-
The Canadian Journal of Hospital... 2022Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurologic emergency with potential for substantial mortality and morbidity. Parenteral benzodiazepine is the established first-line... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurologic emergency with potential for substantial mortality and morbidity. Parenteral benzodiazepine is the established first-line treatment but fails to control SE in about one-third of patients. Levetiracetam may be used for SE that is refractory to benzodiazepine therapy.
OBJECTIVE
To examine, by means of a systematic review, the role of IV levetiracetam for the treatment of SE in adults.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were searched, from inception to August 18, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Included in this review were prospective randomized controlled trials comparing levetiracetam with another antiepileptic drug, given with or after a benzodiazepine, in adult patients with SE. The primary outcome was cessation of SE. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Characteristics of the included studies were reported using descriptive statistics.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Five studies compared IV levetiracetam with valproic acid, phenytoin (or its prodrug fosphenytoin), or both. All 5 studies found no statistically significant differences in efficacy or safety end points. There were numerically more cases of hypotension and respiratory failure with phenytoin, and more cases of psychiatric adverse effects (e.g., post-ictal psychosis) with levetiracetam.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence suggests that levetiracetam is as effective as valproic acid or phenytoin for the cessation of SE in adults. Other factors should therefore dictate the choice of antiepileptic drug for patients with SE, such as adverse effect profile, logistics of administration, drug cost, inclusion on hospital formularies, and drug availability.
PubMed: 34987263
DOI: 10.4212/cjhp.v75i1.3254 -
Acute Medicine & Surgery 2022Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening neurological emergency. There is insufficient evidence regarding which antiepileptic therapy is most effective in patients... (Review)
Review
AIM
Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening neurological emergency. There is insufficient evidence regarding which antiepileptic therapy is most effective in patients with benzodiazepine-refractory convulsive SE. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate intravenous phenytoin (PHT) and other intravenous antiepileptic medications for SE.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans up to August 2019. We compared outcomes between intravenous PHT and other intravenous medications. The important primary composite outcomes were the successful clinical cessation of seizures, mortality, and neurological outcomes at discharge. The reliability of the level of evidence for each outcome was compared using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
A total of 1,103 studies were identified from the databases, and 10 RCTs were included in the analysis. The ratio of successful clinical seizure cessation was significantly lower (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.97) for patients treated with intravenous PHT than with other medications. When we compared mortality and neurological outcomes at discharge, we observed no significant differences between patients treated with PHT and those treated with other medications. The RRs were 1.07 (95% CI, 0.55-2.08) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72-1.15) for mortality and neurological outcomes at discharge, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings showed that intravenous PHT was significantly inferior to other medications in terms of the cessation of seizures. No significant differences were observed in mortality or neurological outcomes between PHT and other medications.
PubMed: 35028156
DOI: 10.1002/ams2.717 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2019More than three million persons are disabled by leprosy worldwide. The main complication of sensory nerve damage is neuropathic ulceration, particularly of the feet. In... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
More than three million persons are disabled by leprosy worldwide. The main complication of sensory nerve damage is neuropathic ulceration, particularly of the feet. In this review we explored interventions that can prevent and treat secondary damage to skin and limbs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of self-care, dressings and footwear in preventing and healing secondary damage to the skin in persons affected by leprosy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (April 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2008), MEDLINE (from 2003 to April 2008), EMBASE (from 2005 to April 2008), CINAHL (1982-2006) and LILACS (1982- April 2008 ) as well as online registers of ongoing trials (April 2008).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials involving anyone with leprosy and damage to peripheral nerves treated with any measures designed to prevent damage with the aim of healing existing ulcers and preventing development of new ulcers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight trials with a total of 557 participants were included. The quality of the trials was generally poor. The interventions and outcome measures were diverse. Although three studies that compared zinc tape to more traditional dressings found some benefit, none of these showed a statistically significant effect. One trial indicated that topical ketanserin had a better effect on wound healing than clioquinol cream or zinc paste, RR was 6.00 (95% CI 1.45 to 24.75). We did not combine the results of the two studies that compared topical phenytoin to saline dressing, but both studies found statistically significant effects in favour of phenytoin for healing of ulcer (SMD -2.34; 95% CI -3.30 to -1.39; and SMD -0.79; 95% CI -1.20 to 0.39). Canvas shoes were not much better than PVC-boots, and double rocker shoes did not promote healing much more than below-knee plasters.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
One study suggested that topical ketanserin is more effective than clioquinol cream or zinc paste. Topical phenytoin (two studies) may be more effective than saline dressing regarding ulcer healing. For the other dressings the results were equivocal. Canvas shoes were a little better than PVC-boots, but not significantly, and the effect of double rocker shoes compared to below-knee plasters was no different in promoting the healing of ulcers. No side effects were documented.There is a lack of high quality research in the field of ulcer prevention and treatment in leprosy. New trials should follow the current standards for design and reporting of randomised controlled trials.
PubMed: 31425616
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004833.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Worldwide, phenytoin and valproate are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for partial onset seizures, and that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Worldwide, phenytoin and valproate are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for partial onset seizures, and that valproate is more effective for generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons. This is the latest updated version of the review first published in 2001 and updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To review the time to withdrawal, remission and first seizure of phenytoin compared to valproate when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (19 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to 19 May 2015), SCOPUS (19 February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (19 May 2015), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (19 May 2015). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of valproate monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Outcomes were time to: (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment (retention time); (b) achieve 12-month remission (seizure-free period); (c) achieve six-month remission (seizure-free period); and (d) first seizure (post-randomisation). We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD were available for 669 individuals out of 1119 eligible individuals from five out of 11 trials, 60% of the potential data. Results apply to partial onset seizures (simple, complex and secondary generalised tonic-clonic seizures), and generalised tonic-clonic seizures, but not other generalised seizure types (absence or myoclonus seizure types). For remission outcomes: HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes: HR > 1 indicates an advantage for valproate.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to: (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.09 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.55); (b) achieve 12-month remission 0.98 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.23); (c) achieve six-month remission 0.95 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.15); and (d) first seizure 0.93 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.14). The results suggest no overall difference between the drugs for these outcomes. We did not find any statistical interaction between treatment and seizure type (partial versus generalised).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between phenytoin and valproate for the outcomes examined in this review. However misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review. Results do not apply to absence or myoclonus seizure types. No outright evidence was found to support or refute current treatment policies.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy, Generalized; Epilepsy, Tonic-Clonic; Humans; Phenytoin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 27123830
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001769.pub3 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jun 2023Data on the ability of anticonvulsants and lithium to enter fetal and newborn circulation has become increasingly available; here we estimated penetration ratios in a...
OBJECTIVE
Data on the ability of anticonvulsants and lithium to enter fetal and newborn circulation has become increasingly available; here we estimated penetration ratios in a series of matrices from combined samples of pregnant/breastfeeding women treated with anticonvulsants or lithium.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed/EMBASE for studies with concentrations of anticonvulsants/lithium from maternal blood, amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood and/or breast milk. Penetration ratios were calculated by dividing the concentrations in amniotic fluid, umbilical cord plasma or breast milk by the maternal concentrations. When data from multiple studies were available, we calculated combined penetration ratios, weighting studies' mean by study size.
RESULTS
Ninety-one eligible studies for brivaracetam, carbamazepine, clonazepam, ethosuximide, gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, lithium, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, phenobarbital, phenytoin, pregabalin, primidone, topiramate, valproate, vigabatrin and zonisamide were identified. For amniotic fluid, the highest penetration ratios were estimated for levetiracetam (mean 3.56, range 1.27-5.85, n = 2) and lowest for valproate (mean 0.11, range 0.02-1.02, n = 57). For umbilical cord plasma, oxcarbazepine had the highest ratio (mean 1.59, range 0.11-4.33, n = 12) with clonazepam having the lowest (mean 0.55, range 0.52-0.59, n = 2). For breast milk, the highest ratios were observed for oxcarbazepine (mean 3.75, range 0.5-7.0, n = 2), whereas the lowest were observed for valproate (mean 0.04, range 0.01-0.22, n = 121).
DISCUSSION
We observed substantial variability between anticonvulsants and lithium regarding their ability to enter fetal/newborn circulation. Assessing concentrations of anticonvulsants and lithium in maternal samples can provide a surrogate of fetal/infant exposure, although patterns of concentration-dependent effects for maternal/neonatal safety are lacking.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Amniotic Fluid; Anticonvulsants; Fetal Blood; Lithium; Maternal-Fetal Exchange; Milk, Human
PubMed: 36805301
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2023.110733 -
BMC Neurology Feb 2016Neuropathic pain is one of the key features of (classical) Fabry disease (FD). No randomized clinical trials comparing effectiveness of different pain management... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neuropathic pain is one of the key features of (classical) Fabry disease (FD). No randomized clinical trials comparing effectiveness of different pain management strategies have been performed. This review aims to give an overview of existing pain management strategies.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were searched up to September 2014 for relevant articles on treatment of neuropathic pain in FD.
RESULTS
Seven-hundred-thirty-one articles were identified of which 26 were included in the analysis. Studies reported on 55 individuals in total, with group-sizes ranging from 1 to 8. Carbamazepine appeared most beneficial: complete pain relief in 5/25, partial relief in 17/25, and no benefit in 3/25 patients. Phenytoin resulted in complete relief in 1/27, partial relief in 12/27 and no benefit in 6/27 patients. In 8 patients a significant reduction in the frequency of pain attacks was described. Gabapentin caused partial relief in 6/7 and no relief in 1/7 patients. Little evidence was reported for SSNRI's or treatment combinations. Adverse-effects were reported in all treatment strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
Only for carbamazepine, phenytoin and gabapentin there is evidence of effectiveness in neuropathic pain due to FD, but comparison of effectiveness between these drugs is lacking. In routine clinical practice adverse-effects may discourage use of carbamazepine and phenytoin in favor of second-generation antiepileptic drugs, but this is currently not supported by clinical evidence. This review suffers greatly from incomplete outcome reports and a predominance of case reports, which emphasizes the need for robust clinical trials and observational cohort studies.
Topics: Amines; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Fabry Disease; Gabapentin; Humans; Neuralgia; Phenytoin; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 26911544
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-016-0549-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and last updated in 2013. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and last updated in 2013. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, particularly in the developing world, phenytoin and phenobarbitone are commonly used antiepileptic drugs, primarily because they are inexpensive. The aim of this review is to summarise data from existing trials comparing phenytoin and phenobarbitone.
OBJECTIVES
To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with phenobarbitone compared with phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 21 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either phenobarbitone or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission and time to 12-month remission. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
Individual participant data were obtained for five studies, which recruited a total of 635 participants, representing 80% of 798 individuals from all seven identified eligible trials. For remission outcomes, an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.61, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.87, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.66, moderate-certainty evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for phenytoin compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between phenytoin and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 624 participants: 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06, moderate-certainty evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.19, moderate-certainty evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.15, moderate-certainty evidence).For individuals with focal onset seizures (73% of individuals contributing to analysis), numerical results were similar and conclusions the same as for analyses of all individuals and for individuals with generalised onset seizures (27% of individuals contributing to analysis), results were imprecise and no clear differences between the drugs were observed.Several confounding factors, most notably the differences in design of the trials with respect to blinding, were likely to have impacted on the results of the primary outcome 'time to treatment failure', and in turn, the treatment failure rates may have impacted on the secondary efficacy outcomes of time to first seizure and time to 12-month and six-month remission.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence from this review suggests that phenytoin may be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate-certainty evidence from this review also indicates no differences between the drugs in terms of time to seizure recurrence and seizure remission.However, the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and methodological design differences that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.
PubMed: 31425629
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002217.pub3 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020To evaluate efficacy, safety, and economics profiles of intravenous levetiracetam (LEV) for status epilepticus (SE).
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate efficacy, safety, and economics profiles of intravenous levetiracetam (LEV) for status epilepticus (SE).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and OpenGrey.eu for eligible studies published from inception to June 12 2019. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effect model to calculate odds ratio (OR) of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of 478 studies were obtained. Five systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses, 9 RCTs, 1 non-randomized trial, and 27 case series/reports and 1 economic study met the inclusion criteria. Five SRs indicated no statistically significant difference in rates of seizure cessation when LEV was compared with lorazepam (LOR), phenytoin (PHT), or valproate (VPA). Pooled results of included RCTs indicated no statistically significant difference in seizure cessation when LEV was compared with LOR [OR = 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 2.92], PHT (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.27), and VPA (OR = 1.47, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.67); and no statistically significant difference in seizure freedom within 24 h compared with LOR [OR = 1.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 5.90] and PHT (OR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.87). Meanwhile, LEV did not increase the risk of mortality during hospitalization compared with LOR (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.39), PHT (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.10), VPA (OR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.07), and placebo (plus clonazepam, OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.38). LEV had lower need for artificial ventilation (OR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.92) and a lower risk of hypotension (OR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.84) compared to LOR. A trend of lower risk of hypotension and higher risk of agitation was found when LEV was compared with PHT. Case series and case report studies indicated psychiatric and behavioral adverse events of LEV. Cost-effectiveness evaluations indicated LEV as the most cost-effective non-benzodiazepines anti-epileptic drug (AED).
CONCLUSIONS
LEV has a similar efficacy as LOR, PHT, and VPA for SE, but a lower need for ventilator assistance and risk of hypotension, thus can be used as a second-line treatment for SE. However, more well-conducted studies to confirm the role of intravenous LEV for SE are still needed.
PubMed: 32670054
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00751 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Head injury is a common event and can cause a spectrum of motor and cognition disabilities. A frequent complication is seizures. Antiepileptic drugs (AED) such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Head injury is a common event and can cause a spectrum of motor and cognition disabilities. A frequent complication is seizures. Antiepileptic drugs (AED) such as phenytoin are often used in clinical practice with the hopes of preventing post-traumatic epilepsy. Whether immediate medical intervention following head trauma with either AEDs or neuroprotective drugs can alter the process of epileptogenesis and lead to a more favorable outcome is currently unknown. This review attempted to address the effectiveness of these treatment interventions. This review updates and expands on the earlier Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs and neuroprotective agents with placebo, usual care or other pharmacologic agents for the prevention of post-traumatic epilepsy in people diagnosed with any severity of traumatic brain injury.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Epilepsy Group's specialized register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in January 2015. We searched EMBASE, Biological Abstracts and National Research Register in September 2014 and SCOPUS in December 2013. The Cochrane Epilepsy Group performed handsearches of relevant journals.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that include AEDs or neuroprotective agents compared with placebo, another pharmacologic agent or a usual care group. The outcomes measured included a seizure occurring within one week of trauma (early seizure), seizure occurring later than one week post-trauma (late seizure), mortality and any adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted the data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each outcome. We used random-effects models in the meta-analyses and performed pre-defined subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included 10 RCTs (reported in 12 articles) consisting of 2326 participants The methodological quality of the studies varied. The type of intervention was separated into three categories; AED versus placebo or standard care, alternative neuroprotective agent versus placebo or standard care and AED versus other AED. Treatment with an AED (phenytoin or carbamazepine) decreased the risk of early seizure compared with placebo or standard care (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.73; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the risk of late seizure occurrence between AEDs and placebo or standard care (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.46; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a significant difference in all-cause mortality between AEDs and placebo or standard care (RR 1.08 95% CI 0.79 to 1.46,very low quality of evidence). Only one study looked at other potentially neuroprotective agents (magnesium sulfate) compared with placebo. The risk ratios were: late seizure 1.07 (95% CI 0.53 to 2.17) and all-cause mortality 1.20 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.81). The risk ratio for occurrence of early seizure was not estimable.Two studies looked at comparison of two AEDs (levetiracetam, valproate) with phenytoin used as the main comparator in each study. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.53 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.94). There was no evidence of treatment benefit of phenytoin compared with another AED for early seizures (RR 0.66, 95% 0.20 to 2.12) or late seizures(RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.30).Only two studies reported adverse events. The RR of any adverse event with AED compared with placebo was 1.65 (95% CI 0.73 to 3.66; low quality evidence). There were insufficient data on adverse events in the other treatment comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found low-quality evidence that early treatment with an AED compared with placebo or standard care reduced the risk of early post-traumatic seizures. There was no evidence to support a reduction in the risk of late seizures or mortality. There was insufficient evidence to make any conclusions regarding the effectiveness or safety of other neuroprotective agents compared with placebo or for the comparison of phenytoin, a traditional AED, with another AED.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Cause of Death; Child; Craniocerebral Trauma; Epilepsy; Humans; Levetiracetam; Magnesium Sulfate; Neuroprotective Agents; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 26259048
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009900.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 2, 2002 and its subsequent updates in 2010 and 2015.Epilepsy is a common neurological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 2, 2002 and its subsequent updates in 2010 and 2015.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which recurrent, unprovoked seizures are caused by abnormal electrical discharges from the brain. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly-used broad spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for partial onset seizures in the USA and Europe. Phenytoin is no longer considered a first-line treatment due to concerns over adverse events associated with its use, but the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials, although the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide. Differences in efficacy may therefore be shown by synthesising the data of the individual trials.
OBJECTIVES
To review the time to withdrawal, six- and 12-month remission, and first seizure with carbamazepine compared to phenytoin, used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial, or secondarily generalised tonic-clonic seizures), or generalised tonic-clonic seizures, with or without other generalised seizure types.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (1st November 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 1st November 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 1 November 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (1 November 2016), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 1st November 2016). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (1823 to 16th September 2014) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures, comparing carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This is an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, and our secondary outcomes were time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and time to first seizure post-randomisation. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1192 eligible individuals, from four out of 12 trials (i.e. 50% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. The methodological quality of the four studies providing IPD was generally good and we rated it at low risk of bias overall in the analyses.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to withdrawal of allocated treatment: 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.39; three trials, 546 participants); time to 12-month remission: 1.01 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.31; three trials, 551 participants); time to six-month remission: 1.11 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.37; three trials, 551 participants); and time to first seizure: 0.85 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.04; four trials, 582 participants). The results suggest no overall statistically significant difference between the drugs for these outcomes. There is some evidence of an advantage for phenytoin for individuals with generalised onset seizures for our primary outcome (time to withdrawal of allocated treatment): pooled HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.96; two trials, 118 participants); and a statistical interaction between treatment effect and epilepsy type (partial versus generalised) for this outcome (P = 0.02). However, misclassification of seizure type for up to 48 individuals (32% of those with generalised epilepsy) may have confounded the results of this review. Despite concerns over side effects leading to the withdrawal of phenytoin as a first-line treatment in the USA and Europe, we found no evidence that phenytoin is more likely to be associated with serious side effects than carbamazepine; 26 individuals withdrew from 290 randomised (9%) to carbamazepine due to adverse effects, compared to 12 out of 299 (4%) randomised to phenytoin from four studies conducted in the USA and Europe (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80, P = 0.014). We rated the quality of the evidence as low to moderate according to GRADE criteria, due to imprecision and potential misclassification of seizure type.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have not found evidence for a statistically significant difference between carbamazepine and phenytoin for the efficacy outcomes examined in this review, but CIs are wide and we cannot exclude the possibility of important differences. There is no evidence in this review that phenytoin is more strongly associated with serious adverse events than carbamazepine. There is some evidence that people with generalised seizures may be less likely to withdraw early from phenytoin than from carbamazepine, but misclassification of seizure type may have impacted upon our results. We recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review, and do not recommend that our results alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenytoin. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible, with considerations of allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Child; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy, Generalized; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Phenytoin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 28240353
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001911.pub3