-
BMC Veterinary Research May 2016The safety profile of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important consideration for the regulatory bodies, owners and prescribing clinicians. Information on their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The safety profile of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important consideration for the regulatory bodies, owners and prescribing clinicians. Information on their adverse effects still remains limited. A systematic review including a meta-analytic approach was designed to evaluate existing evidence for the safety profile of AEDs in canine patients. Electronic searches of PubMed, CAB Direct and Google scholar were carried out without date or language restrictions. Conference proceedings were also searched. Peer-reviewed full-length studies reporting adverse effects of AEDs in epileptic and healthy non-epileptic dogs were included. Studies were allocated to three groups based on their design. Individual studies were evaluated based on the quality of evidence (study design, study group sizes, subject enrolment quality and overall risk of bias) and the outcome measures reported (proportion of specific adverse effects for each AED, prevalence and 95% confidence interval of the affected population in each study and comparative odds ratio of adverse effects for AEDs).
RESULTS
Ninety studies, including six conference proceedings, reporting clinical outcomes of AEDs' adverse effects were identified. Few studies were designed as blinded randomised controlled clinical trials. Many studies included low canine populations with unclear criteria of subject enrolment and short treatment periods. Direct comparisons suggested that imepitoin and levetiracetam might have a better safety profile than phenobarbital, whilst the latter might have a better safety profile than potassium bromide. However, none of these comparisons showed a statistically significant difference. Comparisons between other AEDs were not possible as a considerable amount of studies lacked power calculations or adequate data to allow further statistical analysis. Individual AED assessments indicated that levetiracetam might be one of the safest AEDs, followed by imepitoin and then phenobarbital and potassium bromide; these findings were all supported by a strong level of evidence. The safety profile in other AEDs was variable, but weak evidence was found to permit firm conclusions or to compare their safety to other AEDs.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review provides objective evaluation of the most commonly used AEDs' adverse effects. Adverse effects usually appeared mild in all AEDs and subsided once doses and/or serum levels were monitored or after the AED was withdrawn. Although phenobarbital might be less safe than imepitoin and levetiracetam, there was insufficient evidence to classify it as an AED with a high risk of major adverse effects. It is important for clinicians to evaluate both AEDs' effectiveness and safety on an individual basis before the selection of the appropriate monotherapy or adjunctive AED therapy.
Topics: Animals; Anticonvulsants; Dogs; Epilepsy; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 27206489
DOI: 10.1186/s12917-016-0703-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Globally, cannabis use is prevalent and widespread. There are currently no pharmacotherapies approved for treatment of cannabis use disorders.This is an update of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Globally, cannabis use is prevalent and widespread. There are currently no pharmacotherapies approved for treatment of cannabis use disorders.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in the Cochrane Library in Issue 12, 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapies as compared with each other, placebo or no pharmacotherapy (supportive care) for reducing symptoms of cannabis withdrawal and promoting cessation or reduction of cannabis use.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to March 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving the use of medications to treat cannabis withdrawal or to promote cessation or reduction of cannabis use, or both, in comparison with other medications, placebo or no medication (supportive care) in people diagnosed as cannabis dependent or who were likely to be dependent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 RCTs involving 1755 participants: 18 studies recruited adults (mean age 22 to 41 years); three studies targeted young people (mean age 20 years). Most (75%) participants were male. The studies were at low risk of performance, detection and selective outcome reporting bias. One study was at risk of selection bias, and three studies were at risk of attrition bias.All studies involved comparison of active medication and placebo. The medications were diverse, as were the outcomes reported, which limited the extent of analysis.Abstinence at end of treatment was no more likely with Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) preparations than with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.52; 305 participants; 3 studies; moderate-quality evidence). For selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine, there was no difference in the likelihood of abstinence at end of treatment compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence).There was qualitative evidence of reduced intensity of withdrawal symptoms with THC preparations compared to placebo. For other pharmacotherapies, this outcome was either not examined, or no significant differences was reported.Adverse effects were no more likely with THC preparations (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.17; 318 participants; 3 studies) or N-acetylcysteine (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.23; 418 participants; 2 studies) compared to placebo (moderate-quality evidence). For SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine, there was no difference in adverse effects compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence).There was no difference in the likelihood of withdrawal from treatment due to adverse effects with THC preparations, SSRIs antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence).There was no difference in the likelihood of treatment completion with THC preparations, SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants and buspirone compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence) or with N-acetylcysteine compared to placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21; 418 participants; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers appeared to reduce the likelihood of treatment completion (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92; 141 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence).Available evidence on gabapentin (anticonvulsant), oxytocin (neuropeptide) and atomoxetine was insufficient for estimates of effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is incomplete evidence for all of the pharmacotherapies investigated, and for many outcomes the quality of the evidence was low or very low. Findings indicate that SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, bupropion, buspirone and atomoxetine are probably of little value in the treatment of cannabis dependence. Given the limited evidence of efficacy, THC preparations should be considered still experimental, with some positive effects on withdrawal symptoms and craving. The evidence base for the anticonvulsant gabapentin, oxytocin, and N-acetylcysteine is weak, but these medications are also worth further investigation.
Topics: Acetylcysteine; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Buspirone; Dronabinol; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Receptor Agonists; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Young Adult
PubMed: 30687936
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008940.pub3 -
International Journal of Molecular... Mar 2018Metabolic epilepsy is a metabolic abnormality which is associated with an increased risk of epilepsy development in affected individuals. Commonly used antiepileptic... (Review)
Review
Metabolic epilepsy is a metabolic abnormality which is associated with an increased risk of epilepsy development in affected individuals. Commonly used antiepileptic drugs are typically ineffective against metabolic epilepsy as they do not address its root cause. Presently, there is no review available which summarizes all the treatment options for metabolic epilepsy. Thus, we systematically reviewed literature which reported on the treatment, therapy and management of metabolic epilepsy from four databases, namely PubMed, Springer, Scopus and ScienceDirect. After applying our inclusion and exclusion criteria as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we reviewed a total of 43 articles. Based on the reviewed articles, we summarized the methods used for the treatment, therapy and management of metabolic epilepsy. These methods were tailored to address the root causes of the metabolic disturbances rather than targeting the epilepsy phenotype alone. Diet modification and dietary supplementation, alone or in combination with antiepileptic drugs, are used in tackling the different types of metabolic epilepsy. Identification, treatment, therapy and management of the underlying metabolic derangements can improve behavior, cognitive function and reduce seizure frequency and/or severity in patients.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Brain Diseases, Metabolic; Diet Therapy; Epilepsy; Humans
PubMed: 29543761
DOI: 10.3390/ijms19030871 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Topiramate is a newer broad-spectrum of antiepileptic drug (AED). Some studies have shown the benefits of topiramate monotherapy in the treatment of juvenile myoclonic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Topiramate is a newer broad-spectrum of 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.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate monotherapy in the treatment of JME.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (2 November 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies CRSO, 2 November 2015), MEDLINE (Ovid, 2 November 2015), EMBASE (1 July 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (2 November 2015). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted 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 the 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
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: 26695884
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010008.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Focal epilepsies are caused by a malfunction of nerve cells localised in one part of one cerebral hemisphere. In studies, estimates of the number of individuals with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Focal epilepsies are caused by a malfunction of nerve cells localised in one part of one cerebral hemisphere. In studies, estimates of the number of individuals with focal epilepsy who do not become seizure-free despite optimal drug therapy vary according to the age of the participants and which focal epilepsies are included, but have been reported as at least 20% and in some studies up to 70%. If the epileptogenic zone can be located surgical resection offers the chance of a cure with a corresponding increase in quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective is to assess the overall outcome of epilepsy surgery according to evidence from randomised controlled trials.The secondary objectives are to assess the overall outcome of epilepsy surgery according to non-randomised evidence and to identify the factors that correlate to remission of seizures postoperatively.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE (Ovid) (2001 to 4 July 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for relevant trials up to 4 July 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or case series, with either a prospective and/or retrospective design, including at least 30 participants, a well-defined population (age, sex, seizure type/frequency, duration of epilepsy, aetiology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis, surgical findings), an MRI performed in at least 90% of cases and an expected duration of follow-up of at least one year, and reporting an outcome relating to postoperative seizure control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three groups of two review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed study quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. Outcomes were proportion of participants achieving a good outcome according to the presence or absence of each prognostic factor of interest. We intended to combine data with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 177 studies (16,253 participants) investigating the outcome of surgery for epilepsy. Four studies were RCTs (including one that randomised participants to surgery or medical treatment). The risk of bias in the RCTs was unclear or high, limiting our confidence in the evidence that addressed the primary review objective. Most of the remaining 173 non-randomised studies had a retrospective design; they were of variable size, were conducted in a range of countries, recruited a wide demographic range of participants, used a wide range of surgical techniques and used different scales used to measure outcomes. We performed quality assessment using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool and determined that most studies provided moderate or weak evidence. For 29 studies reporting multivariate analyses we used the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and determined that very few studies were at low risk of bias across the domains.In terms of freedom from seizures, one RCT found surgery to be superior to medical treatment, two RCTs found no statistically significant difference between anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) with or without corpus callosotomy or between 2.5 cm or 3.5 cm ATL resection, and one RCT found total hippocampectomy to be superior to partial hippocampectomy. We judged the evidence from the four RCTs to be of moderate to very low quality due to the lack of information reported about the randomised trial design and the restricted study populations.Of the 16,253 participants included in this review, 10,518 (65%) achieved a good outcome from surgery; this ranged across studies from 13.5% to 92.5%. Overall, we found the quality of data in relation to the recording of adverse events to be very poor.In total, 118 studies examined between one and eight prognostic factors in univariate analysis. We found the following prognostic factors to be associated with a better post-surgical seizure outcome: an abnormal pre-operative MRI, no use of intracranial monitoring, complete surgical resection, presence of mesial temporal sclerosis, concordance of pre-operative MRI and electroencephalography (EEG), history of febrile seizures, absence of focal cortical dysplasia/malformation of cortical development, presence of tumour, right-sided resection and presence of unilateral interictal spikes. We found no evidence that history of head injury, presence of encephalomalacia, presence of vascular malformation or presence of postoperative discharges were prognostic factors of outcome. We observed variability between studies for many of our analyses, likely due to the small study sizes with unbalanced group sizes, variation in the definition of seizure outcome, definition of the prognostic factor and the influence of the site of surgery, all of which we observed to be related to postoperative seizure outcome. Twenty-nine studies reported multivariable models of prognostic factors and the direction of association of factors with outcome was generally the same as found in the univariate analyses. However, due to the different multivariable analysis approaches and selective reporting of results, meaningful comparison of multivariate analysis with univariate meta-analysis is difficult.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The study design issues and limited information presented in the included studies mean that our results provide limited evidence to aid patient selection for surgery and prediction of likely surgical outcome. Future research should be of high quality, have a prospective design, be appropriately powered and focus on specific issues related to diagnostic tools, the site-specific surgical approach and other issues such as the extent of resection. Prognostic factors related to the outcome of surgery should be investigated via multivariable statistical regression modelling, where variables are selected for modelling according to clinical relevance and all numerical results of the prognostic models are fully reported. Protocols should include pre- and postoperative measures of speech and language function, cognition and social functioning along with a mental state assessment. Journal editors should not accept papers where adverse events from a medical intervention are not recorded. Improvements in the development of cancer care over the past three to four decades have been achieved by answering well-defined questions through the conduct of focused RCTs in a step-wise fashion. The same approach to surgery for epilepsy is required.
Topics: Analysis of Variance; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsies, Partial; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26130264
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010541.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of zonisamide for the relief of neuropathic pain has not previously been reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of zonisamide for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via CRSO), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov. and the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 1 August 2014, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing zonisamide with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles and clinical trial summaries.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We considered the evidence using three tiers. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design); second tier evidence derived from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence derived from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.We planned to calculate risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) for one additional event using standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a single study treating 25 participants (13 zonisamide, 12 placebo) with painful diabetic neuropathy over 12 weeks. No first or second tier evidence was available for any outcome. The small size of the study and potential major bias due to a high proportion of early study withdrawals with zonisamide precluded any conclusions being drawn. There were two serious adverse events (one death) in zonisamide-treated participants, which were apparently not related to treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The review found a lack of evidence suggesting that zonisamide provides pain relief in any neuropathic pain condition. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Anticonvulsants; Diabetic Neuropathies; Female; Humans; Isoxazoles; Male; Middle Aged; Neuralgia; Zonisamide
PubMed: 25879104
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011241.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017Fibromyalgia (FM) is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fibromyalgia (FM) is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Anticonvulsants (antiepileptic drugs) are drugs frequently used for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of anticonvulsants for treating FM symptoms.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2013), PsycINFO (1966 to August 2013), SCOPUS (1980 to August 2013) and the reference lists of reviewed articles for published studies and www.clinicaltrials.gov (to August 2013) for unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials of any formulation of anticonvulsants used for the treatment of people with FM of any age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed the risks of bias of the studies. We resolved discrepancies by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies: five with pregabalin and one study each with gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam. A total of 2480 people were included into anticonvulsants groups and 1099 people in placebo groups. The median therapy phase of the studies was 13 weeks. The amount and quality of evidence were insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam in FM. The amount and quality of evidence was sufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in FM. Therefore, we focused on our interpretation of the evidence for pregabalin due to our greater certainty about its effects and its greater relevance to clinical practice. All pregabalin studies had a low risk of bias. Reporting a 50% or greater reduction in pain was more frequent with pregabalin use than with a placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33 to 1.90; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12; 95% CI 9 to 21). The number of people who reported being 'much' or 'very much' improved was higher with pregabalin than with placebo (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.55; NNTB 9; 95% CI 7 to 15). Pregabalin did not substantially reduce fatigue (SMD -0.17; 95% CI -0.25 to -0.09; 2.7% absolute improvement on a 1 to 50 scale) compared with placebo. Pregabalin had a small benefit over placebo in reducing sleep problems by 6.2% fewer points on a scale of 0 to 100 (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.27). The dropout rate due to adverse events was higher with pregabalin use than with placebo use (RR 1.68; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.07; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 13; 95% CI 9 to 23). There was no significant difference in serious adverse events between pregabalin and placebo use (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49). Dizziness was reported as an adverse event more frequently with pregabalin use than with placebo use (RR 3.77; 95% CI 3.06 to 4.63; NNTH 4; 95% CI 3 to 5).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The anticonvulsant, pregabalin, demonstrated a small benefit over placebo in reducing pain and sleep problems. Pregabalin use was shown not to substantially reduce fatigue compared with placebo. Study dropout rates due to adverse events were higher with pregabalin use compared with placebo. Dizziness was a particularly frequent adverse event seen with pregabalin use. At the time of writing this review, pregabalin is the only anticonvulsant drug approved for treating FM in the US and in 25 other non-European countries. However, pregabalin has not been approved for treating FM in Europe. The amount and quality of evidence were insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam in FM.
Topics: Acetamides; Amines; Anticonvulsants; Conflict of Interest; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Fibromyalgia; Gabapentin; Humans; Lacosamide; Levetiracetam; Piracetam; Pregabalin; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 28991361
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010782.pub2 -
Epilepsia Open Apr 2024Antiseizure medications (ASMs) constitute the principal of treatment for patients with epilepsy, where long-term treatment is usually necessary. The purpose of this... (Review)
Review
Antiseizure medications (ASMs) constitute the principal of treatment for patients with epilepsy, where long-term treatment is usually necessary. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide practical and useful information regarding various aspects of the interactions between ASMs and foods and drinks. MEDLINE and ScienceDirect, from the inception to July 15, 2023, were searched for related publications. In both electronic databases, the following search strategy was applied, and the following keywords were used (in title/abstract): "food OR drink" AND "antiepileptic OR antiseizure." The primary search yielded 738 studies. After implementing our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we could identify 19 studies on the issue of interest for our endeavor. Four studies were identified in the recheck process and not by the primary search. All studies provided low level of evidence. Interactions between foods and ASMs are a common phenomenon. Many factors may play a role for such an interaction to come to play; these include drug properties, administration route, and administration schedule, among others. Drugs-foods (-drinks) interactions may change the drug exposure or plasma levels of drugs (e.g., grapefruit juice increases carbamazepine concentrations and the bioavailability of cannabidiol is increased 4-5 folds with concomitant intake of fat-rich food); this may require dosage adjustments. Interactions between ASMs and foods and drinks may be important. This should be taken seriously into consideration when consulting patients and their caregivers about ASMs. Future well-designed investigations should explore the specific interactions between foods (and drinks) and ASMs to clarify whether they are clinically important. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Interactions between antiseizure medications and foods and drinks may be important. This should be taken into consideration in patients with epilepsy.
Topics: Humans; Anticonvulsants; Biological Availability; Benzodiazepines; Food; Epilepsy
PubMed: 38345419
DOI: 10.1002/epi4.12918 -
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy Apr 2024Ganaxolone has exhibited potential in managing seizures for epilepsy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess both the safety and efficacy of Ganaxolone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Ganaxolone has exhibited potential in managing seizures for epilepsy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess both the safety and efficacy of Ganaxolone for refractory epilepsy.
METHODS
A thorough search of electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials involving patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy and CDKL5 deficiency disorder. Efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted from the selected studies. Cochrane Review Manager was utilized for data synthesis and analysis, with risk ratios and mean differences calculated to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of Ganaxolone.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included a total of five randomized controlled trials. Ganaxolone exhibited significant efficacy in reducing seizure frequency by at least 50% from baseline [RR 0.90 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.98), = 0.02]. However, the results did not reach significance for reducing 28-day seizure frequency [Mean Difference -1.45 (95% CI: -3.39, 0.49), = 0.14]. Ganaxolone exhibited a positive safety profile, with no statistically significant occurrence of adverse events [RR 1.30 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.83), = 0.12] and adverse events leading to discontinuation of the study drug [RR 1.01 (95% CI: 0.42, 2.39), = 0.99] compared to placebo.
CONCLUSION
Ganaxolone presents itself as a viable therapeutic option for refractory epilepsy, showing efficacy in reducing seizure frequency and exhibited a favorable safety profile.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42023434883.
Topics: Humans; Anticonvulsants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Pregnanolone; Epilepsy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38606458
DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2024.2342413 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Jun 2019Satoyoshi syndrome is a multisystemic rare disease of unknown etiology, although an autoimmune basis is presumed. Its main symptoms are: painful muscle spasms, diarrhea,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Satoyoshi syndrome is a multisystemic rare disease of unknown etiology, although an autoimmune basis is presumed. Its main symptoms are: painful muscle spasms, diarrhea, alopecia and skeletal abnormalities. Clinical course without treatment may result in serious disability or death. A review of treatment and its response is still pending.
RESULTS
Sixty-four cases of Satoyoshi syndrome were published between 1967 and 2018. 47 cases described the treatment administered. Drugs used can be divided into two main groups of treatment: muscle relaxants/anticonvulsants, and corticosteroids/immunosuppressants. Dantrolene improved muscle symptoms in 13 out of 15 cases, but not any other symptoms of the disease. Other muscle relaxants or anticonvulsant drugs showed little or no effect. 28 out of 30 cases responded to a regimen that included costicosteroids. Other immunosuppressive drugs including cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, methotrexate, tacrolimus and cyclophosphamide were used to decrease corticosteroid dose or improve efficacy. Immunoglobulin therapy was used in nine patients and four of them obtained a favorable response.
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroids was the most widely treatment employed with the best results in Satoyoshi syndrome. Further studies are needed to determine optimal dose and duration of corticosteroids as well as the role of other immunosuppressants and immunoglobulin therapy. Genetic or autoimmune markers will be useful to guide future therapies.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Alopecia; Animals; Anticonvulsants; Bone and Bones; Dantrolene; Diarrhea; Female; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Immunosuppressive Agents; Male; Rare Diseases; Spasm
PubMed: 31217029
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-019-1120-7