-
Journal of Pain Research 2022Enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal (EERW) pain trials are designed to include only responders with considerable pain relief without unacceptable side effects into... (Review)
Review
Enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal (EERW) pain trials are designed to include only responders with considerable pain relief without unacceptable side effects into the randomized phase. There are no recommendations for primary endpoints in such trials. Our objective was to propose recommendations based on assessment of trial characteristics, endpoints and effect sizes in EERW pain trials. We conducted a systematic review by searching electronic databases up to June 2020 for EERW trials comparing an analgesic with a placebo in adults suffering from chronic pain. A total of 28 trials met our criteria, involving 13662 patients in the open or single-blind phase and 7937 patients in the double-blind phase. As primary endpoint 18 trials used pain intensity measured with the visual analogue scale (VAS) or the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS); 1 trial used a 4-point NRS. Loss of therapeutic response (LTR) was used in 1 trial and time to LTR was used in 8 trials as primary endpoint. Definitions of time to LTR differed considerably between trials. Only 2 out of 8 trials using time to LTR as primary endpoint reported the percentage of patients experiencing a minimum pain relief of 50%, compared to 14 out of 18 trials using NRS or VAS. Due to the complexity and diversity of time to LTR in EERW pain trials, we propose to use the NRS as primary endpoint with conservative imputation methods, and to use time to LTR as secondary endpoint.
PubMed: 35210848
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S334840 -
The Pharmacogenomics Journal Dec 2021Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform...
Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform anesthesia and pain prescribing to identify clinically actionable drug/gene pairs. Clinical decision-support (CDS) summaries were developed and were evaluated using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We found that 93/180 (51%) of commonly-used perioperative medications had some published pharmacogenomic information, with 18 having actionable evidence: celecoxib/diclofenac/flurbiprofen/ibuprofen/piroxicam/CYP2C9, codeine/oxycodone/tramadol CYP2D6, desflurane/enflurane/halothane/isoflurane/sevoflurane/succinylcholine/RYR1/CACNA1S, diazepam/CYP2C19, phenytoin/CYP2C9, succinylcholine/mivacurium/BCHE, and morphine/OPRM1. Novel CDS summaries were developed for these 18 medications. AGREE II mean ± standard deviation scores were high for Scope and Purpose (95.0 ± 2.8), Rigor of Development (93.2 ± 2.8), Clarity of Presentation (87.3 ± 3.0), and Applicability (86.5 ± 3.7) (maximum score = 100). Overall mean guideline quality score was 6.7 ± 0.2 (maximum score = 7). All summaries were recommended for clinical implementation. A critical mass of pharmacogenomic evidence exists for select medications commonly used in the perioperative setting, warranting prospective examination for clinical utility.
Topics: Analgesics; Anesthetics; Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Support Techniques; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Perioperative Care; Pharmacogenetics; Pharmacogenomic Testing; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34376788
DOI: 10.1038/s41397-021-00248-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2017. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise...
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2017. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly-used broad spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for focal 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; however, the confidence intervals generated by these trials are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.
OBJECTIVES
To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with carbamazepine 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 13 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised 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 carbamazepine 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, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. 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
IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1102 eligible individuals, from four out of 11 trials (i.e. 54% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, a HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, a HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. Most participants included in analysis (78%) were classified as experiencing focal onset seizures at baseline and only 22% were classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures; the results of this review are therefore mainly applicable to individuals with focal onset seizures.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 546 participants: 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.26, moderate-certainty evidence); time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41, moderate-certainty evidence); both showing no clear difference between the drugs and time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.86, moderate-certainty evidence), showing that treatment failure due to adverse events may occur earlier on carbamazepine than phenytoin, but we cannot rule out a slight advantage to carbamazepine or no difference between the drugs.For our secondary outcomes (pooled HRs adjusted for seizure type), we did not find any clear differences between carbamazepine and phenytoin: time to first seizure post-randomisation (582 participants): 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.40, moderate-certainty evidence); time to 12-month remission (551 participants): 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26, moderate-certainty evidence); and time to six-month remission (551 participants): 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12, moderate-certainty evidence).For all outcomes, results for individuals with focal onset seizures were similar to overall results (moderate-certainty evidence), and results for the small subgroup of individuals with generalised onset seizures were imprecise, so we cannot rule out an advantage to either drug, or no difference between drugs (low-certainty evidence). There was also evidence that misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review, particularly for the outcome 'time to treatment failure'. Heterogeneity was present in analysis of 'time to first seizure' for individuals with generalised onset seizures, which could not be explained by subgroup analysis or sensitivity analyses.Limited information was available about adverse events in the trials and we could not compare the rates of adverse events between carbamazepine and phenytoin. Some adverse events reported on both drugs were abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, drowsiness, motor and cognitive disturbances, dysmorphic side effects (such as rash).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence provided by this systematic review does not show any differences between carbamazepine and phenytoin in terms of effectiveness (retention) or efficacy (seizure recurrence and seizure remission) for individuals with focal onset or generalised onset seizures.However, some of the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and inconsistencies, which may have had an impact on the results of this review. We therefore do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a person with newly-onset seizures. We did not find any evidence to support or refute current treatment policies. We implore that future trials 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.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Child; Epilepsy; Humans; Phenytoin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Seizures; Treatment Failure; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31318037
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001911.pub4 -
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 -
Clinical and Molecular Hepatology Apr 2020Drug induced liver injury (DILI) may be different in the East compared to the West due to differing disease prevalence, prescribing patterns and pharmacogenetic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Drug induced liver injury (DILI) may be different in the East compared to the West due to differing disease prevalence, prescribing patterns and pharmacogenetic profiles. To review existing literature on causative agents of DILI in the East compared to the West, a comprehensive literature search was performed on electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure without language restrictions. Studies which involve patients having DILI and reported the frequency of causative agents were included. A random effects model was applied to synthesize the current evidence using prevalence of class-specific and agent-specific causative drugs with 95% confidence intervals. Of 6,914 articles found, 12 showed the distribution of drugs implicated in DILI in the East with a total of 33,294 patients and 16 in the West with a total of 26,069 DILI cases. In the East, the most common agents by class were anti-tuberculosis drugs (26.6%), herbal and alternative medications (25.3%), and antibiotics (15.7%), while in the West, antibiotics (34.9%), cardiovascular agents (17.3%), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (12.5%) were the commonest. For individual agents, the most common agents in the East were isoniazid-rifampicin-pyrazinamide (25.4%), phenytoin (3.5%), and cephalosporin (2.9%) while in the West, amoxicillin-potassium clavulanate combination acid (11.3%), nimesulide (6.3%), and ibuprofen (6.1%) were the commonest. There was significant heterogeneity due to variability in single-centre compared to multi-centre studies. Differences in DILI in the East versus the West both in drug classes and individual agents are important for clinicians to recognize.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antitubercular Agents; Cardiovascular Agents; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Databases, Factual; Humans; Medicine, Traditional; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 31816676
DOI: 10.3350/cmh.2019.1003 -
Seizure Jan 2020We performed this analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam (IV LEV) in patients with status epilepticus. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
We performed this analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous levetiracetam (IV LEV) in patients with status epilepticus.
METHOD
Studies were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for available randomized controlled trials(RCTs) comparing the efficacy and/or safety of IV LEV with other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model to calculate risk ratio with the RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Six RCTs with a total of 543 patients were included. There was no significant differences in clinical seizure cessation and hospital mortality, either between IV LEV and IV phenytoin (PHT) or between IV LEV and IV valproate (VPA). Compared with IV PHT, IV LEV had a lower risk of poor neurological outcome. For IV LEV compared with IV lorazepam (LOR), no significant difference in efficacy was found, but IV LEV patients had significantly lower need for ventilatory assistance. Adding IV LEV to clonazepam (CNP), compared with adding placebo showed no significant differences in seizure cessation at 15 min.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggested that IV LEV was comparable to IV PHT,VPA, or LOR in efficacy, and IV LEV as add-on therapy of CNP had no superiority in seizure cessation than CNP plus placebo. IV LEV may have a better tolerability than other AEDs do. More RCTs are needed to validate the role of IV LEV in status epilepticus.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Anticonvulsants; Humans; Levetiracetam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Status Epilepticus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31830677
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2019.11.007 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Aug 2019Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) can have a significant impact on wellbeing and quality of life. Limited data exist for treatments that improve TN pain acutely, within 24 h of...
BACKGROUND
Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) can have a significant impact on wellbeing and quality of life. Limited data exist for treatments that improve TN pain acutely, within 24 h of administration. This systematic review aims to identify effective treatments that acutely relieve TN exacerbations.
METHODS
We searched Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for relevant English language publications. The reference list for all articles was searched for other relevant publications. All studies that satisfied the following PICO criteria were included: (i) Population-adults with acute exacerbation of primary TN symptoms; (ii) Intervention-any medication or intervention with the primary goal of pain relief within 24 h; (iii) Comparator-usual medical care, placebo, sham or active treatment; (iv) Outcome-more than 50% reduction in pain intensity within 24 h of administration.
RESULTS
Of 431 studies, 17 studies were identified that reported immediate results of acute treatment in TN. The evidence suggests that the following interventions may be beneficial: local anaesthetic, mainly lidocaine (ophthalmic, nasal or oral mucosa, trigger point injection, i.v. infusion, nerve block); anticonvulsant, phenytoin or fosphenytoin (i.v. infusion); serotonin agonist, sumatriptan (s.c. injection, nasal). Other referenced interventions with very limited evidence include N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonist (magnesium sulphate infusion) and botulinum toxin (trigger point injection).
CONCLUSIONS
Several treatment options exist that may provide fast and safe relief of TN. Future studies should report on outcomes within 24 h to improve knowledge of the acute analgesic TN treatments.
Topics: Acute Disease; Analgesia; Analgesics; Anticonvulsants; Botulinum Toxins; Humans; Magnesium Sulfate; Neurotoxins; Trigeminal Neuralgia
PubMed: 31208761
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.05.026