-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. The treatment is primarily based on pharmacological agents. Although primidone and propranolol are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. The treatment is primarily based on pharmacological agents. Although primidone and propranolol are well established treatments in clinical practice, they can be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients, and can produce serious adverse events in a large percentage of them. For these reasons, it may be worthwhile evaluating the treatment alternatives for ET. Zonisamide has been suggested as a potentially useful agent for the treatment of ET but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect on functional abilities and the safety profile of zonisamide in adults with essential tremor (ET).
SEARCH METHODS
We carried out a systematic search, without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to January 2017. We searched BIOSIS Citation Index (2000 to January 2017) for conference proceedings. We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of zonisamide versus placebo or any other treatment. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in patients presenting secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence.We used inverse variance methods for continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared differences between treatment groups as mean differences. We combined results for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel methods and obtained risk differences to compare treatment groups. We used Review Manager 5 software for data management and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We only considered one study eligible for this review (20 participants). Assessments of risk of bias for most domains were unclear or low. Adverse events were only reported in participants from the zonisamide group, making it possible that they were aware of treatment group assignment. We are uncertain as to the effects of zonisamide on motor tasks (mean difference (MD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.51 to 1.51, very low-quality evidence) and functional disabilities (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.63, very low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Three participants in the zonisamide group (30%) and two participants in the placebo group (20%) discontinued the treatment and withdrew from the study for any reason (very low-quality evidence), however the increased risk of withdrawal in the zonisamide group was statistically non-significant (risk difference (RD) 0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.48). Six participants in the zonisamide group (60%) and none of the participants in the placebo group (0%) developed adverse events (AEs), with a RD of 0.60 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.92; very low quality evidence). The most common AEs, experienced with zonisamide treatment, were headache, nausea, fatigue, sleepiness, and diarrhoea. Quality of life was not assessed in the study included.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on currently available data, there is insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of zonisamide treatment for ET.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Essential Tremor; Humans; Isoxazoles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zonisamide
PubMed: 28836659
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009684.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review first published in 2014 and last updated in 2020. For nearly 30% of people with epilepsy, current treatments do not... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review first published in 2014 and last updated in 2020. For nearly 30% of people with epilepsy, current treatments do not control seizures. Stiripentol is an antiepileptic drug (AED) that was developed in France and was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2007 as an adjunctive therapy with valproate and clobazam for the treatment of Dravet syndrome.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of stiripentol as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy who are taking AEDs.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE on 28 March 2022. We contacted the manufacturer of stiripentol and epilepsy experts to identify published, unpublished and ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of add-on stiripentol in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We investigated outcomes including 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, seizure freedom, adverse effects, treatment withdrawal and changes in quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
On the basis of our selection criteria, we included no new studies in the present review update. We included only one study from the original review (32 children with focal epilepsy). This study adopted a responder-enriched design and found no clear evidence of a reduction of 50% or more in seizure frequency (risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 2.82; low-certainty evidence) and no clear evidence of seizure freedom (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.43; low-certainty evidence) when comparing add-on stiripentol with placebo. Stiripentol led to a greater risk of adverse effects considered as a whole (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.08 to 6.47; low-certainty evidence). When we considered specific adverse effects, CIs were very wide and showed the possibility of substantial increases and small reductions in risks of neurological adverse effects (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.88 to 8.01; low-certainty evidence). Researchers noted no clear reduction in the risk of study withdrawal (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.47; low-certainty evidence), which was high in both groups (53.3% in placebo group and 35.3% in stiripentol group; low-certainty evidence). The external validity of this study was limited because only responders to stiripentol (i.e. participants experiencing a decrease in seizure frequency of 50% or greater during an open prerandomisation phase compared with baseline) were included in the randomised, add-on, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase. Furthermore, carry-over and withdrawal effects probably influenced outcomes related to seizure frequency. Very limited information derived from the only included study shows that adverse effects considered as a whole may occur more often with add-on stiripentol than with add-on placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have found no new studies since the last version of this review was published. Hence, we have made no changes to the conclusions as presented in previous versions. We can draw no conclusions to support the use of stiripentol as add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Additional large, randomised, well-conducted trials are needed.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Child; Dioxolanes; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epilepsies, Partial; Humans; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures
PubMed: 36066395
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009887.pub6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Essential tremor is one of the most common movement disorders. Treatment primarily consists of pharmacological agents. While primidone and propranolol are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Essential tremor is one of the most common movement disorders. Treatment primarily consists of pharmacological agents. While primidone and propranolol are well-established treatments in clinical practice, they may be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients and can produce serious adverse events in a large percentage of them. For these reasons, it is worth evaluating the treatment alternatives for essential tremor. Some specialists have suggested that pregabalin could be a potentially useful agent, but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pregabalin versus placebo or other treatment for essential tremor in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a systematic search without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials up to December 2015. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pregabalin versus placebo or any other treatments. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in patients presenting secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias of the body of evidence, and we used inverse variance methods to analyse continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared the mean difference between treatment groups, and we combined results for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel methods and risk differences We used Review Manager software for data management and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We only found one study eligible for this review (22 participants). We assessed the risk of bias for most domains as unclear. We graded the overall quality of evidence as very low. Compared to placebo, patients treated with pregabalin showed no significant improvement of motor tasks on the 36-point subscale of the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) (MD -2.15 points; 95% CI -9.16 to 4.86) or on the 32-point functional abilities subscale of the TRS (MD -0.66 points; 95% CI -2.90 to 1.58).The limited evidence showed no difference in study withdrawal (Mantel-Haenszel RD -0.09; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.30) and presentation of adverse events between pregabalin and placebo (Mantel-Haenszel RD 0.18; 95% CI -0.13 to 0.50).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effects of pregabalin for treating essential tremor are uncertain because the quality of the evidence is very low. One small study did not highlight any effect of this treatment; however, the high risk of bias and the lack of other studies on this topic limit further conclusion.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Essential Tremor; Humans; Middle Aged; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Upper Extremity
PubMed: 27763691
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009682.pub2 -
Seizure Jul 2023Catamenial epilepsy (CE) is defined as an increase in seizure frequency during specific phases of the menstrual cycle in women with epilepsy. The treatment usually... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Catamenial epilepsy (CE) is defined as an increase in seizure frequency during specific phases of the menstrual cycle in women with epilepsy. The treatment usually includes a combination of non-hormonal and hormonal therapies. This systematic review summarizes the available data on the efficacy of progesterone and its derivates to treat CE.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify studies reporting data on the use of progesterone and its derivatives (any type and dose) for the treatment of CE. The main outcome included the efficacy of progesterone and its derivatives on seizure frequency.
RESULTS
Nineteen articles (457 patients) were included; four were randomized controlled trials (two comparing progesterone vs placebo and two comparing norethisterone vs placebo). Progesterone was generally administered during the luteal phase (from day 15 to 25) or during perimenstrual exacerbations (from day 23 to 25), with an average dose of 10-30 mg/day to a maximum of 300 mg/day. The therapy, usually well tolerated, was ineffective in the randomized controlled trials; conversely, it was associated with an overall reduction in seizure frequency in case reports and uncontrolled studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Although data from uncontrolled studies suggest that hormone therapy with progesterone may be useful in the treatment of CE, its efficacy has not been demonstrated in controlled trials. The possible antiseizure effect of progesterone could be mediated by its active metabolite allopregnanolone, making the plasmatic measurement of these hormones mandatory to evaluate efficacy. Further randomized controlled trials should investigate the efficacy of progesterone and its derivatives, addressing these pharmacological issues.
Topics: Humans; Female; Progesterone; Anticonvulsants; Menstrual Cycle; Epilepsy, Reflex; Seizures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37229848
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2023.05.004 -
Neurologia May 2023No formal indication currently exists for seizure prophylaxis in neurosurgical oncology patients. Neither have specific recommendations been made on the use of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
No formal indication currently exists for seizure prophylaxis in neurosurgical oncology patients. Neither have specific recommendations been made on the use of antiepileptic drugs (AED) in seizure-free patients with meningiomas scheduled for surgery. AEDs are generally prescribed on a discretionary basis, taking into consideration a range of clinical and radiological risk factors. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the effectiveness of antiepileptic prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov databases. Of a total of 4368 studies initially identified, 12 were selected for extraction of data and qualitative analysis. Based on the clinical data presented, we were only able to include 6 studies in the meta-analysis. We performed heterogeneity studies, calculated a combined odds ratio, evaluated publication bias, and conducted a sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
AED prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures did not significantly reduce the incidence of post-operative seizures in comparison to controls (Mantel-Haenszel combined odds ratio, random effects model: 1.26 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-2.78]; 2041 patients). However, we are unable to establish a robust recommendation against this treatment due to the lack of prospective studies, the presence of selection bias in the studies reviewed, the likelihood of underestimation of seizure frequency during follow-up, and the strong influence of one study on the overall effect.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the limitations of this review, the results of the meta-analysis do not support the routine use of seizure prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures.
Topics: Humans; Meningioma; Phenytoin; Anticonvulsants; Incidence; Meningeal Neoplasms
PubMed: 35781420
DOI: 10.1016/j.nrleng.2022.03.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Catamenial epilepsy describes worsening seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Catamenial epilepsy describes worsening seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the menstrual cycle for seizures are perimenstrually (C1 pattern), at ovulation (C2 pattern), and during the luteal phase (C3 pattern). A reduction in progesterone levels premenstrually and reduced secretion during the luteal phase is implicated in catamenial C1 and C3 patterns. A reduction in progesterone has been demonstrated to reduce sensitivity to the inhibitory neurotransmitter in preclinical studies, hence increasing risk of seizures. A pre-ovulatory surge in oestrogen has been implicated in the C2 pattern of seizure exacerbation, although the exact mechanism by which this surge increases risk is uncertain. Current treatment practices include the use of pulsed hormonal (e.g. progesterone) and non-hormonal treatments (e.g. clobazam or acetazolamide) in women with regular menses, and complete cessation of menstruation using synthetic hormones (e.g. medroxyprogesterone (Depo-Provera) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (triptorelin and goserelin)) in women with irregular menses. Catamenial epilepsy and seizure exacerbation is common in women with epilepsy. Women may not receive appropriate treatment for their seizures because of uncertainty regarding which treatment works best and when in the menstrual cycle treatment should be taken, as well as the possible impact on fertility, the menstrual cycle, bone health, and cardiovascular health. This review aims to address these issues to inform clinical practice and future research.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for seizures exacerbated by the menstrual cycle in women with regular or irregular menses. We synthesised the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments in women with catamenial epilepsy of any pattern.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 20 July 2021 for the latest update: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 July 2021). CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We used no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs of blinded or open-label design that randomised participants individually (i.e. cluster-randomised trials were excluded). We included cross-over trials if each treatment period was at least 12 weeks in length and the trial had a suitable wash-out period. We included the following types of interventions: women with any pattern of catamenial epilepsy who received a hormonal or non-hormonal drug intervention in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen for a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on study design factors and participant demographics for the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were: proportion seizure-free, proportion of responders (at least 50% decrease in seizure frequency from baseline), and change in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes included: number of withdrawals, number of women experiencing adverse events of interest (seizure exacerbation, cardiac events, thromboembolic events, osteoporosis and bone health, mood disorders, sedation, menstrual cycle disorders, and fertility issues), and quality of life outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, we included eight full-text articles reporting on four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. We included two cross-over RCTs of pulsed norethisterone, and two parallel RCTs of pulsed progesterone recruiting a total of 192 women aged between 13 and 45 years with catamenial epilepsy. We found no RCTs for non-hormonal treatments of catamenial epilepsy or for women with irregular menses. Meta-analysis was not possible for the primary outcomes, therefore we undertook a narrative synthesis. For the two RCTs evaluating norethisterone versus placebo (24 participants), there were no reported treatment differences for change in seizure frequency. Outcomes for the proportion seizure-free and 50% responders were not reported. For the two RCTs evaluating progesterone versus placebo (168 participants), the studies reported conflicting results for the primary outcomes. One progesterone RCT reported no significant difference between progesterone 600 mg/day taken on day 14 to 28 and placebo with respect to 50% responders, seizure freedom rates, and change in seizure frequency for any seizure type. The other progesterone RCT reported a decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the progesterone group that was significantly higher than the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the placebo group. The results of secondary efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference between groups in the pooled progesterone RCTs in terms of treatment withdrawal for any reason (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 3.00, P = 0.18, I = 0%) or treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (pooled RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 16.17, P = 0.22, I = 0%). No treatment withdrawals were reported from the norethisterone RCTs. The RCTs reported limited information on adverse events, although one progesterone RCT reported no significant difference in the number of women experiencing adverse events (diarrhoea, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, dizziness, headache, and depression). No studies reported on quality of life. We judged the evidence for outcomes related to the included progesterone RCTs to be of low to moderate certainty due to risk of bias, and for outcomes related to the included norethisterone RCTs to be of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides very low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between norethisterone and placebo, and moderate- to low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between progesterone and placebo for catamenial epilepsy. However, as all the included studies were underpowered, important clinical effects cannot be ruled out. Our review highlights an overall deficiency in the literature base on the effectiveness of a wide range of other hormonal and non-hormonal interventions currently being used in practice, particularly for those women who do not have regular menses. Further clinical trials are needed in this area.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Menstruation; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Young Adult
PubMed: 34528245
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013225.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2014. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition characterised by recurrent seizures.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2014. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition characterised by recurrent seizures. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Sulthiame (STM) is widely used as an antiepileptic drug in Europe and Israel. In this review, we have presented a summary of evidence for the use of STM as monotherapy in epilepsy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and side effect profile of STM as monotherapy when compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug for people with epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 13 April 2020: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 10 April 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of STM and researchers in the field to ask about ongoing and unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled monotherapy trials of STM in people of any age with epilepsy of any aetiology.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: treatment withdrawal; seizure-free at six months; adverse effects; and quality of life scoring. We conducted the primary analyses by intention-to-treat where possible, and presented a narrative analysis of the data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies involving a total of 355 participants: three studies (209 participants) with a diagnosis of benign epilepsy of childhood with centrotemporal spikes (BECTS), and one study (146 participants) with a diagnosis of generalised tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). STM was given as monotherapy compared with placebo and with levetiracetam in the BECTS studies, and compared with phenytoin in the GTCS study. An English translation of the full text of one of the BECTS studies could not be found, and analysis of this study was based solely on the English translation of the abstract. For the primary outcome, the total number of dropouts caused either by seizure recurrence or adverse reaction was significantly higher in the levetiracetam treatment arm compared to the STM treatment arm (RR 0.32, 95% Cl 0.10 to 1.03; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes for this comparison, results for seizure freedom were inconclusive (RR 1.12, 95% Cl 0.88 to 1.44; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Reporting of adverse effects was incomplete. Participants receiving STM were significantly less likely to develop gingival hyperplasia than participants receiving phenytoin in the GTCS study (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.58; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence). No further statistically significant adverse events were noted when STM was compared with phenytoin or placebo. The most common adverse events were related to behavioural disturbances when STM was compared with levetiracetam (RR 0.95, 95% Cl 0.59 to 1.55; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence), with the same incidence in both groups. No data were reported for quality of life. Overall, we assessed one study at high risk of bias and one study at unclear bias across the seven domains, mainly due to lack of information regarding study design. Only one trial reported effective methods for blinding. The risk of bias assessments for the other two studies ranged from low to high. We rated the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes as low using the GRADE approach.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides insufficient information to inform clinical practice. Small sample sizes, poor methodological quality, and lack of data on important outcome measures precluded any meaningful conclusions regarding the efficacy and tolerability of sulthiame as monotherapy in epilepsy. More trials, recruiting larger populations, over longer periods, are needed to determine whether sulthiame has a clinical use.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy; Humans; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiazines
PubMed: 34554571
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010062.pub3 -
The Canadian Journal of Neurological... Nov 2015Our goal was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of intravenous lidocaine in pediatrics for status epilepticus (SE) and refractory status... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Our goal was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of intravenous lidocaine in pediatrics for status epilepticus (SE) and refractory status epilepticus (RSE) to determine its impact on seizure control.
METHODS
All articles from MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, HealthStar, Scopus, Cochrane Library, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to November 2014), and gray literature were searched. The strength of evidence was adjudicated using both the Oxford and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodologies by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Overall, 20 original studies were identified, with 19 manuscripts and one meeting abstract. Two hundred and thirty-five pediatric patients were treated for 252 episodes of SE/RSE. Patients had varying numbers of antiepileptic drugs (two to eight) on board before lidocaine therapy. During 20 of the 252 (7.9%) episodes of SE/RSE, phenytoin was on board. The dose regimen of lidocaine varied, with some using bolus dosing alone; others used a combination of bolus and infusion therapy. Overall, 60.0% of seizures responded to lidocaine, with complete cessation and greater than 50% reduction seen in 57.6% and 12.3%, respectively. Patient outcomes were sparingly reported.
CONCLUSIONS
There currently exists Oxford level 2b, Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development, and Evaluation C evidence to support the consideration of lidocaine for SE and RSE in the pediatric population. Further prospective studies of lidocaine administration in this setting are warranted.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Humans; Lidocaine; Pediatrics; Phenytoin; Prospective Studies; Seizures; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 26303341
DOI: 10.1017/cjn.2015.278 -
Seizure Sep 2015Our goal was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of intravenous lidocaine in adults for status epilepticus (SE) and refractory status epilepticus... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Our goal was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of intravenous lidocaine in adults for status epilepticus (SE) and refractory status epilepticus (RSE) to determine its impact on seizure control.
METHODS
All articles from MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, HealthStar, Scopus, Cochrane Library, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to November 2014), and gray literature were searched. The strength of evidence was adjudicated using both the Oxford and GRADE methodology by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Overall, 13 studies were identified, with 11 manuscripts and 2 meeting abstracts. Seventy-six adult patients were treated for 82 episodes of SE/RSE. Patients had varying numbers of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs), 1-12, on board prior to lidocaine therapy. During 69 of the 82 (84.1%) episodes of SE/RSE, phenytoin was on board. The dose regimen of lidocaine varied, with some utilizing bolus dosing alone; others utilizing a combination of bolus and infusion therapy. Overall, 70.7% of seizures responded to lidocaine, with complete cessation and greater than 50% reduction seen in 64.1% and 6.1% respectively. Patient outcomes were sparingly reported.
CONCLUSIONS
There currently exists level 4, GRADE C evidence to support the consideration of lidocaine for SE and RSE in the adult population. Thus there is currently weak evidence to support the use of lidocaine in this context. Further prospective studies of lidocaine administration in this setting are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Humans; Lidocaine; Seizures; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 26362376
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2015.07.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Topiramate is a newer broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug (AED). Some studies have shown the benefits of topiramate monotherapy in the treatment of juvenile myoclonic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Topiramate is a newer broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug (AED). Some studies have shown the benefits of topiramate monotherapy in the treatment of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME). However, there are no current systematic reviews to determine the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate monotherapy in people with JME. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate monotherapy in the treatment of JME.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, on 21 February 2017 we searched Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating topiramate monotherapy versus placebo or other AED treatment for people with JME, with the outcomes of proportion of responders or experiencing adverse events (AEs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality. We performed no meta-analyses due to the limited available data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies with 83 participants. For efficacy, a greater proportion of participants in the topiramate group had a 50% or more reduction in primarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) compared with participants in the placebo group. There were no significant differences between topiramate versus valproate in participants responding with a 50% or more reduction in myoclonic seizures or in PGTCS or seizure-free. Concerning tolerability, we ranked AEDs associated with topiramate as moderate-to-severe, while we ranked 59% of AEDs linked to valproate as severe complaints. Moreover, systemic toxicity scores were higher in the valproate group than the topiramate group. We judged the quality of the evidence from the studies to be very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review we found no new studies. This review does not provide sufficient evidence to support topiramate for the treatment of people with JME. Based on the current limited available data, topiramate seems to be better tolerated than valproate, but there were no more benefits of efficacy in topiramate compared with valproate. In the future, well-designed, double-blind RCTs with large samples are required to test the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in people with JME.
Topics: Adolescent; Anticonvulsants; Child; Fructose; Humans; Myoclonic Epilepsy, Juvenile; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Topiramate; Treatment Outcome; Valproic Acid; Young Adult
PubMed: 28434203
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010008.pub3