has anti-seizure properties and does not produce euphoric or intrusive side effects. A...
BACKGROUND
Cannabidiol (CBD), which is one major constituent of the Cannabis sativa plant, has anti-seizure properties and does not produce euphoric or intrusive side effects. A plant-derived, highly purified CBD formulation with a known and constant composition has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, and tuberous sclerosis complex. In the European Union, the drug has been authorized by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, in conjunction with clobazam, and is under regulatory review for the treatment of seizures in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to summarize the currently available body of knowledge about the use of this US Food and Drug Administration/European Medicines Agency-approved oral formulation of pharmaceutical-grade CBD in patients with epileptic conditions, especially developmental and epileptic encephalopathies other than Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome.
METHODS
The relevant studies were identified through MEDLINE and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry in October 2020. There were no date limitations or language restrictions. The following types of studies were included: clinical trials, cohorts, case-control, cross-sectional, clinical series, and case reports. Participants had to meet the following criteria: any sex, any ethnicity, any age, diagnosis of epilepsy, receiving plant-derived, highly purified (> 98% w/w) CBD in a sesame oil-based oral solution for the treatment of seizures. Data extracted from selected records included efficacy, tolerability, and safety outcomes.
RESULTS
Five hundred and seventy records were identified by database and trial register searching. Fifty-seven studies were retrieved for detailed assessment, of which 42 were eventually included for the review. The participants of the studies included patients of both pediatric and adult age. Across the trials, purified CBD was administered at dosages up to 50 mg/kg/day. In a randomized double-blind controlled trial in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex, CBD was associated with a significantly greater percent reduction in seizure frequency than placebo over the treatment period. Open-label studies suggested the effectiveness of CBD in the treatment of children and adults presenting with other epilepsy syndromes than those addressed by regulatory trials, including CDKL5 deficiency disorder and Aicardi, Dup15q, and Doose syndromes, SYNGAP1 encephalopathy, and epilepsy with myoclonic absences. The most common adverse events observed during treatment with CBD included somnolence, decreased appetite, diarrhea, and increased serum aminotransferases.
CONCLUSIONS
The currently available data suggest that response to treatment with a highly purified, plant-derived CBD oil-based solution can be seen in patients across a broad range of epilepsy disorders and etiologies. The existing evidence can provide preliminary support for additional research.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Cannabidiol; Case-Control Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Double-Blind Method; Epilepsies, Myoclonic; Epilepsy; Epileptic Syndromes; Humans; Lennox Gastaut Syndrome; Seizures
PubMed: 33754312
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-021-00807-y