-
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Any type of seizure can be observed in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Antiepileptic drugs seem to prevent the recurrence of epileptic seizures in most people with AD. There...
BACKGROUND
Any type of seizure can be observed in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Antiepileptic drugs seem to prevent the recurrence of epileptic seizures in most people with AD. There are pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for epilepsy in people with AD. There are no current systematic reviews to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of these treatments; this review aims to review those different modalities. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 11, 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of epilepsy in people with AD (including sporadic AD and dominantly inherited AD).
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, on 10 July 2018 we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946- ), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials investigating treatment for epilepsy in people with AD, with the outcomes of proportion of participants with seizure freedom or proportion of participants experiencing adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality. We performed no meta-analyses due to the limited available data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one randomized controlled trial on pharmacological interventions with 95 participants. No studies were found for non-pharmacological interventions. Concerning the proportion of participants with seizure freedom, no significant differences were found for the comparisons of levetiracetam (LEV) versus lamotrigine (LTG) (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.71), LEV versus phenobarbital (PB) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.19), or LTG versus PB (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.02). It seemed that LEV could improve cognition and LTG could relieve depression, while PB and LTG could worsen cognition, and LEV and PB could worsen mood. Unclear risk of bias was found in allocation, blinding and selective reporting. We judged the quality of the evidence to be very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review does not provide sufficient evidence to support LEV, PB or LTG for the treatment of epilepsy in people with AD. Regarding efficacy and tolerability, no significant differences were found between LEV, PB and LTG. Large randomized controlled trials with a double-blind, parallel-group design are required to determine the efficacy and tolerability of treatment for epilepsy in people with AD.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Anticonvulsants; Cognition; Depression; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Male; Phenobarbital; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 30570742
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011922.pub3 -
JAMA Pediatrics Mar 2019Incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome is rising rapidly, and optimal pharmacotherapy may meaningfully reduce length of treatment.
IMPORTANCE
Incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome is rising rapidly, and optimal pharmacotherapy may meaningfully reduce length of treatment.
OBJECTIVE
To compare pharmacological therapies for neonatal abstinence syndrome.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of Medline (1946-June 2018), Embase (1974-June 2018), Cochrane CENTRAL (1966-June 2018), Web of Science (1900-June 2018), and ClinicalTrials.gov (June 2018).
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neonatal abstinence syndrome alone or in combination with adjuvant treatments. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction was conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and data were pooled with fixed-effect models as a result of the low number of trials that were included in the analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the length of treatment. The length of stay, need for adjuvant therapy, and adverse events were considered as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Eighteen trials (N = 1072) were eligible for inclusion. The treatments that were included in the length of treatment analysis were buprenorphine, clonidine, diluted tincture of opium and clonidine, diluted tincture of opium, morphine, methadone, and phenobarbital. Sublingual buprenorphine was considered the optimal treatment for a reduction in the length of treatment (days: mean difference vs morphine, -12.75 [95% CI, -17.97 to -7.58]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) and length of stay (days: mean difference vs morphine, -11.43 [95% CI, -16.95 to -5.82]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) but not the need for adjuvant treatment (odds ratio vs morphine, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.46-3.44]; median rank, 3 [5-1]). The results were robust to bias but sensitive to imprecision.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The current evidence suggests that buprenorphine is the optimal treatment for neonatal abstinence treatment, but limitations are considerable and wide-scale adoption requires a large multisite trial. Morphine, which is considered standard of care in most hospitals, was the lowest-ranked opioid for length of treatment and length of stay.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30667476
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5044 -
PloS One 2015Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a subtype of stroke associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. No proven treatments are available for this condition.... (Review)
Review
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a subtype of stroke associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. No proven treatments are available for this condition. Iron-mediated free radical injury is associated with secondary damage following ICH. Deferoxamine (DFX), a ferric-iron chelator, is a candidate drug for the treatment of ICH. We performed a systematic review of studies involving the administration of DFX following ICH. In total, 20 studies were identified that described the efficacy of DFX in animal models of ICH and assessed changes in the brain water content, neurobehavioral score, or both. DFX reduced the brain water content by 85.7% in animal models of ICH (-0.86, 95% CI: -.48- -0.23; P < 0.01; 23 comparisons), and improved the neurobehavioral score by -1.08 (95% CI: -1.23- -0.92; P < 0.01; 62 comparisons). DFX was most efficacious when administered 2-4 h after ICH at a dose of 10-50 mg/kg depending on species, and this beneficial effect remained for up to 24 h postinjury. The efficacy was higher with phenobarbital anesthesia, intramuscular injection, and lysed erythrocyte infusion, and in Fischer 344 rats or aged animals. Overall, although DFX was found to be effective in experimental ICH, additional confirmation is needed due to possible publication bias, poor study quality, and the limited number of studies conducting clinical trials.
Topics: Animals; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Deferoxamine; Disease Models, Animal; Mice; Rats; Siderophores; Swine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26000830
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127256 -
Seizure May 2022Recent position papers and guidelines encourage women with epilepsy (WWE) to exclusively breastfeed their infants because the benefits to their infants outweigh the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Recent position papers and guidelines encourage women with epilepsy (WWE) to exclusively breastfeed their infants because the benefits to their infants outweigh the potential adverse effects caused by exposure to antiseizure medications (ASMs).
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this review were: to evaluate concentrations of ASMs in breastmilk of lactating WWE, qualitatively synthesize evidence that can be used to estimate theoretical doses as estimated daily intake (EDI) and relative infant dose (RID) of ASMs, and to evaluate potential risks to infants as a result of exposure to ASMs from breastmilk.
METHODS
This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) as CRD42020223645. The databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL/EBSCO, COCHRANE, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, Summon, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and SCOPUS were systematically searched. A qualitative synthesis was adopted in this study.
RESULTS
A total of 15 records were included in this systematic review. The included studies reported levels of 8 ASMs in the breastmilk of WWE. The highest RIDs of carbamazepine, lamotrigine, primidone, phenobarbital, gabapentin, valproic acid, ethosuximide, levetiracetam, and topiramate were 3.70%, 36.33%, 4.96%, 3.15%, 4.37%, 1.90%, 31.49%, 12.50%, and 12.18%, respectively. Breastfeeding might be limited or even discontinued when signs of excessive sedation/drowsiness and/or poor weight gain are evident on infants exposed to primidone and phenobarbital, ethosuximide/primidone, or ethosuximide/phenobarbital.
CONCLUSIONS
Concentrations of ASMs can be detected in breastmilk of WWE and plasma/serum of infants exposed via breastmilk. Healthcare providers and WWE might use the findings of this study to make informed decisions on the safety of breastfeeding while taking ASMs.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Breast Feeding; Epilepsy; Ethosuximide; Female; Humans; Infant; Lactation; Milk, Human; Phenobarbital; Primidone
PubMed: 35427849
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2022.03.017 -
Developmental Medicine and Child... Nov 2021To assess the effectiveness and safety of levetiracetam when used as first-line treatment of neonatal seizures. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To assess the effectiveness and safety of levetiracetam when used as first-line treatment of neonatal seizures.
METHOD
Four electronic databases, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception until 20th November 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that included neonates born preterm and term were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measure was levetiracetam effectiveness, defined as seizure cessation within 24 hours of starting treatment. Secondary outcomes included short-term adverse events, mortality before discharge, and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies assessing 1188 neonates were included: four RCTs, three observational trials with phenobarbital as the control arm, and seven observational studies of levetiracetam with no control arm. Pooled efficacy of levetiracetam from observational studies was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 34-57%) (GRADE - very low). Meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating levetiracetam versus phenobarbital showed that both were equally effective (risk ratio [95% CI] 0.6 [0.30-1.20]) (GRADE - very low). Levetiracetam resulted in a lower risk of short-term adverse events compared to phenobarbital (risk ratio [95% CI] 0.24 [0.06-0.92]) (GRADE - moderate).
INTERPRETATION
Very low certainty of evidence suggests levetiracetam might not be more effective than phenobarbital. Moderate certainty of evidence indicates levetiracetam is associated with a lower risk of adverse events. Future trials on neonatal antiseizure medication therapy should include continuous electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring as standard of care and enrol a homogenous population with similar seizure aetiology. What this paper adds Levetiracetam is effective in 45% of neonatal seizures. Levetiracetam might not be more effective than phenobarbital. Levetiracetam is likely to be safer than phenobarbital. Evidence available is limited and of very low certainty.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Levetiracetam; Seizures
PubMed: 34124790
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.14943 -
Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, first published in Issue 1, 2003 and updated in 2015. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, first published in Issue 1, 2003 and updated in 2015. 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, carbamazepine and phenobarbitone are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for partial onset seizures, and is used in the USA and Europe. Phenobarbitone is no longer considered a first-line treatment because of concerns over associated adverse events, particularly documented behavioural adverse events in children treated with the drug. However, phenobarbitone is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.
OBJECTIVES
To review the time to withdrawal, remission, and first seizure of carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial 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 18 August 2016: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (from 1823) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenobarbitone 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 achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'adverse events'. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD were available for 836 participants out of 1455 eligible individuals from six out of 13 trials; 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for phenobarbitone, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were HR 1.50 for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; P = 0.003); HR 0.93 for time to achieve 12-month remission (95% CI 0.72 to 1.20; P = 0.57); HR 0.99 for time to achieve six-month remission (95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; P = 0.95); and HR 0.87 for time to first seizure (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06; P = 0.18). Results suggest an advantage for carbamazepine over phenobarbitone in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and no statistically significant evidence between the drugs for the other outcomes. We found evidence of a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (Chi² test for subgroup differences P = 0.03), where phenobarbitone was favoured for partial onset seizures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02) and carbamazepine was favoured for generalised onset seizures (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.77; P = 0.27). We found no evidence of an interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for the other outcomes. However, methodological quality of the included studies was variable, with 10 out of the 13 included studies (4 out of 6 studies contributing IPD) judged at high risk of bias for at least one methodological aspect, leading to variable individual study results, and therefore, heterogeneity in the analyses of this review. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of poor methodological aspects, where possible.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we found evidence suggestive of an advantage for carbamazepine in terms of drug effectiveness compared with phenobarbitone (retention of the drug in terms of seizure control and adverse events) and evidence suggestive of an association between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (phenobarbitone favoured for partial seizures and carbamazepine favoured for generalised seizures). However, this evidence was judged to be of low quality due to poor methodological quality and the potential impact on individual study results (and therefore variability (heterogeneity) present in the analysis within this review), we encourage caution when interpreting the results of this review and do not advocate that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations for 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; Epilepsy, Tonic-Clonic; Humans; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Seizures
PubMed: 27976799
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001904.pub3 -
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for partial onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) review and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam), and carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.
Topics: Adult; Amines; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Child; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy; Epilepsy, Generalized; Fructose; Gabapentin; Humans; Isoxazoles; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxcarbazepine; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Remission Induction; Topiramate; Triazines; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 28661008
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub2 -
Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2003, of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2003, of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.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 (AED) in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine (CBZ) and phenobarbitone (PB) 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. Phenobarbitone is no longer considered a first-line treatment because of concerns over associated adverse events, particularly documented behavioural adverse events in children treated with the drug. However, PB is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between CBZ and PB in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.
OBJECTIVES
To review the time to withdrawal, remission, and first seizure of CBZ compared with PB when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to September 2014: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946), Scopus (from 1823), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry platform (WHO ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of CBZ monotherapy versus PB 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 6-month remission', and 'Time to first seizure postrandomisation'. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
Individual participant data were available for 836 participants out of 1455 eligible individuals from 6 out of 13 trials, 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for PB, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for CBZ.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were HR 1.50 for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (95% CI 1.15 to 1.95, P = 0.003); HR 0.93 for time to 12-month remission (95% CI 0.72 to 1.20, P = 0.57); HR 0.99 for time to 6-month remission (95% CI 0.80 to 1.23, P = 0.95); and HR 0.87 for time to first seizure (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, P = 0.18). Results suggest an advantage for CBZ over PB in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and no statistically significant evidence between the drugs for the other outcomes. We found evidence of a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (Chi² test for subgroup differences P = 0.03), where PB was favoured for partial onset seizures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96, P = 0.02) and CBZ was favoured for generalised onset seizures (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.77, P = 0.27). However, methodological quality of the included studies was variable, with 10 out of the 13 included studies (4 out of 6 studies contributing IPD) judged as high risk of bias for at least 1 methodological aspect, leading to variable individual study results and therefore heterogeneity in the analyses of this review. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of poor methodological aspects where possible.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we found evidence suggestive of an advantage for CBZ in terms of drug effectiveness compared with PB (retention of the drug in terms of seizure control and adverse events) and evidence of an association between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (PB favoured for partial seizures and CBZ favoured for generalised seizures). Given the varying quality of studies included in this review and the impact of poor methodological quality on individual study results (and therefore variability (heterogeneity) present in the analysis within 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 CBZ and PB. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations for 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; Epilepsy, Tonic-Clonic; Humans; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26204241
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001904.pub2