-
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) May 2021The treatment of bipolar depression is hampered by the inadequate efficacy of antidepressants, moderate effect of mood stabilizers, and the side effects of some... (Review)
Review
The treatment of bipolar depression is hampered by the inadequate efficacy of antidepressants, moderate effect of mood stabilizers, and the side effects of some second-generation antipsychotics. There is limited evidence to date regarding the antidepressant effects of memantine in bipolar depression. The aim of the article was to provide a short review of preclinical and clinical studies on the antidepressant effect of memantine, and to present the case of a bipolar depression patient successfully treated with memantine. The described patient with bipolar disorder was unsuccessfully treated with two mood stabilizers. The addition of memantine at a dose of 20 mg/d to the treatment with lamotrigine and valproic acid resulted in a reduction in the severity of depression measured on the HDRS-17 scale by 35%, and by 47.1% after 7 weeks. The discussion presents experimental evidence for the antidepressant effect of memantine, as well as data from clinical trials in recurrent and bipolar depression. The presented case is the second report in the medical literature showing the antidepressant effect of memantine as an add-on treatment for bipolar depression. The described case and literature analysis indicate that memantine may be an effective and safe method of augmentation of mood stabilizing therapy in bipolar depression.
PubMed: 34070216
DOI: 10.3390/ph14050481 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Topiramate is a newer broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug (AED). Some studies have shown the benefits of topiramate in the treatment of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Topiramate is a newer broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug (AED). Some studies have shown the benefits of topiramate in the treatment of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME). However, there are no current systematic reviews to determine the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in people with JME. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015, and last updated in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in the treatment of JME.
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- ), and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating topiramate versus placebo or other AED treatment for people with JME, with the outcomes of proportion of responders and proportion of participants experiencing adverse events (AEs).
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 three studies with a total of 83 participants. For efficacy, a greater proportion of participants in the topiramate group had a 50% or more reduction in primarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) compared with participants in the placebo group. There were no significant differences between topiramate and valproate in participants responding with a 50% or more reduction in myoclonic seizures or in PGTCS, or becoming seizure-free. Concerning tolerability, we ranked AEs associated with topiramate as moderate to severe, while we ranked 59% of AEs linked to valproate as severe complaints. Moreover, systemic toxicity scores were higher in the valproate group than the topiramate group.Overall we judged all three studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and at unclear risk of reporting bias. We judged all three studies to be at low to unclear bias for the remaining risk of bias domains (random sequence, allocation, blinding). We judged the quality of the evidence from the studies to be very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have found no new studies since the last version of this review was published in 2017. This review does not provide sufficient evidence to support topiramate for the treatment of people with JME. Based on the current limited available data, topiramate seems to be better tolerated than valproate, but has no clear benefits over valproate in terms of efficacy. Well-designed, double-blind RCTs with large samples are required to test the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in people with JME.
Topics: Adolescent; Anticonvulsants; Child; Humans; Myoclonic Epilepsy, Juvenile; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Topiramate; Treatment Outcome; Valproic Acid; Young Adult
PubMed: 30687937
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010008.pub4 -
Seizure Jul 2023The late onset myoclonic epilepsy in Down Syndrome (LOMEDS) is a peculiar epilepsy type characterized by cortical myoclonus and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS),... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The late onset myoclonic epilepsy in Down Syndrome (LOMEDS) is a peculiar epilepsy type characterized by cortical myoclonus and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS), in people suffering from cognitive decline in Down syndrome (DS). In this review, we analyzed available data on the diagnostic and therapeutic management of individuals with LOMEDS.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients with LOMEDS. The following databases were used: PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, CrossRef. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration code: CRD42023390748).
RESULTS
Data from 46 patients were included. DS was diagnosed according to the patient's clinical and genetic characteristics. Diagnosis of Alzheimer's dementia (AD) preceded the onset of epilepsy in all cases. Both myoclonic seizures (MS) and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) were reported, the latter preceding the onset of MS in 28 cases. EEG was performed in 45 patients, showing diffuse theta/delta slowing with superimposed generalized spike-and-wave or polyspike-and-wave. A diffuse cortical atrophy was detected in 34 patients on neuroimaging. Twenty-seven patients were treated with antiseizure medication (ASM) monotherapy, with reduced seizure frequency in 17 patients. Levetiracetam and valproic acid were the most used ASMs. Up to 41% of patients were unresponsive to first-line treatment and needed adjunctive therapy for seizure control.
CONCLUSIONS
AD-related pathological changes in the brain may play a role in LOMEDS onset, although the mechanism underlying this phenomenon is still unknown. EEG remains the most relevant investigation to be performed. A significant percentage of patients developed a first-line ASM refractory epilepsy. ASMs which modulate the glutamatergic system may represent a good therapeutic option.
Topics: Humans; Down Syndrome; Epilepsy; Epilepsies, Myoclonic; Levetiracetam; Seizures; Alzheimer Disease; Electroencephalography; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy, Generalized
PubMed: 37267668
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2023.05.017 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination with a (point) mutation in the second SMN1 allele. This results in degeneration of anterior horn cells, which leads to progressive muscle weakness. Children with SMA type II do not develop the ability to walk without support and have a shortened life expectancy, whereas children with SMA type III develop the ability to walk and have a normal life expectancy. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate if drug treatment is able to slow or arrest the disease progression of SMA types II and III, and to assess if such therapy can be given safely.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science conference proceedings in October 2018. In October 2018, we also searched two trials registries to identify unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought all randomised or quasi-randomised trials that examined the efficacy of drug treatment for SMA types II and III. Participants had to fulfil the clinical criteria and have a homozygous deletion or hemizygous deletion in combination with a point mutation in the second allele of the SMN1 gene (5q11.2-13.2) confirmed by genetic analysis. The primary outcome measure was change in disability score within one year after the onset of treatment. Secondary outcome measures within one year after the onset of treatment were change in muscle strength, ability to stand or walk, change in quality of life, time from the start of treatment until death or full-time ventilation and adverse events attributable to treatment during the trial period. Treatment strategies involving SMN1-replacement with viral vectors are out of the scope of this review, but a summary is given in Appendix 1. Drug treatment for SMA type I is the topic of a separate Cochrane Review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
The review authors found 10 randomised, placebo-controlled trials of treatments for SMA types II and III for inclusion in this review, with 717 participants. We added four of the trials at this update. The trials investigated creatine (55 participants), gabapentin (84 participants), hydroxyurea (57 participants), nusinersen (126 participants), olesoxime (165 participants), phenylbutyrate (107 participants), somatotropin (20 participants), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) (nine participants), valproic acid (33 participants), and combination therapy with valproic acid and acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) (61 participants). Treatment duration was from three to 24 months. None of the studies investigated the same treatment and none was completely free of bias. All studies had adequate blinding, sequence generation and reporting of primary outcomes. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, intrathecal nusinersen improved motor function (disability) in children with SMA type II, with a 3.7-point improvement in the nusinersen group on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE; range of possible scores 0 to 66), compared to a 1.9-point decline on the HFMSE in the sham procedure group (P < 0.01; n = 126). On all motor function scales used, higher scores indicate better function. Based on moderate-certainty evidence from two studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: creatine (median change 1 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1 to 2; on the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), scale 0 to 264; n = 40); and combination therapy with valproic acid and carnitine (mean difference (MD) 0.64, 95% CI -1.1 to 2.38; on the Modified Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (MHFMS), scale 0 to 40; n = 61). Based on low-certainty evidence from other single studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: gabapentin (median change 0 in the gabapentin group and -2 in the placebo group on the SMA Functional Rating Scale (SMAFRS), scale 0 to 50; n = 66); hydroxyurea (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.89 to 0.13 on the GMFM, scale 0 to 264; n = 57), phenylbutyrate (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.58 on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (HFMS) scale 0 to 40; n = 90) and monotherapy of valproic acid (MD 0.06, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.44 on SMAFRS, scale 0 to 50; n = 31). Very low-certainty evidence suggested that the following interventions had little or no effect on motor function: olesoxime (MD 2, 95% -0.25 to 4.25 on the Motor Function Measure (MFM) D1 + D2, scale 0 to 75; n = 160) and somatotropin (median change at 3 months 0.25 higher, 95% CI -1 to 2.5 on the HFMSE, scale 0 to 66; n = 19). One small TRH trial did not report effects on motor function and the certainty of evidence for other outcomes from this trial were low or very low. Results of nine completed trials investigating 4-aminopyridine, acetyl-L-carnitine, CK-2127107, hydroxyurea, pyridostigmine, riluzole, RO6885247/RG7800, salbutamol and valproic acid were awaited and not available for analysis at the time of writing. Various trials and studies investigating treatment strategies other than nusinersen (e.g. SMN2-augmentation by small molecules), are currently ongoing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nusinersen improves motor function in SMA type II, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Creatine, gabapentin, hydroxyurea, phenylbutyrate, valproic acid and the combination of valproic acid and ALC probably have no clinically important effect on motor function in SMA types II or III (or both) based on low-certainty evidence, and olesoxime and somatropin may also have little to no clinically important effect but evidence was of very low-certainty. One trial of TRH did not measure motor function.
Topics: Adolescent; Amines; Child; Child, Preschool; Creatine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Humans; Hydroxyurea; Neuroprotective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood; Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 32006461
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006282.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2019Bipolar disorder is a common condition associated with high morbidity; developing efficacious, safe treatments is therefore essential. Lithium is an effective...
BACKGROUND
Bipolar disorder is a common condition associated with high morbidity; developing efficacious, safe treatments is therefore essential. Lithium is an effective maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder. It acts as mood stabiliser and reduces the risk of suicide. However, evidence assessing the efficacy of lithium in the treatment of acute mania is less robust. Current evidence-based guidelines cite multiple anti-dopaminergic and mood-stabilising agents as initial treatments: more definite evidence is needed to decide if lithium should be the first-line therapy.
OBJECTIVES
1. To assess the effects of lithium in comparison with placebo or other active treatment in alleviating the acute symptoms of a manic or mixed episode in people with bipolar disorder.2. To review the acceptability and tolerability of treatment with lithium in comparison with placebo or other active treatments in alleviating the acute symptoms of a manic or mixed episode in people with bipolar disorder.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. We also searched the World Health Organization trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. We have incorporated studies from searches to 18 May 2018 into the current analyses.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Prospective randomised controlled studies comparing lithium with placebo or alternative drug treatment in treatment of acute mania. We included anyone with bipolar disorder, male and female, of any age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. We used odds ratios (ORs) to analyse binary efficacy outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuously distributed outcomes. We used a fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was moderate or substantial, in which case we used a random-effects model. We used Review Manager 5 to analyse data. We assessed the certainty of evidence for individual outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We found 36 randomised controlled studies comparing lithium with placebo, one of 12 drugs, or electroconvulsive therapy for treatment of acute mania. Studies included male and female participants (n = 4220), of all ages, who all fitted criteria for a manic episode within the context of a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.Risk of bias was variable; 12 studies had a high risk of bias in one domain and 27 gave inadequate information on randomisation leading to an 'unclear' rating for selection bias.Lithium versus placeboHigh-certainty evidence found that lithium was an effective treatment for acute mania and was more effective than placebo at inducing a response (OR 2.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 2.63; participants = 1707; studies = 6; I = 16%; high-certainty evidence), or remission (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.73 to 2.69; participants = 1597; studies = 5; I = 21%; high-certainty evidence).Lithium was more likely than placebo to cause tremor (OR 3.25, 95% CI 2.10 to 5.04; participants = 1241; studies = 6; I = 0%; high-certainty evidence), and somnolence (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.58; participants = 1351; studies = 7; I = 0%; high-certainty evidence).There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of lithium for all-cause dropouts (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.25; participants = 1353; studies = 7; I = 75%; moderate-certainty evidence), and weight gain (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.92; participants = 735, studies = 3; I= 51%; moderate-certainty evidence).Lithium versus antipsychotics or mood stabilisersFor the outcome of inducing a response, there was only very low-certainty evidence regarding lithium compared to haloperidol (MD -2.40, 95% CI -6.31 to 1.50; participants = 80; studies = 3; I = 95%), quetiapine (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.55; participants = 335; studies = 2; I = 71%), and carbamazepine (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.60; participants = 102; studies = 3; I = 0%).Lithium was probably less likely to induce a response than olanzapine (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.94; participants = 180; studies = 2; I = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence).Lithium may be less likely to induce a response than risperidone (MD 7.28, 95% CI 5.22 to 9.34; participants = 241; studies = 3; I = 49%; low-certainty evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between lithium and valproate (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.70; participants = 607; studies = 5; I = 22%; moderate-certainty evidence).There was moderate-certainty evidence that lithium was more effective than topiramate at treating acute mania (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.20; participants = 660; studies = 1).Data on adverse events for these comparisons contained too few studies to provide high-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review indicates that lithium is more effective than placebo as a treatment for acute mania but increases the risk for somnolence and tremor. Limited evidence suggests little or no difference between lithium and other mood stabilisers (valproate, carbamazepine) or antipsychotics (risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol). Olanzapine may be an exception, as it is probably slightly more effective than lithium. There is uncertain evidence that risperidone may also be more effective than lithium. Lithium is probably more effective at treating acute mania than topiramate. When compared to placebo, lithium was more likely to cause adverse events. However, when compared to other drugs, too few studies provided data on adverse effects to provide high-certainty evidence. More, rigorously designed, large-scale studies are needed to definitively conclude if lithium is superior to other interventions in treating acute mania.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lithium Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 31152444
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004048.pub4 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Jul 2016The aim of this study was to perform an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of prophylactic administration of levetiracetam in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The aim of this study was to perform an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of prophylactic administration of levetiracetam in brain tumour patients.
METHOD
A systematic review of studies published until April 2015 was conducted using Scopus/Elsevier, EMBASE and MEDLINE. The search was limited to articles reporting results from adult patients, suffering from brain tumour, undergoing supratentorial craniotomy for tumour resection or biopsy and administered levetiracetam in the perioperative period for seizure prophylaxis. Outcomes included the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, as well as the tolerability of the specific regimen, defined by the discontinuation of the treatment due to side effects.
RESULTS
The systematic review included 1148 patients from 12 studies comparing levetiracetam with no treatment, phenytoin and valproate, while only 243 patients from three studies, comparing levetiracetam vs phenytoin efficacy and safety, were included in the meta-analysis. The combined results from the meta-analysis showed that levetiracetam administration was followed by significantly fewer seizures than treatment with phenytoin (OR = 0.12 [0.03-0.42]: χ(2) = 1.76: I(2) = 0%). Analysis also showed significantly fewer side effects in patients receiving levetiracetam, compared to other groups (P < 0.05). The combined results showed fewer side effects in the levetiracetam group compared to the phenytoin group (OR = 0.65 [0.14-2.99]: χ(2) = 8.79: I(2) = 77%).
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of prophylaxis with levetiracetam seems to be superior to that with phenytoin and valproate administration. Moreover, levetiracetam use demonstrates fewer side effects in brain tumour patients. Nevertheless, high risk of bias and moderate methodological quality must be taken into account when considering these results.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Craniotomy; Humans; Levetiracetam; Perioperative Care; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Seizures; Supratentorial Neoplasms; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 26945547
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12926 -
Seizure Nov 2014Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most lethal type of primary brain tumor, and patients that undergo the maximum tumor resection that is safely possible and standard... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most lethal type of primary brain tumor, and patients that undergo the maximum tumor resection that is safely possible and standard radiochemotherapy only achieve a median survival time of 14.6 months. Several clinical studies have reported that valproic acid could prolong survival of GBM patients. However, the results of these studies are inconsistent. We examined relevant studies and conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effects of VPA on survival times and recurrence.
METHODS
A bibliographic search was performed in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register of the Controlled Trials databases to identify potentially relevant articles or conference abstracts that investigated the effects of VPA on the outcome of glioma patients. Five observational studies were included.
RESULTS
Pooled estimates of the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Our meta-analysis confirmed the benefit of using VPA (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.71). Sub-group analysis shows that patients treated with VPA had a hazard ratio of 0.74 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.59-0.94 vs. patients treated by other-AEDs and a hazard ratio of 0.66 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.52-0.84 vs. patients treated by administration of non-AEDs. No heterogeneity was observed in the subset analysis.
CONCLUSION
The results of our study suggest that glioblastoma patients may experience prolonged survival due to VPA administration. Sub-analysis confirmed the benefit of VPA use compared to a non-AEDs group and an other-AEDs group. Further RCTs of this subject should be performed.
Topics: Adult; Brain Neoplasms; Glioblastoma; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 25066904
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2014.06.015 -
BMJ Open Jul 2014To determine whether valproate (VPA) monotherapy influences homocysteine metabolism in patients with epilepsy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether valproate (VPA) monotherapy influences homocysteine metabolism in patients with epilepsy.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
We searched all articles in English through PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE published up to August 2013 concerning the homocysteine levels in VPA monotherapeutic patients with epilepsy.
PARTICIPANTS
VPA-treated patients with epilepsy (n=266) and matched healthy controls (n=489).
OUTCOME MEASURES
Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I(2) statistics. Pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs were calculated using a random effect model.
RESULTS
A total of eight eligible studies were enrolled in our meta-analysis. We compared the plasma levels of homocysteine in VPA-treated patients with epilepsy and healthy controls. There was significant heterogeneity in the estimates according to the I(2) test (I(2)=65.6%, p=0.005). Plasma homocysteine levels in VPA-treated patients with epilepsy were significantly higher than in healthy controls under a random effect model. (SMD, 0.62; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92). Further subgroup analyses suggested that no significant differences were present when grouped by ethnicity and age, but the risk of heterogeneity in the West Asian group (I(2)=47.4%, p=0.107) was diminished when compared with that of the overall group (I(2)=65.6%, p=0.005).
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis indicates that VPA monotherapy is associated with the increase in plasma homocysteine levels in patients with epilepsy. Whether this association is influenced by ethnicity needs further research.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy; Homocysteine; Humans; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 25031190
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004936 -
Medical Acupuncture Apr 2019A Cochrane Systematic Review published by Linde et al. in 2016 found moderate evidence suggesting that acupuncture is "at least non-inferior" to conventional... (Review)
Review
A Cochrane Systematic Review published by Linde et al. in 2016 found moderate evidence suggesting that acupuncture is "at least non-inferior" to conventional prophylactic drug treatments (flunarizine, metoprolol, and valproic acid) for episodic migraine prophylaxis. The evidence for the efficacy of these conventional treatments must be verified to strengthen and validate the original comparison made in Linde et al.'s 2016 review. The aim of the current authors' systematic review was to verify the efficacy of the conventional treatments used in Linde et al.'s 2016 comparison with acupuncture. Search strategies were applied to find studies that could verify the efficacy of conventional treatments for treating episodic migraines. Relevant outcomes and dosages were extracted from the retrieved studies. Each study's quality was assessed, using the Cochrane's collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias and the Cochrane GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation] scale. There is high-quality evidence suggesting that prophylactic drug treatment, at the treatment dosage ranges used in Linde et al.'s 2016 review, reduced headache frequency at a 3-month follow-up, compared to placebo. Headache frequency at a 6-month follow-up, and responses (at least 50% reduction of headache frequency) at 3-month and 6-month follow-ups could not be assessed. These findings strengthened Linde et al.'s 2016 comparison of conventional treatments and acupuncture for reducing headache frequency at a 3-month follow-up. For episodic migraine prophylaxis, moderate evidence suggests that acupuncture is "at least non-inferior," to now-, conventional treatments. This raises significant questions in the debate concerning claims that acupuncture is a placebo-based treatment and the prescriptions of proven conventional treatments that have similar effects as acupuncture.
PubMed: 31031874
DOI: 10.1089/acu.2019.1337 -
Seizure Oct 2021Serotonin syndrome (SS) is a drug‑induced, potentially fatal, clinical syndrome resulting from drugs that have serotonergic properties. Several antiepileptic drugs... (Review)
Review
Serotonin syndrome (SS) is a drug‑induced, potentially fatal, clinical syndrome resulting from drugs that have serotonergic properties. Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are known to have serotonergic properties and it can be hypothesized that such AEDs can cause SS. This study aims to review the literature on SS in patients receiving AEDs. We performed a systematic review of Scopus and MEDLINE/PUBMED for case reports and case series of SS where patients had received at least one AED at the onset of symptoms. The cases published in the English literature between 1 January 1991 and 1 April 2021 were included. Initial search identified 1263 articles of which 63 (76 patients) were included in the final analysis. Most of the included cases (53 cases, 70%) have been published in the last 10 years. The mean age of the 76 patients was 40.6 ± 17.8 years, and 51% of cases were females. These patients had been exposed to a total of 8 different types of AEDs. Valproic acid was the most common drug (29, 38%), followed by lamotrigine (22, 29%), gabapentin (16, 21%), pregabalin (seven, 9%), topiramate (five, 7%) and carbamazepine (two, 3%). There has been one case each with phenytoin and oxcarbazepine. Seven (9%) patients received more than one AEDs. Most patients (67, 88%) also received other serotoninergic agents. Only nine (12%) patients were on AEDs alone. The most common clinical condition for using AEDs was psychiatric disorders (36 patients, 47.3%), followed by migraine (17, 22.4%), other painful conditions (15, 19.7%), epilepsy (7, 9.2%), and perioperative conditions (8, 10.5%). Death was reported in two patients. We suggest that AEDs, because of their serotonergic properties, may induce SS, especially in patients who are on another serotonergic agent.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Oxcarbazepine; Serotonin Syndrome; Topiramate; Young Adult
PubMed: 34153897
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2021.06.004