-
Psychosomatics 2016Benzodiazepine-resistant cases of alcohol withdrawal syndrome are common, and therefore alternate treatments are needed. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Benzodiazepine-resistant cases of alcohol withdrawal syndrome are common, and therefore alternate treatments are needed.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of published reports on the use of barbiturates for alcohol withdrawal syndrome.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search of PUBMED for relevant citations that described the use of barbiturates either alone or in conjunction with other pharmacological agents to treat alcohol withdrawal syndrome.
RESULTS
A total of 15 citations were identified; 2 citations looked at barbiturates alone; 1 found barbiturates effective in an emergency department setting at treating seizures and preventing return visits. A second showed that barbiturates caused a relatively low rate of respiratory depression. Further, 5 citations compared barbiturates with benzodiazepines; 1 suggested that they were better at treating severe withdrawal, and another showed they were more effective at preventing seizures; 4 citations found they were as effective as benzodiazepines, but 1 found a higher rate of respiratory depression. Also, 3 citations compared a combination of barbiturates and benzodiazepines to benzodiazepines alone; 1 showed decreased ventilation, another showed fewer intensive care unit admissions, and a third showed better symptom control; 3 citations described detailed reports of barbiturate protocols. Lastly, 2 citations compared barbiturates with other agents and found them equivalent.
CONCLUSION
Barbiturates provide effective treatment for alcohol withdrawal syndrome. In particular, they show promise for use in the emergency department and for severe withdrawal in the intensive care unit. Respiratory depression does not appear to be exceedingly common. Additional studies are needed to clarify the role of barbiturates in alcohol withdrawal syndrome.
Topics: Alcohol Withdrawal Delirium; Alcohol Withdrawal Seizures; Barbiturates; Benzodiazepines; Central Nervous System Depressants; Ethanol; Humans; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 27207572
DOI: 10.1016/j.psym.2016.02.011 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of using a sedative versus control (placebo, usual treatment or non-pharmacological treatment) for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids and determine which type of sedative is most effective and safe for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials enrolling infants with NAS born to mothers with an opioid dependence with more than 80% follow-up and using randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised allocation to sedative or control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials (581 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. There were multiple comparisons of different sedatives and regimens. There were limited data available for use in sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias. Phenobarbital versus supportive care: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with phenobarbital and supportive care versus supportive care alone (risk ratio (RR) 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 7.94; 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No infant had a clinical seizure. The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and treatment from use of phenobarbital (hospitalisation: mean difference (MD) 20.80, 95% CI 13.64 to 27.96; treatment: MD 17.90, 95% CI 11.98 to 23.82; both 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus diazepam: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus diazepam (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.62; 139 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation and treatment (hospitalisation: MD 3.89, 95% CI -1.20 to 8.98; 32 participants; treatment: MD 4.30, 95% CI -0.73 to 9.33; 31 participants; both low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92; 138 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and no infant had a seizure. The studies did not report mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation (MD 7.00, 95% CI -3.51 to 17.51; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 0/100 infants had an adverse event. Phenobarbital and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported no infants with treatment failure and no clinical seizures in either group (low-certainty evidence). The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be a reduction in days' hospitalisation for infants treated with phenobarbital and opioid (MD -43.50, 95% CI -59.18 to -27.82; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Clonidine and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with clonidine and dilute tincture of opium (DTO) versus DTO alone (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All five infants with treatment failure were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in seizures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.68; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three infants with seizures were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in mortality after discharge (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 131.28; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three deaths were in the clonidine and DTO group. The study did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be little or no difference in days' treatment (MD -4.00, 95% CI -8.33 to 0.33; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One adverse event occurred in the clonidine and DTO group. There may be little or no difference in rebound NAS after stopping treatment, although all seven cases were in the clonidine and DTO group. Clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid: there may be little or no difference in treatment failure (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.25; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported one infant in the clonidine and morphine group had a seizure, and there were no infant mortalities. The studies did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid(hospitalisation: MD 7.13, 95% CI 6.38 to 7.88; treatment: MD 7.57, 95% CI 3.97 to 11.17; both 2 studies, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 5.40; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, there was oversedation only in the phenobarbital and morphine group; and hypotension, rebound hypertension and rebound NAS only in the clonidine and morphine group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital increases duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but reduces days to regain birthweight and duration of supportive care each day compared to supportive care alone. There is low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to diazepam and very low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to chlorpromazine. There is low-certainty evidence of an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid compared to phenobarbital and opioid. There are insufficient data to determine the safety and incidence of adverse events for infants treated with combinations of opioids and sedatives including phenobarbital and clonidine.
Topics: Bias; Chlorpromazine; Clonidine; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant, Newborn; Narcotics; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Opioid-Related Disorders; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34002380
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002053.pub4 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... May 2024Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a commonly presenting condition in the emergency department (ED) and can have severe complications, including mortality.... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a commonly presenting condition in the emergency department (ED) and can have severe complications, including mortality. Benzodiazepines are first-line medications for treating AWS but may be unavailable or insufficient. This systematic review evaluates the direct evidence assessing the utility of phenobarbital for treating AWS in the ED.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted and designed according to the patient-intervention-comparator-outcome (PICO) question: (P) adults (≥18 years old) presenting to the ED with alcohol withdrawal; (I) phenobarbital (including adjunctive); (C) benzodiazepines or no intervention; and (O) AWS complications, admission to a monitored setting, control of symptoms, adverse effects, and adjunctive medications. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and conducted risk of bias assessments for included studies.
RESULTS
From 70 potentially relevant articles, seven studies met inclusion criteria: three retrospective cohort studies, two retrospective chart reviews, and two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one examining phenobarbital monotherapy and one examining adjunctive phenobarbital. Across the retrospective cohort studies, treatment of AWS with phenobarbital resulted in lower odds of a subsequent ED visit. The retrospective chart reviews indicated that phenobarbital was associated with higher discharge rate compared to benzodiazepine-only treatments. For the two RCTs, phenobarbital did not differ significantly from benzodiazepine for most outcomes, although concomitant treatment with phenobarbital was associated with lower benzodiazepine use and intensive care unit admission. The heterogeneous designs and small number of studies prevented quantitative synthesis.
CONCLUSIONS
Relatively few studies provide direct evidence on the utility of phenobarbital for AWS in the ED, but the evidence that exists generally suggests that it is a reasonable and appropriate approach. Additional RCTs and other methodologically rigorous investigations are needed for more definitive direct evidence.
Topics: Phenobarbital; Humans; Emergency Service, Hospital; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Benzodiazepines; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Male; Adult; Female
PubMed: 37589203
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14788 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jun 2023Data on the ability of anticonvulsants and lithium to enter fetal and newborn circulation has become increasingly available; here we estimated penetration ratios in a...
OBJECTIVE
Data on the ability of anticonvulsants and lithium to enter fetal and newborn circulation has become increasingly available; here we estimated penetration ratios in a series of matrices from combined samples of pregnant/breastfeeding women treated with anticonvulsants or lithium.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed/EMBASE for studies with concentrations of anticonvulsants/lithium from maternal blood, amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood and/or breast milk. Penetration ratios were calculated by dividing the concentrations in amniotic fluid, umbilical cord plasma or breast milk by the maternal concentrations. When data from multiple studies were available, we calculated combined penetration ratios, weighting studies' mean by study size.
RESULTS
Ninety-one eligible studies for brivaracetam, carbamazepine, clonazepam, ethosuximide, gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, lithium, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, phenobarbital, phenytoin, pregabalin, primidone, topiramate, valproate, vigabatrin and zonisamide were identified. For amniotic fluid, the highest penetration ratios were estimated for levetiracetam (mean 3.56, range 1.27-5.85, n = 2) and lowest for valproate (mean 0.11, range 0.02-1.02, n = 57). For umbilical cord plasma, oxcarbazepine had the highest ratio (mean 1.59, range 0.11-4.33, n = 12) with clonazepam having the lowest (mean 0.55, range 0.52-0.59, n = 2). For breast milk, the highest ratios were observed for oxcarbazepine (mean 3.75, range 0.5-7.0, n = 2), whereas the lowest were observed for valproate (mean 0.04, range 0.01-0.22, n = 121).
DISCUSSION
We observed substantial variability between anticonvulsants and lithium regarding their ability to enter fetal/newborn circulation. Assessing concentrations of anticonvulsants and lithium in maternal samples can provide a surrogate of fetal/infant exposure, although patterns of concentration-dependent effects for maternal/neonatal safety are lacking.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Amniotic Fluid; Anticonvulsants; Fetal Blood; Lithium; Maternal-Fetal Exchange; Milk, Human
PubMed: 36805301
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2023.110733 -
Neurological Sciences : Official... Sep 2022Anti-seizure drugs have long been known to affect thyroid hormone levels in epilepsy patients. The current study is a network meta-analysis designed to produce a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Anti-seizure drugs have long been known to affect thyroid hormone levels in epilepsy patients. The current study is a network meta-analysis designed to produce a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of thyroid hormone changes to inform future research and clinical treatment.
METHOD
A systematic search of databases, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, was conducted and all observational studies reporting thyroid hormone levels in epilepsy patients receiving monotherapy and controls were included. Stata MP.14 was used for analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 35 studies, including 4135 participants and 8 anti-seizure drugs, were analyzed. TSH levels were elevated following use of topiramate [mean = 1.86; 95%CI: 0.83 to 2.90], levetiracetam [mean = 1.08; 95%CI: 0.07 to 2.09], and valproic acid [mean = 1.54; 95%CI: 0.58 to 2.50]. FT4 levels may be lowered by oxcarbazepine [mean = - 6.13; 95%CI: - 8.25 to - 4.02] and T4 was lowered by carbamazepine [mean = - 1.55; 95%CI: - 2.05 to - 1.05] and phenytoin [mean = - 1.33; 95%CI: - 1.80 to - 0.85]. No significant changes were reported for FT3, although use of phenobarbital resulted in a non-significant decrease [mean = - 0.31; 95%CI: - 0.99 to 0.37]. T3 levels were lowered by carbamazepine [mean = - 0.52; 95%CI: - 0.81 to - 0.24]. Lamotrigine had no significant effect on thyroid hormone levels.
CONCLUSION
Carbamazepine and phenytoin were the drugs most strongly associated with decreases in T4 and T3 levels while topiramate had the greatest elevating effect on TSH. Oxcarbazepine may lead to decreased serum FT4 and FT3, an effect relevant to central hypothyroidism. Phenobarbital appeared to significantly lower FT3. Use of levetiracetam and valproic acid may result in subclinical hypothyroidism. The anti-seizure drug with the least disruptive effect on thyroid hormone levels was found to be lamotrigine.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Epilepsy; Humans; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxcarbazepine; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Thyroid Hormones; Thyrotropin; Topiramate; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35644830
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-022-06120-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in Issue 3, 2015.The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in Issue 3, 2015.The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five-year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre- or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 26 June 2017: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta-analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One three-armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three-armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence.Incidences of death were reported in only five trials. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no-treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability.We considered the evidence to be of low quality for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited, low-quality evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good-quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Craniotomy; Humans; Isoxazoles; Levetiracetam; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide
PubMed: 29791030
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007286.pub4 -
European Journal of Medical Genetics Jan 2020KCNQ2 related disorders comprise both benign seizure disorders and early onset epileptic encephalopathies. Especially within the latter group, patients suffer from... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
KCNQ2 related disorders comprise both benign seizure disorders and early onset epileptic encephalopathies. Especially within the latter group, patients suffer from refractory seizures to standard antiepileptic drugs and developmental delay. Besides the hope of personalized medical approaches to treat the recently unraveled large amount of genetic channelopathies, there are sparse systematic data on treatment responses in KCNQ2 related epilepsy in larger cohorts.
METHODS
We searched PubMed using the free text term search 'KCNQ2 AND Epilepsy' and identified additional records using PubMed Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Based on patients' clinical information about their therapy they were assigned to one of four groups: 'seizure freedom', 'responder', 'successful therapy', and 'unsuccessful therapy'.
RESULTS
Out of 52 studies, 217 subjects were eligible for further data analyses. 133 patients were classified as 'benign' seizure disorders whereas 84 patients were classified as 'Early Onset Epileptic Encephalopathy (EOEE)'. In the 'benign' group, 92.5% of patients became seizure free while 3.8% did not respond to treatment. In contrast 65.5% of patients in the 'EOEE' group were reported seizure free, while 14.3% showed no treatment success (p = 0.003). Spontaneous seizure remission (without medication) was 30.1% in the 'benign' group. Phenobarbital and sodium channel blockers most often lead to seizure freedom in patients with a 'benign' course. In patients with 'EOEE' seizure freedom was more likely achieved when receiving sodium channel blockers.
CONCLUSIONS
Seizures associated with mutations within the voltage gated potassium channel KCNQ2 are well controlled by medical treatment in patients with 'benign' courses and moderately well in patients with the 'EOEE' group. A significant number of patients in the 'benign' group may experience seizure freedom spontaneously. Phenobarbital might be considered in benign courses, while sodium channel blockers seem appropriate for both 'benign' and 'EOEE' patients.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Electroencephalography; Epilepsy; Genetic Testing; Humans; KCNQ2 Potassium Channel; Mutation; Seizures
PubMed: 30771507
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2019.02.001 -
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice Sep 2014Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) secondary to in-utero opioid exposure is an increasing problem. Variability in assessment and treatment of NAS has been attributed to... (Review)
Review
Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) secondary to in-utero opioid exposure is an increasing problem. Variability in assessment and treatment of NAS has been attributed to the lack of high-quality evidence to guide management of exposed neonates. This systematic review examines available evidence for NAS assessment tools, nonpharmacologic interventions, and pharmacologic management of opioid-exposed infants. There is limited data on the inter-observer reliability of NAS assessment tools due to lack of a standardized approach. In addition, most scales were developed prior to the prevalent use of prescribed prenatal concomitant medications, which can complicate NAS assessment. Nonpharmacologic interventions, particularly breastfeeding, may decrease NAS severity. Opioid medications such as morphine or methadone are recommended as first-line therapy, with phenobarbital or clonidine as second-line adjunctive therapy. Further research is needed to determine best practices for assessment, nonpharmacologic intervention, and pharmacologic management of infants with NAS in order to improve outcomes.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Buprenorphine; Clonidine; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Methadone; Narcotics; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects
PubMed: 25199822
DOI: 10.1186/1940-0640-9-19 -
Neuropediatrics Feb 2018Seizures are the most common neurological complication in neonatal intensive care units. Phenobarbital (PB) remains the first-line antiepileptic drug (AED) for neonatal... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Seizures are the most common neurological complication in neonatal intensive care units. Phenobarbital (PB) remains the first-line antiepileptic drug (AED) for neonatal seizures despite known neurotoxicity. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a newer AED not approved for neonates. Retrospective and pilot studies have investigated the use of LEV in neonatal seizures. Our objective was to compare the efficacy of LEV to PB in neonatal seizures based upon published data.
METHODS
We searched PubMed to perform a systematic review. We found no studies of LEV with comparison or control groups; therefore, we utilized data from two randomized controlled trials of PB as our comparison group.
RESULTS
Five studies of LEV met all inclusion/exclusion criteria. The pooled sample size for LEV was 102 (48 received primary LEV, 54 received secondary LEV). The pooled sample size for primary PB was 52. Complete or near-complete seizure cessation was achieved as follows: primary LEV 37/48 (77%), secondary LEV 34/54 (63%), and primary PB 24/52 (46%).
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest that LEV may be at least as or more effective for neonatal seizures as PB. Our review, though limited, is the first to examine LEV efficacy compared with PB in neonates.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Levetiracetam; Piracetam; PubMed; Seizures
PubMed: 29179233
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1608653 -
BMC Veterinary Research Mar 2018Understanding the efficacy and safety profile of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in feline epilepsy is a crucial consideration for managing this important brain disease....
BACKGROUND
Understanding the efficacy and safety profile of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in feline epilepsy is a crucial consideration for managing this important brain disease. However, there is a lack of information about the treatment of feline epilepsy and therefore a systematic review was constructed to assess current evidence for the AEDs' efficacy and tolerability in cats. The methods and materials of our former systematic reviews in canine epilepsy were mostly mirrored for the current systematic review in cats. Databases of PubMed, CAB Direct and Google scholar were searched to detect peer-reviewed studies reporting efficacy and/or adverse effects of AEDs in cats. The studies were assessed with regards to their quality of evidence, i.e. study design, study population, diagnostic criteria and overall risk of bias and the outcome measures reported, i.e. prevalence and 95% confidence interval of the successful and affected population in each study and in total.
RESULTS
Forty studies describing clinical outcomes of AEDs' efficacy and safety were included. Only two studies were classified as "blinded randomised controlled trials". The majority of the studies offered high overall risk of bias and described low feline populations with unclear diagnostic criteria and short treatment or follow-up periods. Individual AED assessments of efficacy and safety profile showed that phenobarbital might currently be considered as the first choice AED followed by levetiracetam and imepitoin. Only imepitoin's safety profile was supported by strong level of evidence. Imepitoin's efficacy as well as remaining AEDs' efficacy and safety profile were supported by weak level of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review reflects an evidence-based assessment of the published data on the AEDs' efficacy and safety for feline epilepsy. Currently, phenobarbital is likely to be the first-line for feline epileptic patients followed by levetiracetam and imepitoin. It is essential that clinicians evaluate both AEDs' effectiveness and tolerability before tailoring AED to the individual patient. Further studies in feline epilepsy treatment are by far crucial in order to establish definite guidelines for AEDs' efficacy and safety.
Topics: Animals; Anticonvulsants; Cat Diseases; Cats; Epilepsy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29499762
DOI: 10.1186/s12917-018-1386-3