-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Baclofen shows potential for rapidly reducing symptoms of severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in people with alcoholism. Treatment with baclofen is easy to manage... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Baclofen shows potential for rapidly reducing symptoms of severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in people with alcoholism. Treatment with baclofen is easy to manage and rarely produces euphoria or other pleasant effects, or craving for the drug. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2015, Issue 4.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of baclofen for people with AWS.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to March 2017: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched registers of ongoing trials. We handsearched the references quoted in the identified trials, and sought information from researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant trial authors about unpublished or uncompleted trials. We placed no restrictions on language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating baclofen versus placebo or any other treatment for people with AWS. We excluded uncontrolled, non-randomised, or quasi-randomised trials. We included both parallel group and cross-over studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs with 141 randomised participants. We did not perform meta-analyses due to the different control interventions. For the comparison of baclofen and placebo (1 study, 31 participants), there was no significant difference in Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale, Revised (CIWA-Ar) scores (very low quality evidence). For the comparison of baclofen and diazepam (1 study, 37 participants), there was no significant difference in CIWA-Ar scores (very low quality evidence), adverse events (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.10; very low quality evidence), dropouts (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; very low quality evidence), and dropouts due to adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; very low quality evidence). For the comparison of baclofen and chlordiazepoxide (1 study, 60 participants), there was no significant difference in CIWA-Ar scores (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; very low quality evidence), global improvement (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.23; very low quality evidence), adverse events (RD 2.50, 95% CI 0.88 to 7.10; very low quality of evidence), dropouts (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; very low quality evidence), and dropouts due to adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No conclusions can be drawn about the efficacy and safety of baclofen for the management of alcohol withdrawal because we found insufficient and very low quality evidence.
Topics: Alcohol-Induced Disorders; Baclofen; Chlordiazepoxide; Diazepam; Ethanol; GABA Agonists; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 28822350
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008502.pub5 -
Sleep Science (Sao Paulo, Brazil) Sep 2023Sleep Bruxism (SB) is a common condition in childhood that can cause multiple consequences such as abnormal tooth wear, tensional headaches, masticatory muscle pain,... (Review)
Review
Sleep Bruxism (SB) is a common condition in childhood that can cause multiple consequences such as abnormal tooth wear, tensional headaches, masticatory muscle pain, or fatigue. The literature reports some interventions, however the treatment for SB in children is not well-established. A systematic review was performed to investigate the effectiveness of the treatments described for SB in children and adolescents: pharmacological and psychological treatments; behavioral guidelines; and dental approaches. Randomized clinical trials comparing different SB treatments with a control group were searched in the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and VHL until August 04, 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. After a two-phase selection process, 07 articles were selected. The methodology of the selected studies was analyzed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The criteria used to qualify the studies were based on randomization, allocation, blinding of participants and evaluators, and analysis of results. The signs and symptoms of SB were reduced with pharmacotherapy (hydroxyzine/diazepam) and medicinal extracts ( ), but with occlusal splints and physiotherapy, this improvement was not statistically significant when compared to control groups. Some evidence of the efficacy of pharmacotherapy (hydroxyzine/diazepam) and medicinal extracts ( ) was found. However, this systematic review is not enough to establish a protocol for the treatment of SB. Besides, the individualized management of SB in this population should be considered, emphasizing the management of risk factors.
PubMed: 38196770
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1772826 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015The treatment baclofen shows potential for rapidly reducing symptoms of severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in people with alcoholism. Treatment with baclofen is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The treatment baclofen shows potential for rapidly reducing symptoms of severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in people with alcoholism. Treatment with baclofen is easy to manage and rarely produces euphoria or other pleasant effects, or craving for the drug. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of baclofen for people with AWS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (searched 13 January 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), EMBASE (1980 to January 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to January 2015). We also searched registers of ongoing trials, including ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and the European Clinical Trials Database. At the same time, we handsearched the references quoted in the identified trials, and sought information from researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant trial authors about unpublished or uncompleted trials. We placed no restrictions on language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating baclofen versus placebo or any other treatment for people with AWS. We excluded uncontrolled, non-randomised, or quasi-randomised trials. We included both parallel group and cross-over studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed references retrieved for possible inclusion. Any disagreements were resolved by an independent party. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed. We collected adverse effects information from the trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Two RCTs with a total of 81 participants were eligible according to the inclusion criteria. One study suggested that both baclofen and diazepam significantly decreased the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale, Revised (CIWA-Ar) score, without any significant difference between the two interventions. The other study showed no significant difference in CIWA-Ar score between baclofen and placebo, but a significantly decreased dependence on high-dose benzodiazepines with baclofen compared to placebo. Only one study reported on the safety of baclofen, without any side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for recommending baclofen for AWS is insufficient. We therefore need more well-designed RCTs to prove its efficacy and safety.
Topics: Alcohol-Induced Disorders; Baclofen; Diazepam; Ethanol; GABA Agonists; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 25836263
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008502.pub4 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Sep 2016Rodent defense behavior assays have been widely used as preclinical models of anxiety to study possibly therapeutic anxiety-reducing interventions. However, some... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Rodent defense behavior assays have been widely used as preclinical models of anxiety to study possibly therapeutic anxiety-reducing interventions. However, some proposed anxiety-modulating factors - genes, drugs and stressors - have had discordant effects across different studies. To reconcile the effect sizes of purported anxiety factors, we conducted systematic review and meta-analyses of the literature on ten anxiety-linked interventions, as examined in the elevated plus maze, open field and light-dark box assays. Diazepam, 5-HT1A receptor gene knockout and overexpression, SERT gene knockout and overexpression, pain, restraint, social isolation, corticotropin-releasing hormone and Crhr1 were selected for review. Eight interventions had statistically significant effects on rodent anxiety, while Htr1a overexpression and Crh knockout did not. Evidence for publication bias was found in the diazepam, Htt knockout, and social isolation literatures. The Htr1a and Crhr1 results indicate a disconnect between preclinical science and clinical research. Furthermore, the meta-analytic data confirmed that genetic SERT anxiety effects were paradoxical in the context of the clinical use of SERT inhibitors to reduce anxiety.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Receptors, Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone; Social Isolation
PubMed: 27328783
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.04.011 -
Alcohol-medication interactions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jan 2022Alcohol and other xenobiotics may limit the therapeutic effects of medications. We aimed at investigating alcohol-medication interactions (AMI) after the exclusion of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Alcohol and other xenobiotics may limit the therapeutic effects of medications. We aimed at investigating alcohol-medication interactions (AMI) after the exclusion of confounding effects related to other xenobiotics. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies comparing the effects induced by alcohol versus placebo on pharmacodynamic and/or pharmacokinetic parameters of approved medications. Certainty in the evidence of AMI was assessed when at least 3 independent studies and at least 200 participants were available. We included 107 articles (3097 participants): for diazepam, cannabis, opioids, and methylphenidate, we found significant AMI and enough data to assign the certainty of evidence. Alcohol consumption significantly increases the peak plasma concentration of diazepam (low certainty; almost 290 participants), cannabis (high certainty; almost 650 participants), opioids (low certainty; 560 participants), and methylphenidate (moderate certainty; 290 participants). For most medications, we found some AMI but not enough data to assign them the certainty grades; for some medications, we found no differences between alcohol and placebo in any outcomes evaluated. Our results add further evidence for interactions between alcohol and certain medications after the exclusion of confounding effects related to other xenobiotics. Physicians should advise patients who use these specific medications to avoid alcohol consumption. Further studies with appropriate control groups, enough female participants to investigate sex differences, and elderly population are needed to expand our knowledge in this field. Short phrases suitable for indexing terms.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Methylphenidate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34826511
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.11.019 -
Phytotherapy Research : PTR May 2023Anxiety disorders are prevalent conditions in the world population, whose standard approaches include pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and combinations of these... (Review)
Review
Anxiety disorders are prevalent conditions in the world population, whose standard approaches include pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and combinations of these interventions. Different classes of psychopharmaceuticals are recommended as the first line of drugs to treat these disorders, which can have several adverse effects, treatment resistance, dependence, and drug-drug interactions making it necessary to search for new therapeutic agents. In particular, diazepam (DZP), a prototype drug from the group of benzodiazepines, has been commonly used and evaluated for its efficacy and safety in different anxiety disorders in clinical trials. DZP is also the most widely used reference standard in in vivo pharmacological assays of natural compounds. However, translating the results obtained in different rodent species and physiological anxiety tests instead of psychopathological animal models that can be of clinical application remains challenging. A systematic review of scientific articles published between 2010 and 2020 that included in vivo pre-clinical tests to define the anxiolytic, sedative and/or hypnotic effect of flower extracts is proposed. PRISMA and Rayyan were used for the selection of studies using four databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and QInsight), using the keywords: "Animals," "Anxiolytic," "Diazepam," "Elevated Plus Maze," "Flower Extracts," "Insomnia," "In vivo," "Mice," "Open Field Test," "Pre clinical" and "Sedative." The characteristics of anxiety studies in animal models, other studies related to locomotor activity, and the hypnotic effect of the extracts were compiled. Twenty-four articles were included, 21 of them performed the animal model of anxiety-like behavior of the elevated plus maze, seven the open field test, and six the light-dark box test. The locomotor activity was evaluated in 10 studies after the administration of the extracts to the animals to define their sedative effect, where only one defined that the extract (Matricaria chamomilla) had a sedative effect. The plants declared with this type of activity were Achyranthes aspera, Alcea aucheri, Brassica nigra, Cananga odorata, Carthamus tinctorius, Chrysanthemum indicum, Citrus aurantium, Couroupita guianensis, Echium amoenum, Erythrina berteroana, Gardenia jasminoides, Hibiscus tilliaceus, Lavandula officinalis, Lawsonia inermis, Matricaria chamomilla, Melia azedarach, Nerium oleander, Passiflora incarnata, Plumeria rubra, Salix aegyptiaca, Syzygium aromaticum, Tagetes erecta, Tilia americana. Although this review showed that some flower extracts have an anxiolytic effect as effective as diazepam, their therapeutic utility in anxiety disorders remains to be extensively demonstrated. Hence, more reliable and predictive behavioral tests and appropriate strategies for the experimental designs are needed to obtain more conclusive evidence with clinical significance.
Topics: Mice; Animals; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Research Design; Plant Extracts; Anxiety; Diazepam; Oils, Volatile; Maze Learning; Flowers; Behavior, Animal
PubMed: 37039741
DOI: 10.1002/ptr.7830 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Administration, Oral; Adult; Anxiety; Child; Chloral Hydrate; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Injections, Intravenous; Midazolam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Therapeutics
PubMed: 27198122
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009491.pub2 -
The Australian and New Zealand Journal... Dec 2014The relationship between benzodiazepine consumption and subsequent increases in aggressive behaviour in humans is not well understood. (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
The relationship between benzodiazepine consumption and subsequent increases in aggressive behaviour in humans is not well understood.
OBJECTIVES
The current study aimed to identify, via a systematic review, whether there is an association between benzodiazepine consumption and aggressive responding in adults.
METHOD
A systematic review was conducted and reported in line with the PRISMA statement. English articles within MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, and Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection databases were searched. Additional studies were identified by searching reference lists of reviewed articles. Only articles that explicitly investigated the relationship between benzodiazepine consumption and subsequent aggressive behaviour, or a lack thereof, in human adults were included.
RESULTS
Forty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. It was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of study design and benzodiazepine type and dose. An association between benzodiazepine use and subsequent aggressive behaviour was found in the majority of the more rigorous studies, although there is a paucity of high-quality research with clinical or forensic populations. Diazepam and alprazolam have received the most attention. Dose-related findings are inconsistent: therapeutic doses may be more likely to be associated with aggressive responding when administered as a once-off, whereas higher doses may be more risky following repeated administration. Trait levels of anxiety and hostility may indicate a vulnerability to the experience of benzodiazepine-related aggression.
CONCLUSIONS
There appears to be a moderate association between some benzodiazepines and subsequent aggressive behaviour in humans. The circumstances under which aggressive responding may be more likely to follow benzodiazepine use remain unclear, although some evidence suggests dose and/or personality factors may influence this effect.
Topics: Aggression; Anxiety Disorders; Benzodiazepines; Humans
PubMed: 25183003
DOI: 10.1177/0004867414548902 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists have been shown to have a neuroprotectant effect in reducing infarct size and improving functional outcome in animal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists have been shown to have a neuroprotectant effect in reducing infarct size and improving functional outcome in animal models of cerebral ischemia. However, the sedation effects of GABA receptor agonists have limited their wider application in acute stroke patients due to the potential risk of stupor.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of GABA receptor agonists in the treatment of acute stroke.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (February 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1949 to June 2014), EMBASE (1980 to June 2014), CINAHL (1982 to June 2014), AMED (1985 to June 2014) and 11 Chinese databases (June 2014). 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 GABA receptor agonists versus placebo for acute stroke patients (within 12 hours after stroke onset), with the outcomes of death or dependency, functional independence and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials with 3838 patients. The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, with low risk of bias. Four trials measured death and dependency at three months in chlormethiazole versus placebo without significant difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.11). One trial measured this outcome between diazepam and placebo (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07). In the subgroup analysis of total anterior circulation syndrome (TACS), a higher percentage of functional independence was found in the chlormethiazole group (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.64). The frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole were somnolence (RR 4.56, 95% CI 3.50 to 5.95) and rhinitis (RR 4.75, 95% CI 2.67 to 8.46).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review does not provide the evidence to support the use of GABA receptor agonists (chlormethiazole or diazepam) for the treatment of patients with acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Chlormethiazole appeared to be beneficial in improving functional independence in patients with TACS according to the subgroup analysis, but this result must be interpreted with great caution. More well-designed RCTs with large samples of TACS would be required for further confirmation. However, somnolence and rhinitis are frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole.
Topics: Acute Disease; Chlormethiazole; Diazepam; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; GABA Agonists; Humans; Neuroprotective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Stroke
PubMed: 25097101
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009622.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Seizures after stroke are an important clinical problem and may result in poor outcomes. The indications of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for seizure prophylaxis after... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Seizures after stroke are an important clinical problem and may result in poor outcomes. The indications of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for seizure prophylaxis after stroke remain unclear. This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of AEDs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures after stroke. For primary prevention, we aimed to assess whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of seizures in people who have a stroke but do not have a seizure. For secondary prevention, we aimed to assess whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of further seizures in people who have a stroke and at least one post-stroke seizure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 9 March 2021: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to March 08, 2021). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy and Stroke. We also checked the reference lists of articles retrieved from these searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies that recruited participants with a clinical diagnosis of stroke, either ischaemic or haemorrhagic. We excluded studies that only recruited participants with subarachnoid haemorrhage, subdural haemorrhage, extradural haemorrhage, or other non-stroke diagnoses such as tumour- or infection-related infarction or haemorrhage. We also excluded studies that recruited only participants who had undergone neurosurgery. We included participants of all ages suffering any seizure type who were assigned to AEDs or placebo groups.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
In accordance with standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration, two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion before evaluating trial risk of bias and extracting relevant data. The primary outcome assessed was the proportion of participants who experienced seizures in the follow-up period. We presented results as summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. Where we had sufficient data, we calculated random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses for dichotomous outcomes; otherwise, we reported results narratively. We used the I statistic to analyse statistical heterogeneity. We planned to use funnel plots to assess publication bias in meta-analyses with at least 10 included studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Two studies with a total of 856 subjects were included. AEDs were not shown to be effective in primary prophylaxis of post-stroke seizure (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.26; 2 studies, 856 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The first study was a randomised double-blind study comparing valproic acid with placebo for primary seizure prevention up to one year after stroke. The study included 72 adults with intracerebral haemorrhage. There was no difference in the risk of post-stroke seizures (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.16) or of death (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.58). The second study was a substudy on the use of diazepam in acute stroke. It was a randomised double-blind study, comparing a three-day diazepam treatment versus placebo for primary seizure prevention up to three months after stroke in 784 adults with acute stroke. There was no evidence of a difference in the risk of post-stroke seizures for all stroke or subgroups of haemorrhagic or ischaemic stroke (RR for all stroke 0.47, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.22). In a subgroup analysis of anterior circulation cortical infarcts, primary prophylaxis with diazepam was associated with a reduced risk of post-stroke seizures (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.95). Risks of mortality did not differ between the diazepam and the placebo group at two weeks (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.26) and three months follow-up (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26). We assessed both studies to be at a low overall risk of bias. Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the overall certainty of the evidence as low to moderate.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of AEDs on the primary and secondary prevention of seizures after stroke. Further well-conducted studies are warranted for this important clinical problem.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Brain Ischemia; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Seizures; Stroke
PubMed: 35129214
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005398.pub4