-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology...
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five-year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre- or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 29 September 2019: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta-analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One, three-armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three-armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence. Only five trials reported incidences of death. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no-treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability. We considered the evidence to be of low certainty for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited, low-certainly evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good-quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Craniotomy; Humans; Isoxazoles; Levetiracetam; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide
PubMed: 32343399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007286.pub5 -
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 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 current first-line treatment carbamazepine and other current first-line treatment lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam); 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: 29243813
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Cerebral palsy is an umbrella term encompassing disorders of movement and posture, attributed to non-progressive disturbances occurring in the developing fetal or infant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cerebral palsy is an umbrella term encompassing disorders of movement and posture, attributed to non-progressive disturbances occurring in the developing fetal or infant brain. As there are diverse risk factors and causes, no one strategy will prevent all cerebral palsy. Therefore, there is a need to systematically consider all potentially relevant interventions for their contribution to prevention.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane reviews regarding the effects of antenatal and intrapartum interventions for preventing cerebral palsy.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 7 August 2016, for reviews of antenatal or intrapartum interventions reporting on cerebral palsy. Two authors assessed reviews for inclusion, extracted data, assessed review quality, using AMSTAR and ROBIS, and quality of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. We organised reviews by topic, and summarised findings in text and tables. We categorised interventions as effective (high-quality evidence of effectiveness); possibly effective (moderate-quality evidence of effectiveness); ineffective (high-quality evidence of harm or of lack of effectiveness); probably ineffective (moderate-quality evidence of harm or of lack of effectiveness); and no conclusions possible (low- to very low-quality evidence).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 Cochrane reviews. A further 62 reviews pre-specified the outcome cerebral palsy in their methods, but none of the included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported this outcome. The included reviews were high quality and at low risk of bias. They included 279 RCTs; data for cerebral palsy were available from 27 (10%) RCTs, involving 32,490 children. They considered interventions for: treating mild to moderate hypertension (two) and pre-eclampsia (two); diagnosing and preventing fetal compromise in labour (one); preventing preterm birth (four); preterm fetal maturation or neuroprotection (five); and managing preterm fetal compromise (one). Quality of evidence ranged from very low to high. Effective interventions: high-quality evidence of effectiveness There was a reduction in cerebral palsy in children born to women at risk of preterm birth who received magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection of the fetus compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.87; five RCTs; 6145 children). Probably ineffective interventions: moderate-quality evidence of harm There was an increase in cerebral palsy in children born to mothers in preterm labour with intact membranes who received any prophylactic antibiotics versus no antibiotics (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.34; one RCT; 3173 children). There was an increase in cerebral palsy in children, who as preterm babies with suspected fetal compromise, were born immediately compared with those for whom birth was deferred (RR 5.88, 95% CI 1.33 to 26.02; one RCT; 507 children). Probably ineffective interventions: moderate-quality evidence of lack of effectiveness There was no clear difference in the presence of cerebral palsy in children born to women at risk of preterm birth who received repeat doses of corticosteroids compared with a single course (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.50; four RCTs; 3800 children). No conclusions possible: low- to very low-quality evidence Low-quality evidence found there was a possible reduction in cerebral palsy for children born to women at risk of preterm birth who received antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation compared with placebo (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.03; five RCTs; 904 children). There was no clear difference in the presence of cerebral palsy with interventionist care for severe pre-eclampsia versus expectant care (RR 6.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 48.14; one RCT; 262 children); magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia versus placebo (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.26; one RCT; 2895 children); continuous cardiotocography for fetal assessment during labour versus intermittent auscultation (average RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.63; two RCTs; 13,252 children); prenatal progesterone for prevention of preterm birth versus placebo (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.48; one RCT; 274 children); and betamimetics for inhibiting preterm labour versus placebo (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; one RCT; 246 children).Very low-quality found no clear difference for the presence of cerebral palsy with any antihypertensive drug (oral beta-blockers) for treatment of mild to moderate hypertension versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one RCT; 110 children); magnesium sulphate for prevention of preterm birth versus other tocolytic agents (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.51; one RCT; 106 children); and vitamin K and phenobarbital prior to preterm birth for prevention of neonatal periventricular haemorrhage versus placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.76; one RCT; 299 children).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This overview summarises evidence from Cochrane reviews on the effects of antenatal and intrapartum interventions on cerebral palsy, and can be used by researchers, funding bodies, policy makers, clinicians and consumers to aid decision-making and evidence translation. We recommend that readers consult the included Cochrane reviews to formally assess other benefits or harms of included interventions, including impacts on risk factors for cerebral palsy (such as the reduction in intraventricular haemorrhage for preterm babies following exposure to antenatal corticosteroids).Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection can prevent cerebral palsy. Prophylactic antibiotics for women in preterm labour with intact membranes, and immediate rather than deferred birth of preterm babies with suspected fetal compromise, may increase the risk of cerebral palsy. Repeat doses compared with a single course of antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm birth do not clearly impact the risk of cerebral palsy.Cerebral palsy is rarely diagnosed at birth, has diverse risk factors and causes, and is diagnosed in approximately one in 500 children. To date, only a small proportion of Cochrane reviews assessing antenatal and intrapartum interventions have been able to report on this outcome. There is an urgent need for long-term follow-up of RCTs of interventions addressing risk factors for cerebral palsy, and consideration of the use of relatively new interim assessments (including the General Movements Assessment). Such RCTs must be rigorous in their design, and aim for consistency in cerebral palsy outcome measurement and reporting to facilitate pooling of data, to focus research efforts on prevention.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cerebral Palsy; Female; Fetal Distress; Humans; Hypertension; Infant, Premature; Magnesium Sulfate; Neuroprotective Agents; Parturition; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular; Premature Birth; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28786098
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012077.pub2 -
Thrombosis Research Oct 2020Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as safe and effective alternatives to Vitamin-K antagonists for treatment and prevention of arterial and venous... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as safe and effective alternatives to Vitamin-K antagonists for treatment and prevention of arterial and venous thrombosis. Due to their novelty, pharmacokinetic DOAC drug-drug interactions (DDIs) that result in clinical adverse events have not been well-documented.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to systematically review reported pharmacokinetic DDIs resulting in clinical adverse events through documented observational evidence to better inform clinicians in clinical practice.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Ovid HealthStar was conducted through March 10th, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data from eligible articles according to pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles reporting bleeding or thrombotic outcomes in non-controlled (observational) settings resulting from suggested pharmacokinetic DOAC DDIs were included.
RESULTS
A total of 5567 citations were reviewed, of which 24 were included following data extraction. The majority were case reports (n = 21) documenting a single adverse event resulting from a suspected DOAC DDI, while the remaining papers were a case series (n = 1) and cohort studies (n = 2). The most commonly reported interacting drugs were amiodarone and ritonavir (bleeding), and phenobarbital, phenytoin, and carbamazepine (thrombosis). Bleeding events more often resulted from a combined mechanism (P-glycoprotein AND CYP3A4 inhibition), whereas thrombotic events resulted from either combined OR single P-glycoprotein/CYP3A4 induction.
CONCLUSION
Current literature evaluating the real-world risk of DOAC DDIs is limited to few case reports and retrospective observational analyses. Clinicians are encouraged to continue to report suspected drug interactions resulting in adverse events.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Drug Interactions; Hemorrhage; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33213849
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.016 -
Paediatric Drugs Jan 2023Newborn infants undergoing therapeutic hypothermia (TH) are exposed to multiple painful and stressful procedures. The aim of this systematic review was to assess...
BACKGROUND
Newborn infants undergoing therapeutic hypothermia (TH) are exposed to multiple painful and stressful procedures. The aim of this systematic review was to assess benefits and harms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of pain and sedation in newborn infants undergoing TH for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.
METHODS
We included randomized and observational studies reporting any intervention (either drugs or non-pharmacological interventions) to manage pain and sedation in newborn infants (> 33 weeks' gestational age) undergoing TH. We included any dose, duration and route of administration. We also included any type and duration of non-pharmacological interventions. Our prespecified primary outcomes were analgesia and sedation assessed using validated pain scales in the neonatal population; circulatory instability; mortality to discharge; and neurodevelopmental disability. A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, with no language restrictions. Included studies underwent risk-of-bias assessment (Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and ROBINS-I) and data extraction performed by two authors independently. The plan had been to use effect measures such as mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes, however the included studies are presented in a narrative synthesis due to their paucity and heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Ten studies involving 3551 infants were included-one trial and nine observational studies. Most studies examined the use of phenobarbital or other antiepileptic drugs with primary outcomes related to seizure activity. The single trial that was included compared pentoxifylline with placebo. Among the primary outcomes, six studies reported circulatory instability and five reported mortality to discharge without relevant differences; two studies reported on neurodevelopmental disability and one study reported on pain scale. Three studies were ongoing.
CONCLUSIONS
We found limited evidence to establish the benefits and harms of the interventions for the management of pain and sedation in newborn infants undergoing TH. Long-term outcomes were not reported. Given the very low certainty of evidence-due to imprecision of the estimates, inconsistency and limitations in study design (all nine observational studies with overall serious risk of bias)-for all outcomes, clinical trials are required to determine the most effective interventions in this population.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020205755.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Anesthesia; Hypothermia, Induced; Hypoxia-Ischemia, Brain; Observational Studies as Topic; Pain; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36481984
DOI: 10.1007/s40272-022-00546-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of using an opioid for treatment of NAS due to withdrawal from opioids in newborn infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via Cochrane Register of Studies Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for eligible trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi- and cluster-RCTs which enrolled infants born to mothers with opioid dependence and who were experiencing NAS requiring treatment with an opioid.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 trials (1110 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. Seven studies at low risk of bias were included in sensitivity analysis. Opioid versus no treatment / usual care: a single trial (80 infants) of morphine and supportive care versus supportive care alone reported no difference in treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 4.07; very low certainty evidence). No infant had a seizure. The trial did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. Morphine increased days hospitalisation (mean difference (MD) 15.00, 95% CI 8.86 to 21.14; very low certainty evidence) and treatment (MD 12.50, 95% CI 7.52 to 17.48; very low certainty evidence), but decreased days to regain birthweight (MD -2.80, 95% CI -5.33 to -0.27) and duration (minutes) of supportive care each day (MD -197.20, 95% CI -274.15 to -120.25). Morphine versus methadone: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.67; 2 studies, 147 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study reported no difference in days hospitalisation (MD 1.40, 95% CI -3.08 to 5.88; 116 infants; low certainty evidence), whereas data from two studies found an increase in days treatment (MD 2.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.21; 147 infants; low certainty) for infants treated with morphine. A single study reported no difference in breastfeeding, adverse events, or out of home placement. Morphine versus sublingual buprenorphine: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; 3 studies, 113 infants; very low certainty evidence). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. There was moderate certainty evidence of an increase in days hospitalisation (MD 11.45, 95% CI 5.89 to 17.01; 3 studies, 113 infants), and days treatment (MD 12.79, 95% CI 7.57 to 18.00; 3 studies, 112 infants) for infants treated with morphine. A single adverse event (seizure) was reported in infants exposed to buprenorphine. Morphine versus diluted tincture of opium (DTO): a single study (33 infants) reported no difference in days hospitalisation, days treatment or weight gain (low certainty evidence). Opioid versus clonidine: a single study (31 infants) reported no infant with treatment failure in either group. This study did not report seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. This study did not report adverse events. Opioid versus diazepam: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80; 2 studies, 86 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study of 34 infants comparing methadone versus diazepam reported no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment (very low certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Opioid versus phenobarbital: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74; 6 studies, 458 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis found a reduction in treatment failure in trials titrating morphine to ≧ 0.5 mg/kg/day (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45; 3 studies, 230 infants), whereas a single study using morphine < 0.5 mg/kg/day reported no difference compared to use of phenobarbital (subgroup difference P = 0.05). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study (111 infants) of paregoric versus phenobarbital reported seven infants with seizures in the phenobarbital group, whereas no seizures were reported in two studies (170 infants) comparing morphine to phenobarbital. There was no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. A single study (96 infants) reported no adverse events in either group. Opioid versus chlorpromazine: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of morphine versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; 1 study, 90 infants; moderate certainty evidence). No seizures were reported in either group. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days treatment. This trial reported no adverse events in either group. None of the included studies reported time to control of NAS. Data for duration and severity of NAS were limited, and we were unable to use these data in quantitative synthesis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to supportive care alone, the addition of an opioid may increase duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but may reduce days to regain birthweight and the duration of supportive care each day. Use of an opioid may reduce treatment failure compared to phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. Use of an opioid may have little or no effect on duration of hospitalisation or treatment compared to use of phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. The type of opioid used may have little or no effect on the treatment failure rate. Use of buprenorphine probably reduces duration of hospitalisation and treatment compared to morphine, but there are no data for time to control NAS with buprenorphine, and insufficient evidence to determine safety. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness and safety of clonidine.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Chlorpromazine; Clonidine; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant, Newborn; Methadone; Morphine; Narcotics; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opium; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34231914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002059.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Seizures are common following perinatal asphyxia and may exacerbate secondary neuronal injury. Barbiturate therapy has been used for infants with perinatal asphyxia in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Seizures are common following perinatal asphyxia and may exacerbate secondary neuronal injury. Barbiturate therapy has been used for infants with perinatal asphyxia in order to prevent seizures. However, barbiturate therapy may adversely affect neurodevelopment leading to concern regarding aggressive use in neonates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of administering prophylactic barbiturate therapy on death or neurodevelopmental disability in term and late preterm infants following perinatal asphyxia.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 30 November 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 30 November 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to 30 November 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all RCTs or quasi-RCTs of prophylactic barbiturate therapy in term and late preterm infants without clinical or electroencephalographic evidence of seizures compared to controls following perinatal asphyxia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently selected, assessed the quality of, and extracted data from the included studies. We assessed methodologic quality and validity of studies without consideration of the results. The review authors independently extracted data and performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RR) and risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For significant results, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH).
MAIN RESULTS
In this updated review, we identified nine RCTs of any barbiturate therapy in term and late preterm infants aged less than three days old with perinatal asphyxia without evidence of seizures. Eight of these studies compared prophylactic barbiturate therapy to conventional treatment (enrolling 439 infants) and one study compared barbiturate therapy to treatment with phenytoin (enrolling 17 infants). Prophylactic barbiturate therapy versus conventional treatment: one small trial reported a decreased risk of death or severe neurodevelopmental disability for barbiturate therapy (phenobarbital) versus conventional treatment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78; RD -0.55, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.25; NNTB 2, 95% CI 1 to 4; 1 study, 31 infants) (very low quality evidence).Eight trials comparing prophylactic barbiturate therapy with conventional treatment following perinatal asphyxia demonstrated no significant impact on the risk of death (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.05; 8 trials, 429 infants) (low quality evidence) and the one small trial noted above reported a significant decrease in the risk of severe neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.92; RD -0.43, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.13; NNTB 2, 95% CI 1 to 8; 1 study, 31 infants) (very low quality evidence).A meta-analysis of the six trials reporting on seizures in the neonatal period demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in seizures in the prophylactic barbiturate group versus conventional treatment (typical RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81; typical RD -0.18, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.09; NNTB 5, 95% CI 4 to 11; 6 studies, 319 infants) (low quality evidence). There were similar results in subgroup analyses based on type of barbiturate and Sarnat score. Prophylactic barbiturate therapy versus other prophylactic anticonvulsant therapy: one study reported on prophylactic barbiturate versus prophylactic phenytoin. There was no significant difference in seizure activity in the neonatal period between the two study groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00; 1 trial, 17 infants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found only low or very low quality evidence addressing the use of prophylactic barbiturates in infants with perinatal asphyxia. Although the administration of prophylactic barbiturate therapy to infants following perinatal asphyxia did reduce the risk of seizures, there was no reduction seen in mortality and there were few data addressing long-term outcomes. The administration of prophylactic barbiturate therapy for late preterm and term infants in the immediate period following perinatal asphyxia cannot be recommended for routine clinical practice. If used at all, barbiturates should be reserved for the treatment of seizures. The results of the current review support the use of prophylactic barbiturate therapy as a promising area of research. Future studies should be of sufficient size and duration to detect clinically important reductions in mortality and severe neurodevelopmental disability and should be conducted in the context of the current standard of care, including the use of therapeutic hypothermia.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Asphyxia Neonatorum; Barbiturates; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Neurodevelopmental Disorders; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Thiopental
PubMed: 27149645
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001240.pub3 -
Acta Bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis Dec 2022Neonatal stroke is the second cause of acute symptomatic neonatal seizures after hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. The aim of this systematic review is to determine which...
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Neonatal stroke is the second cause of acute symptomatic neonatal seizures after hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. The aim of this systematic review is to determine which drug among those available represents the best therapeutic choice for treatment of secondary seizures due to neonatal stroke.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review searching on PubMed the keywords "Neonatal", "Stroke", "Seizures" and "Treatment". Search was limited only to English language with no time limit. Last literature search was done on May 30, 2022.
RESULTS
We selected 5 articles involving a total of 52 full-term neonates. In 96.1% the first line treatment was phenobarbital and in 3.9% was used phenobarbital associated with midazolam from the seizure onset but in all of these cases it was necessary to introduce further medications for controlling the seizures. As second line treatment was used lidocaine (response rate of 53.3%), midazolam (response rate of 15.38%) bumetanide (response rate of 100%), and fosphenytoin (no response). As third line treatment was used lidocaine (response rate of 87.5%), Midazolam (response rate of 60%), levetiracetam and clonazepam (response rate of 100%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our review shows that the use of ASMs that act throughout a gabaergic mechanism are inadequate in controlling seizures secondary to neonatal stroke in full-term newborns. Very effective seems to be lidocaine and levetiracetam with an apparent safer profile in short and long term. Bumetanide shows promising results, but they need to be confirmed by phase 3 studies.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Levetiracetam; Anticonvulsants; Bumetanide; Midazolam; Phenobarbital; Epilepsy; Lidocaine; Stroke; Infant, Newborn, Diseases
PubMed: 36533757
DOI: 10.23750/abm.v93i6.13440 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022To explore the effectiveness of different anti-seizure medications in preventing early and late post-traumatic epilepsy (PTE). The efficacy, treatment-related...
To explore the effectiveness of different anti-seizure medications in preventing early and late post-traumatic epilepsy (PTE). The efficacy, treatment-related side-effects, and mortality of the different treatments were compared using a ranking model to identify the optimal treatment. A comprehensive literature search was performed using Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases. All relevant published articles up to 10 March 2022 were evaluated. The quality of the extracted data was assessed using either the Cochrane risk of bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary outcome measures were early or late post-traumatic seizures. The secondary outcome measures were mortality, treatment-related adverse effects, length of hospital stay, and length of stay within the intensive care unit (ICU). A total of seven randomized controlled trials and 18 non-randomized controlled trials were included in this network meta-analysis. The trials included six interventions: Phenytoin (PHT)+phenobarbital (PB), levetiracetam (LEV), PHT, PHT-LEV, lacosamide (LCM), and valproate (VPA). All interventions except VPA significantly reduced the rate of early PTE in TBI patients compared with the placebo. Seven studies reported the impact of four treatments (PHT + PB, LEV, PHT, VPA) on late seizures and showed a significant reduction in the incidence of late seizures in patients with TBI compared with placebo. The impact of PHT, LEV, and VPA on mortality was reported in nine studies. PHT had no impact on mortality, but patients treated with both LEV and VPA had higher mortality than those treated with placebo. The treatment-related adverse effects of LEV, PHT, and LCM were reported in five studies. LEV and PHT had higher treatment-related adverse effects incidence than placebo, while LCM had no effect on treatment related-adverse effects. LEV and PHT prevented early and late PTE. PHT also reduced the mortality rate in patients with TBI. Both LEV and PHT had higher treatment-related adverse effects compared with placebo. However, LEV had a slightly lower incidence of treatment-related adverse effects when compared with PHT. Compared with PHT, LEV did not reduce the length of hospital stay but shortened the length of ICU stays. Therefore, based on the findings of this meta-analysis, we speculate that LEV is the best treatment option for TBI patients. However, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.
PubMed: 36188582
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1001363 -
Hospital Pharmacy Oct 2017Benzodiazepines are the drug of choice for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS); however, phenobarbital is an alternative agent used with or without concomitant...
Benzodiazepines are the drug of choice for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS); however, phenobarbital is an alternative agent used with or without concomitant benzodiazepine therapy. In this systematic review, we evaluate patient outcomes with phenobarbital for AWS. Medline, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched from 1950 through February 2017 for controlled trials and observational studies using ["phenobarbital" or "barbiturate"] and ["alcohol withdrawal" or "delirium tremens."] Risk of bias was assessed using tools recommended by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. From 294 nonduplicative articles, 4 controlled trials and 5 observational studies (n = 720) for AWS of any severity were included. Studies were of good quality (n = 2), fair (n = 4), and poor (n = 3). In 6 studies describing phenobarbital without concomitant benzodiazepine therapy, phenobarbital decreased AWS symptoms ( < .00001) and displayed similar rates of treatment failure versus comparator therapies (38% vs 29%). A study with 2 cohorts showed similar rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (phenobarbital: 16% and 9% vs benzodiazepine: 14%) and hospital length of stay (phenobarbital: 5.85 and 5.30 days vs benzodiazepine: 6.64 days). In 4 studies describing phenobarbital with concomitant benzodiazepine therapy, phenobarbital groups had similar ICU admission rates (8% vs 25%), decreased mechanical ventilation (21.9% vs 47.3%), decreased benzodiazepine requirements by 50% to 90%, and similar ICU and hospital lengths of stay and AWS symptom resolution versus comparator groups. Adverse effects with phenobarbital, including dizziness and drowsiness, rarely occurred. Phenobarbital, with or without concomitant benzodiazepines, may provide similar or improved outcomes when compared with alternative therapies, including benzodiazepines alone.
PubMed: 29276297
DOI: 10.1177/0018578717720310