-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder with repetitive mania/hypomania as well as depressive episodes, which eventually results in marked impairment in overall... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder with repetitive mania/hypomania as well as depressive episodes, which eventually results in marked impairment in overall functioning and health-related quality of life. A worldwide prevalence rate of 2.4% has been reported. The risk of suicide is higher in people with bipolar disorder than those with other mental disorders. Therefore, effective management of bipolar disorder in the maintenance period is warranted to minimize the risk of relapse or recurrence. Although lithium has been the standard treatment of bipolar disorder for many years, it is associated with adverse effects and teratogenicity. Lamotrigine is approved to be expected for prevention of recurrence for the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. In addition, lamotrigine is as effective as lithium. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to confirm the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialized Register (CCMDCTR) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to 21 May 2021. We also searched international trial registries and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with bipolar disorder who were treated with lamotrigine, placebo or lithium.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviews authors independently checked the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a standardized form. Data extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcome measures in the term of efficacy and tolerability. Study information were then entered into RevMan web.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies with a total of 2314 participants in this review; 1146 were randomized to lamotrigine, 869 were randomized to placebo and, 299 to lithium. We rated all studies as having an unclear risk of bias in at least one domain of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias, with the most commonly observed weakness being selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment). We judged five studies to be at a high risk of detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment). These potential biases pose as major threat to the validity of the included studies in this review. Outcomes of efficacy showed a possible advantage of lamotrigine over placebo. The estimated risk ratio (RR) for recurrence of manic symptom at one year as measured by the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) was 0.67, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.87; 3 studies, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence) in favor of lamotrigine. The RR of clinical worsening with the need for additional psychotropic treatment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98; 4 studies, 756 participants) based on moderate-certainty evidence. The possible benefits of lamotrigine were also seen for the outcome of treatment withdrawal due to any reason at 6-12 months after treatment (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; 4 studies, 700 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding tolerability, our analyses showed that the incidence rates of adverse effects were similar between the lamotrigine group and the placebo group (short-term effect: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.42; 5 studies, 1138 participants; very low-certainty evidence; long-term effect: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; 4 studies, 756 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the comparison between lamotrigine and lithium, efficacy was similar between groups except for recurrence of mania episode at one year. Recurrence of manic symptoms was higher in the lamotrigine group than that of the lithium group (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.44; 3 studies, 602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Analysis of adverse effects at 6-12 months showed that a lower proportion of participants experienced at least one adverse effect when treated with lamotrigine compared to lithium (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; 4 studies, 691 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- to moderate-certainty evidence collectively suggests that lamotrigine may be superior to placebo as a treatment modality for bipolar disorder. In comparison to lithium, people with bipolar disorder seem to tolerate lamotrigine better in the long run; however, the demonstrated efficacy in the maintenance of bipolar disorder was similar between the two groups.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lamotrigine; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34523118
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013575.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Prolonged treatment with benzodiazepines is common practice despite clinical recommendations of short-term use. Benzodiazepines are used by approximately 4% of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prolonged treatment with benzodiazepines is common practice despite clinical recommendations of short-term use. Benzodiazepines are used by approximately 4% of the general population, with increased prevalence in psychiatric populations and the elderly. After long-term use it is often difficult to discontinue benzodiazepines due to psychological and physiological dependence. This review investigated if pharmacological interventions can facilitate benzodiazepine tapering.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions to facilitate discontinuation of chronic benzodiazepine use.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases up to October 2017: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Specialised Register of Trials, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and ISI Web of Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP, and ISRCTN registry, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment versus placebo or no intervention or versus another pharmacological intervention in adults who had been treated with benzodiazepines for at least two months and/or fulfilled criteria for benzodiazepine dependence (any criteria).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 38 trials (involving 2543 participants), but we could only extract data from 35 trials with 2295 participants. Many different interventions were studied, and no single intervention was assessed in more than four trials. We extracted data on 18 different comparisons. The risk of bias was high in all trials but one. Trial Sequential Analysis showed imprecision for all comparisons.For benzodiazepine discontinuation, we found a potential benefit of valproate at end of intervention (1 study, 27 participants; risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 6.03; very low-quality evidence) and of tricyclic antidepressants at longest follow-up (1 study, 47 participants; RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.82; low-quality evidence).We found potentially positive effects on benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms of pregabalin (1 study, 106 participants; mean difference (MD) -3.10 points, 95% CI -3.51 to -2.69; very low-quality evidence), captodiame (1 study, 81 participants; MD -1.00 points, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.87; very low-quality evidence), paroxetine (2 studies, 99 participants; MD -3.57 points, 95% CI -5.34 to -1.80; very low-quality evidence), tricyclic antidepressants (1 study, 38 participants; MD -19.78 points, 95% CI -20.25 to -19.31; very low-quality evidence), and flumazenil (3 studies, 58 participants; standardised mean difference -0.95, 95% CI -1.71 to -0.19; very low-quality evidence) at end of intervention. However, the positive effect of paroxetine on benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms did not persist until longest follow-up (1 study, 54 participants; MD -0.13 points, 95% CI -4.03 to 3.77; very low-quality evidence).The following pharmacological interventions reduced symptoms of anxiety at end of intervention: carbamazepine (1 study, 36 participants; MD -6.00 points, 95% CI -9.58 to -2.42; very low-quality evidence), pregabalin (1 study, 106 participants; MD -4.80 points, 95% CI -5.28 to -4.32; very low-quality evidence), captodiame (1 study, 81 participants; MD -5.70 points, 95% CI -6.05 to -5.35; very low-quality evidence), paroxetine (2 studies, 99 participants; MD -6.75 points, 95% CI -9.64 to -3.86; very low-quality evidence), and flumazenil (1 study, 18 participants; MD -1.30 points, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.32; very low-quality evidence).Two pharmacological treatments seemed to reduce the proportion of participants that relapsed to benzodiazepine use: valproate (1 study, 27 participants; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90; very low-quality evidence) and cyamemazine (1 study, 124 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78; very low-quality evidence). Alpidem decreased the proportion of participants with benzodiazepine discontinuation (1 study, 25 participants; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 2.3 participants; low-quality evidence) and increased the occurrence of withdrawal syndrome (1 study, 145 participants; RR 4.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 21.14; NNTH 5.9 participants; low-quality evidence). Likewise, magnesium aspartate decreased the proportion of participants discontinuing benzodiazepines (1 study, 144 participants; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; NNTH 5.8; very low-quality evidence).Generally, adverse events were insufficiently reported. Specifically, one of the flumazenil trials was discontinued due to severe panic reactions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given the low or very low quality of the evidence for the reported outcomes, and the small number of trials identified with a limited number of participants for each comparison, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding pharmacological interventions to facilitate benzodiazepine discontinuation in chronic benzodiazepine users. Due to poor reporting, adverse events could not be reliably assessed across trials. More randomised controlled trials are required with less risk of systematic errors ('bias') and of random errors ('play of chance') and better and full reporting of patient-centred and long-term clinical outcomes. Such trials ought to be conducted independently of industry involvement.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Aspartic Acid; Benzodiazepines; Buspirone; Carbamazepine; Ethylamines; Flumazenil; Homeopathy; Humans; Imidazoles; Lithium Compounds; Melatonin; Paroxetine; Pregabalin; Progesterone; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Sulfides; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 29543325
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011481.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Tonic-clonic convulsions and convulsive status epilepticus (currently defined as a tonic-clonic convulsion lasting at least 30 minutes) are medical emergencies and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tonic-clonic convulsions and convulsive status epilepticus (currently defined as a tonic-clonic convulsion lasting at least 30 minutes) are medical emergencies and require urgent and appropriate anticonvulsant treatment. International consensus is that an anticonvulsant drug should be administered for any tonic-clonic convulsion that has been continuing for at least five minutes. Benzodiazepines (diazepam, lorazepam, midazolam) are traditionally regarded as first-line drugs and phenobarbital, phenytoin and paraldehyde as second-line drugs. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and updated in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anticonvulsant drugs used to treat any acute tonic-clonic convulsion of any duration, including established convulsive (tonic-clonic) status epilepticus in children who present to a hospital or emergency medical department.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (23 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 23 May 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 23 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (23 May 2017), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 23 May 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing any anticonvulsant drugs used for the treatment of an acute tonic-clonic convulsion including convulsive status epilepticus in children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes 18 randomised trials involving 2199 participants, and a range of drug treatment options, doses and routes of administration (rectal, buccal, nasal, intramuscular and intravenous). The studies vary by design, setting and population, both in terms of their ages and also in their clinical situation. We have made many comparisons of drugs and of routes of administration of drugs in this review; our key findings are as follows:(1) This review provides only low- to very low-quality evidence comparing buccal midazolam with rectal diazepam for the treatment of acute tonic-clonic convulsions (risk ratio (RR) for seizure cessation 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.38; 4 trials; 690 children). However, there is uncertainty about the effect and therefore insufficient evidence to support its use. There were no included studies which compare intranasal and buccal midazolam.(2) Buccal and intranasal anticonvulsants were shown to lead to similar rates of seizure cessation as intravenous anticonvulsants, e.g. intranasal lorazepam appears to be as effective as intravenous lorazepam (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 1 trial; 141 children; high-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam was equivalent to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; 2 trials; 122 children; moderate-quality evidence).(3) Intramuscular midazolam also showed a similar rate of seizure cessation to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09; 2 trials; 105 children; low-quality evidence).(4) For intravenous routes of administration, lorazepam appears to be as effective as diazepam in stopping acute tonic clonic convulsions: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 3 trials; 414 children; low-quality evidence. Furthermore, we found no statistically significant or clinically important differences between intravenous midazolam and diazepam (RR for seizure cessation 1.08, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate-quality evidence) or intravenous midazolam and lorazepam (RR for seizure cessation 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate-quality evidence). In general, intravenously-administered anticonvulsants led to more rapid seizure cessation but this was usually compromised by the time taken to establish intravenous access.(5) There is limited evidence from a single trial to suggest that intranasal lorazepam may be more effective than intramuscular paraldehyde in stopping acute tonic-clonic convulsions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.52; 160 children; moderate-quality evidence).(6) Adverse side effects were observed and reported very infrequently in the included studies. Respiratory depression was the most common and most clinically relevant side effect and, where reported, the frequency of this adverse event was observed in 0% to up to 18% of children. None of the studies individually demonstrated any difference in the rates of respiratory depression between the different anticonvulsants or their different routes of administration; but when pooled, three studies (439 children) provided moderate-quality evidence that lorazepam was significantly associated with fewer occurrences of respiratory depression than diazepam (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93).Much of the evidence provided in this review is of mostly moderate to high quality. However, the quality of the evidence provided for some important outcomes is low to very low, particularly for comparisons of non-intravenous routes of drug administration. Low- to very low-quality evidence was provided where limited data and imprecise results were available for analysis, methodological inadequacies were present in some studies which may have introduced bias into the results, study settings were not applicable to wider clinical practice, and where inconsistency was present in some pooled analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have not identified any new high-quality evidence on the efficacy or safety of an anticonvulsant in stopping an acute tonic-clonic convulsion that would inform clinical practice. There appears to be a very low risk of adverse events, specifically respiratory depression. Intravenous lorazepam and diazepam appear to be associated with similar rates of seizure cessation and respiratory depression. Although intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam lead to more rapid seizure cessation, the time taken to obtain intravenous access may undermine this effect. In the absence of intravenous access, buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam are therefore acceptable first-line anticonvulsants for the treatment of an acute tonic-clonic convulsion that has lasted at least five minutes. There is no evidence provided by this review to support the use of intranasal midazolam or lorazepam as alternatives to buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Administration, Rectal; Anticonvulsants; Child; Diazepam; Epilepsy, Tonic-Clonic; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Injections, Intravenous; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 29320603
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001905.pub3 -
Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements... 2023Episodic ataxia (EA), characterized by recurrent attacks of cerebellar dysfunction, is the manifestation of a group of rare autosomal dominant inherited disorders. EA1... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Episodic ataxia (EA), characterized by recurrent attacks of cerebellar dysfunction, is the manifestation of a group of rare autosomal dominant inherited disorders. EA1 and EA2 are most frequently encountered, caused by mutations in and . EA3-8 are reported in rare families. Advances in genetic testing have broadened the and phenotypes, and detected EA as an unusual presentation of several other genetic disorders. Additionally, there are various secondary causes of EA and mimicking disorders. Together, these can pose diagnostic challenges for neurologists.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed in October 2022 for 'episodic ataxia' and 'paroxysmal ataxia', restricted to publications in the last 10 years to focus on recent clinical advances. Clinical, genetic, and treatment characteristics were summarized.
RESULTS
EA1 and EA2 phenotypes have further broadened. In particular, EA2 may be accompanied by other paroxysmal disorders of childhood with chronic neuropsychiatric features. New treatments for EA2 include dalfampridine and fampridine, in addition to 4-aminopyridine and acetazolamide. There are recent proposals for EA9-10. EA may also be caused by gene mutations associated with chronic ataxias (), epilepsy syndromes (), GLUT-1, mitochondrial disorders (), metabolic disorders (Maple syrup urine disease, Hartnup disease, type I citrullinemia, thiamine and biotin metabolism defects), and others. Secondary causes of EA are more commonly encountered than primary EA (vascular, inflammatory, toxic-metabolic). EA can be misdiagnosed as migraine, peripheral vestibular disorders, anxiety, and functional symptoms. Primary and secondary EA are frequently treatable which should prompt a search for the cause.
DISCUSSION
EA may be overlooked or misdiagnosed for a variety of reasons, including phenotype-genotype variability and clinical overlap between primary and secondary causes. EA is highly treatable, so it is important to consider in the differential diagnosis of paroxysmal disorders. Classical EA1 and EA2 phenotypes prompt single gene test and treatment pathways. For atypical phenotypes, next generation genetic testing can aid diagnosis and guide treatment. Updated classification systems for EA are discussed which may assist diagnosis and management.
Topics: Humans; Ataxia; Cerebellar Ataxia; Acetazolamide; Mutation
PubMed: 37008993
DOI: 10.5334/tohm.747 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Jan 2022Uncertainty remains regarding the relative efficacy of maintenance pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder (BD), and available data require updating. The present systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Uncertainty remains regarding the relative efficacy of maintenance pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder (BD), and available data require updating. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to consolidate the evidence from the highest quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to July 2021, overcoming the limitations of earlier reviews. The PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for double-blind RCTs involving lithium, mood stabilizing anticonvulsants (MSAs), antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other treatments. Rates of new mood episodes with test vs. reference treatments (placebo or alternative active agent) were compared by random-effects meta-analysis. Polarity index was calculated for each treatment type. Eligible trials involved ≥6 months of maintenance follow up. Of 2,158 identified reports, 22 met study eligibility criteria, and involved 7,773 subjects stabilized for 1-12 weeks and followed-up for 24-104 weeks. Psychotropic monotherapy overall (including lithium, MSAs, and second generation antipsychotics (SGA) was more effective in preventing new BD episodes than placebo (odds ratio, OR=0.42; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.34-0.51, p<0.00001). Significantly lower risk of new BD episodes was observed with the following individual drugs: aripiprazole, asenapine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone long-acting (ORs varied 0.19-0.46). Adding aripiprazole, divalproex, quetiapine, or olanzapine/risperidone to lithium or an MSA was more effective compared with lithium or MSA monotherapy (OR=0.37; 95%CI 0.25-0.55, p<0.00001). Active treatment favored prevention of mania over depression. The key limitations were "responder-enriched" design in most trials and high outcomes heterogeneity. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020162663.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lithium; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone
PubMed: 34489127
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.08.264 -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Apr 2023This systematic review focuses on chronic migraine patients with medication overuse headache using, respectively, topiramate, botulinum toxin type A, and human... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Randomized controlled studies evaluating Topiramate, Botulinum toxin type A, and mABs targeting CGRP in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review focuses on chronic migraine patients with medication overuse headache using, respectively, topiramate, botulinum toxin type A, and human monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science until May 2022. We included randomized controlled trials reporting the outcomes of change in monthly headache/migraine days, ≥50% response rates and change in medication overuse status. Studies were excluded if response rates were not reported. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. The quality of evidence for outcomes across included studies was evaluated according to the five factors outlined in Cochrane GRADE approach.
FINDINGS
The initial search resulted in 1599 records. Following screening, 10 studies met our inclusion criteria, while seven studies with sufficient data were included in the meta-analysis. Studies assessing Botulinum toxin type A included 1139 patients and showed a mean reduction in headache frequency by 1.92 days per month compared to placebo (-1.92; 95% CI -2.68 to -1.16). Studies assessing human monoclonal antibodies included 1982 patients, and showed significant positive effect compared to placebo for all measured outcomes. The overall odds ratio for the ≥50% response rate was 2.90 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.78). No significant difference was observed in the frequency of adverse effect for both Botulinum toxin type A and low dose of human monoclonal antibodies compared to placebo. There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the impact of topiramate in chronic migraine patients with medication overuse headache.
INTERPRETATION
Botulinum toxin type A and human monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor were beneficial in reducing monthly migraine days and ≥50% response rate, but uncertainties remained for Botulinum toxin type A regarding response rate. The effect size for human monoclonal antibodies was greater with relatively lower drop-out rate. High-quality randomized trials are required to evaluate the effect of topiramate in chronic migraine patients with medication overuse headache.
Topics: Humans; Topiramate; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide; Migraine Disorders; Headache; Headache Disorders, Secondary; Antibodies, Monoclonal
PubMed: 36856015
DOI: 10.1177/03331024231156922 -
Journal of Neurology Oct 2023To compare the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs), both as monotherapies and adjunctive therapies, for idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs), both as monotherapies and adjunctive therapies, for idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs) and related entities.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant randomized controlled trials from December 2022 to February 2023. Studies on the efficacy and safety of ASM monotherapies or adjunctive therapies for IGEs and related entities-including juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, childhood absence epilepsy (CAE), juvenile absence epilepsy, or generalized tonic-clonic seizures alone (GTCA)-were included. Efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients remaining seizure free for 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; safety outcomes were the proportions of any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Network meta-analyses were performed in a random-effects model to obtain odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Rankings of ASMs were based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). This study is registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42022372358).
RESULTS
Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials containing 4282 patients were included. As monotherapies, all ASMs were more effective than placebo, and valproate and ethosuximide were significantly better than lamotrigine. According to the SUCRA for efficacy, ethosuximide ranked first for CAE, whereas valproate ranked first for other types of IGEs. As adjunctive therapies, topiramate ranked best for GTCA as well as overall for IGEs, while levetiracetam ranked best for myoclonic seizures. For safety, perampanel ranked best (measured by any TEAE).
CONCLUSIONS
All of the studied ASMs were more effective than placebo. Valproate monotherapy ranked best overall for IGEs, whereas ethosuximide ranked best for CAE. Adjunctive topiramate and levetiracetam were most effective for GTCA and myoclonic seizures, respectively. Furthermore, perampanel had the best tolerability.
Topics: Humans; Child; Valproic Acid; Topiramate; Network Meta-Analysis; Levetiracetam; Ethosuximide; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy, Generalized; Seizures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37378757
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-023-11834-8 -
CNS Drugs Mar 2021Cannabidiol (CBD), which is one major constituent of the Cannabis sativa plant, has anti-seizure properties and does not produce euphoric or intrusive side effects. A...
BACKGROUND
Cannabidiol (CBD), which is one major constituent of the Cannabis sativa plant, has anti-seizure properties and does not produce euphoric or intrusive side effects. A plant-derived, highly purified CBD formulation with a known and constant composition has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, and tuberous sclerosis complex. In the European Union, the drug has been authorized by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, in conjunction with clobazam, and is under regulatory review for the treatment of seizures in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to summarize the currently available body of knowledge about the use of this US Food and Drug Administration/European Medicines Agency-approved oral formulation of pharmaceutical-grade CBD in patients with epileptic conditions, especially developmental and epileptic encephalopathies other than Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome.
METHODS
The relevant studies were identified through MEDLINE and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry in October 2020. There were no date limitations or language restrictions. The following types of studies were included: clinical trials, cohorts, case-control, cross-sectional, clinical series, and case reports. Participants had to meet the following criteria: any sex, any ethnicity, any age, diagnosis of epilepsy, receiving plant-derived, highly purified (> 98% w/w) CBD in a sesame oil-based oral solution for the treatment of seizures. Data extracted from selected records included efficacy, tolerability, and safety outcomes.
RESULTS
Five hundred and seventy records were identified by database and trial register searching. Fifty-seven studies were retrieved for detailed assessment, of which 42 were eventually included for the review. The participants of the studies included patients of both pediatric and adult age. Across the trials, purified CBD was administered at dosages up to 50 mg/kg/day. In a randomized double-blind controlled trial in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex, CBD was associated with a significantly greater percent reduction in seizure frequency than placebo over the treatment period. Open-label studies suggested the effectiveness of CBD in the treatment of children and adults presenting with other epilepsy syndromes than those addressed by regulatory trials, including CDKL5 deficiency disorder and Aicardi, Dup15q, and Doose syndromes, SYNGAP1 encephalopathy, and epilepsy with myoclonic absences. The most common adverse events observed during treatment with CBD included somnolence, decreased appetite, diarrhea, and increased serum aminotransferases.
CONCLUSIONS
The currently available data suggest that response to treatment with a highly purified, plant-derived CBD oil-based solution can be seen in patients across a broad range of epilepsy disorders and etiologies. The existing evidence can provide preliminary support for additional research.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Cannabidiol; Case-Control Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Double-Blind Method; Epilepsies, Myoclonic; Epilepsy; Epileptic Syndromes; Humans; Lennox Gastaut Syndrome; Seizures
PubMed: 33754312
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-021-00807-y -
Dental and Medical Problems 2020Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is idiopathic chronic oral pain, associated with depression, anxiety and pain symptoms. The BMS symptoms include a burning sensation in the...
Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is idiopathic chronic oral pain, associated with depression, anxiety and pain symptoms. The BMS symptoms include a burning sensation in the tongue and/or other oral mucosa with no underlying medical or dental reasons. As many BMS patients suffer from psychiatric comorbidities, several psychotropic drugs are included in the management of BMS, reducing the complaint, while managing anxiety, depression and pain disorders. In this review, a search of the published literature regarding the management of BMS was conducted. We discuss the BMS etiology, clinically associated symptoms and available treatment options. The current evidence supports some BMS interventions, including alpha-lipoic acid (ALA), clonazepam, capsaicin, and low-level laser therapy (LLLT); however, there is a lack of robust scientific evidence, and large-scale clinical trials with long follow-up periods are needed to establish the role of these BMS management options. This knowledge could raise the awareness of dentists, psychiatrists and general practitioners about these challenges and the available kinds of treatment to improve multidisciplinary management for better health outcomes.
Topics: Burning Mouth Syndrome; Capsaicin; Clonazepam; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Pain
PubMed: 33113291
DOI: 10.17219/dmp/120991 -
BMC Medicine May 2017Pregnant women with epilepsy frequently experience seizures related to pregnancy complications and are often prescribed anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) to manage their... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pregnant women with epilepsy frequently experience seizures related to pregnancy complications and are often prescribed anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) to manage their symptoms. However, less is known about the comparative safety of AED exposure in utero. We aimed to compare the risk of congenital malformations (CMs) and prenatal outcomes of AEDs in infants/children who were exposed to AEDs in utero through a systematic review and Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to December 15, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text papers for experimental and observational studies comparing mono- or poly-therapy AEDs versus control (no AED exposure) or other AEDs, then abstracted data and appraised the risk of bias. The primary outcome was incidence of major CMs, overall and by specific type (cardiac malformations, hypospadias, cleft lip and/or palate, club foot, inguinal hernia, and undescended testes).
RESULTS
After screening 5305 titles and abstracts, 642 potentially relevant full-text articles, and 17 studies from scanning reference lists, 96 studies were eligible (n = 58,461 patients). Across all major CMs, many AEDs were associated with higher risk compared to control. For major CMs, ethosuximide (OR, 3.04; 95% CrI, 1.23-7.07), valproate (OR, 2.93; 95% CrI, 2.36-3.69), topiramate (OR, 1.90; 95% CrI, 1.17-2.97), phenobarbital (OR, 1.83; 95% CrI, 1.35-2.47), phenytoin (OR, 1.67; 95% CrI, 1.30-2.17), carbamazepine (OR, 1.37; 95% CrI, 1.10-1.71), and 11 polytherapies were significantly more harmful than control, but lamotrigine (OR, 0.96; 95% CrI, 0.72-1.25) and levetiracetam (OR, 0.72; 95% CrI, 0.43-1.16) were not.
CONCLUSION
The newer generation AEDs, lamotrigine and levetiracetam, were not associated with significant increased risks of CMs compared to control, and were significantly less likely to be associated with children experiencing cardiac malformations than control. However, this does not mean that these agents are not harmful to infants/children exposed in utero. Counselling is advised concerning teratogenic risks when the prescription is written for a woman of childbearing age and before women continue with these agents when considering pregnancy, such as switching from polytherapy to monotherapy with evidence of lower risk and avoiding AEDs, such as valproate, that are consistently associated with CMs. These decisions must be balanced against the need for seizure control.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42014008925.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Bayes Theorem; Child; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Infant; Network Meta-Analysis; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 28472982
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0845-1