-
Medicine Dec 2018In this study, we aimed to review the literature on phenytoin intoxication induced by compound phenytoin sodium, ephedrine hydrochloride and theophylline tablets...
OBJECTIVE
In this study, we aimed to review the literature on phenytoin intoxication induced by compound phenytoin sodium, ephedrine hydrochloride and theophylline tablets (CPEHTT).
METHOD
A literature search was performed in the following databases: WANFANG DATA, HowNet, National Library Reference and Consultation Alliance, Full-text Database of Foreign Medical Journals, PubMed and Ovid. The search terms were "Compound Phenytoin Sodium, ephedrine Hydrochloride and Theophylline Tablets," and "poisoning," or "toxicity," in Chinese and in English.
RESULT
Ten articles including 104 patients with CPEHTT intoxication were identified. The ages of the patients ranged from 52 to 82 years. Sixty-seven patients were male and thirty-seven patients were female (the male/female ratio, approximately 2:1). The most common clinical manifestations were dizziness (85%) and ataxia (85%), followed by limb weakness (65%), diplopia (25%), binocular horizontal nystagmus (24%), limb numbness (13%), nausea and vomiting (12%), somnolence (10%), tremor and high muscle tension (7%), lag in response (5%), dysarthria (6%), choking cough (2%), auditory hallucination and visual fantasy (1%), and involuntary movement (1%). All patients had chronic lung disease, and the most common disease was chronic bronchitis. The dosage ranged 4 to 15 tablets per day with medication duration of more than 1 year for most patients.
CONCLUSION
The CPEHTT intoxication caused by phenytoin toxicity represents a drug safety problem in China. The common clinical manifestations, serum phenytoin concentrations, and associated factors of CPEHTT intoxication are important for diagnosis and prevention. These findings may help guide clinicians to correctly attend to the use of CPEHTT and avoid its toxicity.
Topics: Bronchodilator Agents; China; Drug Combinations; Ephedrine; Humans; Phenytoin; Tablets; Theophylline
PubMed: 30572493
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013689 -
Journal of Tropical Pediatrics Jan 2021Phenobarbitone is used as a first-line drug for neonatal seizures. However, its poor short- and long-term safety profile is concerning. We aim to systematically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Phenobarbitone is used as a first-line drug for neonatal seizures. However, its poor short- and long-term safety profile is concerning. We aim to systematically synthesize the data on the efficacy and safety of phenobarbitone as a first-line agent and compare it against other anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) in neonates.
METHODS
Using keywords related to the study population (neonatal seizure) and intervention (phenobarbitone), we searched CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science until 15 December 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing phenobarbitone with any other AED as first-line therapy for seizure control in the neonates were considered eligible. The random-effect meta-analysis was done using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
We screened through 443 records and identified nine eligible studies (719 participants). Five RCTs comparing phenobarbitone with levetiracetam did not find any difference in seizure control with the first dose [risk ratio (RR) 1.43, 95% CI 0.79-2.57] or adverse effects (RR 4.66; 95% CI 0.33-65.83). Two trials comparing phenobarbitone and phenytoin also did not find any difference in seizure control with the first dose (RR 2.09; 95% CI 0.31-14.03) and other outcomes. Only one RCT compared phenobarbitone and lorazepam and found lorazepam to be more efficacious in seizure control with the first dose (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53-0.94). Three trials compared neurodevelopmental outcomes, in which levetiracetam was better in two, whereas one did not find any difference.
CONCLUSION
Phenobarbitone is at least as efficacious and safe as other drugs like phenytoin and levetiracetam. The data over the long-term neurodevelopmental outcome are lacking. The existing evidence is insufficient to recommend other drugs over phenobarbitone.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Seizures
PubMed: 33598701
DOI: 10.1093/tropej/fmab008 -
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience :... Jul 2021Status epilepticus (SE) is the second most critical neurological illness after cerebrovascular disease. Phenytoin has traditionally been considered the second-line drug... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Status epilepticus (SE) is the second most critical neurological illness after cerebrovascular disease. Phenytoin has traditionally been considered the second-line drug of first choice after failure of first-line treatment using benzodiazepines. In recent years, levetiracetam has been proposed as a potential substitute for phenytoin. To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and phenytoin in the treatment of patients with established SE, we integrated the data from 11 eligible studies and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to identify eligible articles reporting outcomes including clinical seizure cessation within 60 min, clinical recurrence rate within 24 h, good final outcome at discharge, and adverse events (AEs) of treatment with levetiracetam and phenytoin. Our study included a total of 11 trials including a total of 1933 patients. The outcomes showed that the pooled Risk Raito (RR) of clinical seizure cessation within 60 min was 1.08 (95% CI = 1.02-1.14, P = 0.01). The pooled RR of clinical recurrence rate within 24 h was 1.03 (95% CI = 0.66-1.59, P = 0.91). The pooled RR of AEs was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.57-1.21, P = 0.34). The pooled RRs of life-threatening hypotension and acute respiratory depression were 0.29 (95% CI = 0.10-0.81, P = 0.02) and 0.63 (95% CI = 0.40-0.98, P = 0.04), respectively. Levetiracetam might be more effective than phenytoin for the treatment of established SE and is associated with a lower incidence of more serious AEs. Levetiracetam can be used as an alternative to phenytoin for the treatment of benzodiazepine-refractory SE.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Humans; Levetiracetam; Phenytoin; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 34053822
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2021.05.004 -
BMC Neurology Feb 2016Neuropathic pain is one of the key features of (classical) Fabry disease (FD). No randomized clinical trials comparing effectiveness of different pain management... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neuropathic pain is one of the key features of (classical) Fabry disease (FD). No randomized clinical trials comparing effectiveness of different pain management strategies have been performed. This review aims to give an overview of existing pain management strategies.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were searched up to September 2014 for relevant articles on treatment of neuropathic pain in FD.
RESULTS
Seven-hundred-thirty-one articles were identified of which 26 were included in the analysis. Studies reported on 55 individuals in total, with group-sizes ranging from 1 to 8. Carbamazepine appeared most beneficial: complete pain relief in 5/25, partial relief in 17/25, and no benefit in 3/25 patients. Phenytoin resulted in complete relief in 1/27, partial relief in 12/27 and no benefit in 6/27 patients. In 8 patients a significant reduction in the frequency of pain attacks was described. Gabapentin caused partial relief in 6/7 and no relief in 1/7 patients. Little evidence was reported for SSNRI's or treatment combinations. Adverse-effects were reported in all treatment strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
Only for carbamazepine, phenytoin and gabapentin there is evidence of effectiveness in neuropathic pain due to FD, but comparison of effectiveness between these drugs is lacking. In routine clinical practice adverse-effects may discourage use of carbamazepine and phenytoin in favor of second-generation antiepileptic drugs, but this is currently not supported by clinical evidence. This review suffers greatly from incomplete outcome reports and a predominance of case reports, which emphasizes the need for robust clinical trials and observational cohort studies.
Topics: Amines; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Fabry Disease; Gabapentin; Humans; Neuralgia; Phenytoin; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 26911544
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-016-0549-8 -
Neurosurgical Review Oct 2021The use of prophylactic anticonvulsants among patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is controversial. We sought to assess the effectiveness of different durations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The use of prophylactic anticonvulsants among patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is controversial. We sought to assess the effectiveness of different durations of prophylactic antiepileptic drug (AED) use among SAH patients. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until March 1, 2020. Randomized controlled trials or observational studies comparing different durations or different drugs were selected. The primary outcome was poor clinical outcomes. The secondary outcome was in-hospital seizure. Bayesian network meta-analysis was also performed to indirectly compare the effectiveness of different prophylaxes. A total of 5 papers were included. Three studies with a total of 959 patients were included in the analysis of the primary outcome; the results showed that long-term exposure to prophylactic AEDs (more than 3 days) led to poor clinical outcomes (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.01-2.39; p = 0.045). Four studies with 1024 patients were included in the analysis of the secondary outcome; the results showed no association between the duration of prophylactic AED use and the occurrence of in-hospital seizures (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.18-2.15; p = 0.447). In the network meta-analysis, no significant difference was found among the four different prophylaxes. Our findings suggested that, when compared with the short-term use, the long-term use of prophylactic AEDs in SAH patients has a similar effect on in-hospital seizure prevention but is associated with poor clinical outcomes. However, these findings were based on a small number of available studies with obvious heterogeneity in study design and different prescription regimens. Further well-designed studies are warranted to elucidate these questions.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Bayes Theorem; Carbamazepine; Humans; Phenytoin; Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
PubMed: 33389342
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-020-01466-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and last updated in 2013. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and last updated in 2013. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, particularly in the developing world, phenytoin and phenobarbitone are commonly used antiepileptic drugs, primarily because they are inexpensive. The aim of this review is to summarise data from existing trials comparing phenytoin and phenobarbitone.
OBJECTIVES
To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with phenobarbitone compared with phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 21 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either phenobarbitone or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission and time to 12-month remission. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
Individual participant data were obtained for five studies, which recruited a total of 635 participants, representing 80% of 798 individuals from all seven identified eligible trials. For remission outcomes, an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.61, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.87, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.66, moderate-certainty evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for phenytoin compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between phenytoin and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 624 participants: 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06, moderate-certainty evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.19, moderate-certainty evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.15, moderate-certainty evidence).For individuals with focal onset seizures (73% of individuals contributing to analysis), numerical results were similar and conclusions the same as for analyses of all individuals and for individuals with generalised onset seizures (27% of individuals contributing to analysis), results were imprecise and no clear differences between the drugs were observed.Several confounding factors, most notably the differences in design of the trials with respect to blinding, were likely to have impacted on the results of the primary outcome 'time to treatment failure', and in turn, the treatment failure rates may have impacted on the secondary efficacy outcomes of time to first seizure and time to 12-month and six-month remission.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence from this review suggests that phenytoin may be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate-certainty evidence from this review also indicates no differences between the drugs in terms of time to seizure recurrence and seizure remission.However, the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and methodological design differences that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.
PubMed: 31425629
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002217.pub3 -
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... Aug 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002 and its subsequent update in 2010.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002 and its subsequent update in 2010.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which recurrent, unprovoked seizures are caused by abnormal electrical discharges from the brain. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly used broad spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first line treatment for partial onset seizures in the USA and Europe. Phenytoin is no longer considered a first line treatment due to concerns over adverse events associated with its use, however the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries due to it's low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials, however the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide. Therefore, differences in efficacy may be shown by synthesising the data of the individual trials.
OBJECTIVES
To review the time to withdrawal, six- and 12-month remission, and first seizure of carbamazepine compared to phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial, or secondarily generalised tonic-clonic seizures) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures, with or without other generalised seizure types.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (16 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to 16 September 2014), SCOPUS (1823 to 16 September 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 September 2014), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (18 September 2014). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, and our secondary outcomes were time to 12-month remission, time to six-month remission and time to first seizure post-randomisation. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1192 eligible individuals, from four out of 12 trials (i.e. 50% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. Methodological quality of the four studies providing IPD was generally good and we rated it at low risk of bias overall in the analyses.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to withdrawal of allocated treatment: 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.39); time to 12-month remission: 1.01 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.31); time to six-month remission: 1.11 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.37); and time to first seizure: 0.85 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.04). The results suggest no overall statistically significant difference between the drugs for these outcomes. There is some evidence of an advantage for phenytoin for individuals with generalised onset seizures for our primary outcome (time to withdrawal of allocated treatment): pooled HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.96); and a statistical interaction between treatment effect and epilepsy type (partial versus generalised) for this outcome (P = 0.02), however misclassification of seizure type for up to 48 individuals (32% of those with generalised epilepsy) may have confounded the results of this review. Despite concerns over side effects leading to the withdrawal of phenytoin as first line treatment in the USA and Europe, we found no evidence that phenytoin is more likely to be associated with serious side effects than carbamazepine; 26 individuals withdrew from 290 randomised (9%) to carbamazepine due to adverse effects compared to 12 out of 299 (4%) randomised to phenytoin from four studies conducted in the USA and Europe (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80, P = 0.014). We rated the quality of the evidence as low - moderate according to GRADE criteria, due to imprecision and potential misclassification of seizure type.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have not found evidence that a statistically significant difference exists between carbamazepine and phenytoin for the efficacy outcomes examined in this review, however, CIs are wide and the possibility of important differences existing has not been excluded. There is no evidence in this review that phenytoin is more strongly associated with serious adverse events than carbamazepine. There is some evidence that participants with generalised seizures may be less likely to withdraw early from phenytoin than carbamazepine, but misclassification of seizure type may have impacted upon the results of this review. We recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review, and do not recommend that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenytoin. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations on allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Child; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy, Generalized; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Phenytoin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 26275105
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001911.pub2 -
Epilepsy & Behavior : E&B Oct 2020The objective of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV) or phenytoin (PHT) as... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV) or phenytoin (PHT) as second-line treatment for status epilepticus (SE).
METHODS
PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were assessed for prospective randomized trials comparing LEV with PHT as second-line treatment of SE published from inception until December 18th, 2019. The primary outcome was seizure cessation. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model. Quality analysis was performed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020136417).
RESULTS
Nine studies with a total of 1732 patients were included. Overall, seizure cessation occurred in 657 of 887 (74%) of patients in the LEV group and 600 of 845 (71%) in the PHT group. Treatment success did not differ significantly between groups, and the relative risk (RR) was 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.12; I = 53%). Six of the studies were at low risk of bias, one study had some risk, and two studies had high risk.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of LEV or PHT as second-line agents after benzodiazepine (BZD) for the treatment of SE was not associated with a difference in seizure cessation. Because there are minimal differences in efficacy at this time, clinicians should consider alternative factors when deciding on an antiepileptic drug (AED).
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Benzodiazepines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Levetiracetam; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Status Epilepticus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32707535
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107286 -
Injury Mar 2016Providing current, reliable and evidence based information for clinicians and researchers in a synthesised and summarised way can be challenging particularly in the area... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Providing current, reliable and evidence based information for clinicians and researchers in a synthesised and summarised way can be challenging particularly in the area of traumatic brain injury where a vast number of reviews exists. These reviews vary in their methodological quality and are scattered across varying sources. In this paper, we present an overview of systematic reviews that evaluate the pharmacological interventions in traumatic brain injury (TBI). By doing this, we aim to evaluate the existing evidence for improved outcomes in TBI with pharmacological interventions, and to identify gaps in the literature to inform future research.
METHODS
We searched the Neurotrauma Evidence Map on systematic reviews relating to pharmacological interventions for managing TBI in acute phase. Two reviewers independently screened search results and appraised each systematic review using the validated AMSTAR tool and extracted data from the review.
RESULTS
A total of 288 systematic reviews relating to TBI were available on the Neurotrauma Evidence Map at the time of this study. We identified 19 systematic reviews on pharmacological management for acute TBI with publications dates ranging from 1998 to 2014. The studies were of varying methodological quality, with a mean AMSTAR score of 7.78 (range 2-11].
CONCLUSION
The evidence from high quality systematic reviews show that there is currently insufficient evidence for the use of magnesium, monoaminergic and dopamine agonists, progesterone, aminosteroids, excitatory amino acid inhibitors, haemostatic and antifibrinolytic drugs in TBI. Anti-convulsants are only effective in reducing early seizures with no significant difference between phenytoin and leviteracetam. There is no difference between propofol and midazolam for sedation in TBI patients and ketamine may not cause increased ICP. Overviews of systematic review provide informative and powerful summaries of evidence based research.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Biomedical Research; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Dopamine Agonists; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Progesterone
PubMed: 26589595
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.10.011