-
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies Jun 2021Elevated lipid profiles and impaired glucose homeostasis are risk factors for several cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), which, subsequently, represent a leading cause of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Elevated lipid profiles and impaired glucose homeostasis are risk factors for several cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), which, subsequently, represent a leading cause of early mortality, worldwide. The aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of apple cider vinegar (ACV) on lipid profiles and glycemic parameters in adults.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases, including Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge, from database inception to January 2020. All clinical trials which investigated the effect of ACV on lipid profiles and glycemic indicators were included. Studies were excluded if ACV was used in combination with other interventions or when the duration of intervention was < 2 weeks. To account for between-study heterogeneity, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Overall, nine studies, including 10 study arms, were included in this meta-analysis. We found that ACV consumption significantly decreased serum total cholesterol (- 6.06 mg/dL; 95% CI: - 10.95, - 1.17; I: 39%), fasting plasma glucose (- 7.97 mg/dL; 95% CI: - 13.74, - 2.21; I: 75%), and HbA1C concentrations (- 0.50; 95% CI: - 0.90, - 0.09; I: 91%). No significant effect of ACV consumption was found on serum LDL-C, HDL-C, fasting insulin concentrations, or HOMA-IR. The stratified analysis revealed a significant reduction of serum TC and TG in a subgroup of patients with type 2 diabetes, those who took ≤15 mL/day of ACV, and those who consumed ACV for > 8-weeks, respectively. Furthermore, ACV consumption significantly decreased FPG levels in a subgroup of studies that administered ACV for > 8-weeks. Further, ACV intake appeared to elicit an increase in FPG and HDL-C concentrations in apparently healthy participants.
CONCLUSION
We found a significant favorable effect of ACV consumption on FPG and blood lipid levels.
Topics: Acetic Acid; Blood Glucose; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Insulin; Malus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34187442
DOI: 10.1186/s12906-021-03351-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the topical acne treatments azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc, and alpha-hydroxy acid is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical treatments (azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, zinc, alpha-hydroxy acid, and sulphur) for acne.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical randomised controlled trials of the six topical treatments compared with other topical treatments, placebo, or no treatment in people with acne.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Key outcomes included participants' global self-assessment of acne improvement (PGA), withdrawal for any reason, minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event), and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 49 trials (3880 reported participants) set in clinics, hospitals, research centres, and university settings in Europe, Asia, and the USA. The vast majority of participants had mild to moderate acne, were aged between 12 to 30 years (range: 10 to 45 years), and were female. Treatment lasted over eight weeks in 59% of the studies. Study duration ranged from three months to three years. We assessed 26 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain, but most domains were at low or unclear risk of bias. We grouped outcome assessment into short-term (less than or equal to 4 weeks), medium-term (from 5 to 8 weeks), and long-term treatment (more than 8 weeks). The following results were measured at the end of treatment, which was mainly long-term for the PGA outcome and mixed length (medium-term mainly) for minor adverse events. Azelaic acid In terms of treatment response (PGA), azelaic acid is probably less effective than benzoyl peroxide (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.95; 1 study, 351 participants), but there is probably little or no difference when comparing azelaic acid to tretinoin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 289 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in PGA when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.38; 1 study, 229 participants; low-quality evidence), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence indicates there may be no differences in rates of withdrawal for any reason when comparing azelaic acid with benzoyl peroxide (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.29; 1 study, 351 participants), clindamycin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.56; 2 studies, 329 participants), or tretinoin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; 2 studies, 309 participants), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). In terms of total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is a difference between azelaic acid compared to adapalene (1 study; 55 participants) or benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 30 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). There may be no difference when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.35; 1 study, 100 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the comparison of azelaic acid versus tretinoin, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling. Salicylic acid For PGA, there may be little or no difference between salicylic acid and tretinoin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 1 study, 46 participants; low-quality evidence); we are not certain whether there is a difference between salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (1 study, 86 participants; very low-quality evidence); and PGA was not measured in the comparison of salicylic acid versus benzoyl peroxide. There may be no difference between groups in withdrawals when comparing salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; 1 study, 86 participants); when salicylic acid was compared to tretinoin, neither group had withdrawals (both based on low-quality evidence (2 studies, 74 participants)). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in withdrawals between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants; very low-quality evidence). For total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is any difference between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants) or tretinoin (2 studies, 74 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). This outcome was not reported for salicylic acid versus pyruvic acid, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling and redness. Nicotinamide Four studies evaluated nicotinamide against clindamycin or erythromycin, but none measured PGA. Low-quality evidence showed there may be no difference in withdrawals between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.60; 3 studies, 216 participants) or erythromycin (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.22; 1 study, 158 participants), or in total minor adverse events between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; 3 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the nicotinamide versus erythromycin comparison. Alpha-hydroxy (fruit) acid There may be no difference in PGA when comparing glycolic acid peel to salicylic-mandelic acid peel (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; 1 study, 40 participants; low-quality evidence), and we are uncertain if there is a difference in total minor adverse events due to very low-quality evidence (1 study, 44 participants). Neither group had withdrawals (2 studies, 84 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to benzoyl peroxide, azelaic acid probably leads to a worse treatment response, measured using PGA. When compared to tretinoin, azelaic acid probably makes little or no difference to treatment response. For other comparisons and outcomes the quality of evidence was low or very low. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence in the evidence. We encourage the comparison of more methodologically robust head-to-head trials against commonly used active drugs.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adapalene; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Benzoyl Peroxide; Bias; Child; Clindamycin; Dermatologic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Erythromycin; Female; Glycolates; Humans; Keratolytic Agents; Male; Mandelic Acids; Niacinamide; Patient Dropouts; Pyruvic Acid; Quality of Life; Salicylic Acid; Sulfur; Tretinoin; Young Adult; Zinc
PubMed: 32356369
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011368.pub2 -
Epilepsia Oct 2023Seizures are common in neonates, but there is substantial management variability. The Neonatal Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) developed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Seizures are common in neonates, but there is substantial management variability. The Neonatal Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) developed evidence-based recommendations about antiseizure medication (ASM) management in neonates in accordance with ILAE standards. Six priority questions were formulated, a systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed, and results were reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 standards. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool and risk of Bias in non-randomised studies - of interventions (ROBINS-I), and quality of evidence was evaluated using grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). If insufficient evidence was available, then expert opinion was sought using Delphi consensus methodology. The strength of recommendations was defined according to the ILAE Clinical Practice Guidelines development tool. There were six main recommendations. First, phenobarbital should be the first-line ASM (evidence-based recommendation) regardless of etiology (expert agreement), unless channelopathy is likely the cause for seizures (e.g., due to family history), in which case phenytoin or carbamazepine should be used. Second, among neonates with seizures not responding to first-line ASM, phenytoin, levetiracetam, midazolam, or lidocaine may be used as a second-line ASM (expert agreement). In neonates with cardiac disorders, levetiracetam may be the preferred second-line ASM (expert agreement). Third, following cessation of acute provoked seizures without evidence for neonatal-onset epilepsy, ASMs should be discontinued before discharge home, regardless of magnetic resonance imaging or electroencephalographic findings (expert agreement). Fourth, therapeutic hypothermia may reduce seizure burden in neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (evidence-based recommendation). Fifth, treating neonatal seizures (including electrographic-only seizures) to achieve a lower seizure burden may be associated with improved outcome (expert agreement). Sixth, a trial of pyridoxine may be attempted in neonates presenting with clinical features of vitamin B6-dependent epilepsy and seizures unresponsive to second-line ASM (expert agreement). Additional considerations include a standardized pathway for the management of neonatal seizures in each neonatal unit and informing parents/guardians about the diagnosis of seizures and initial treatment options.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Anticonvulsants; Levetiracetam; Phenytoin; Consensus; Epilepsy; Seizures
PubMed: 37655702
DOI: 10.1111/epi.17745 -
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice May 2017Postprandial hyperglycemia plays a decisive role in the development of chronic metabolic disorders. The effect of vinegar intake with a meal on postprandial glucose has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Postprandial hyperglycemia plays a decisive role in the development of chronic metabolic disorders. The effect of vinegar intake with a meal on postprandial glucose has been studied in several trials with conflicting results.
RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The purpose of the current study was to systematically review control trials that report on the effect of vinegar intake on postprandial glucose response. Postprandial insulin response was considered as secondary outcome.
RESULTS
The pooled analysis of studies revealed a significant mean glucose and insulin area under the curve (AUC) reduction in participants who consumed vinegar compared with the control group (standard mean difference=-0.60, 95%CI -1.08 to -0.11, p=0.01 and -1.30, 95%CI -1.98 to -0.62, p<0.001, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest that vinegar can be effective in reducing postprandial glucose and insulin levels, indicating it could be considered as an adjunctive tool for improving glycemic control.
Topics: Acetic Acid; Blood Glucose; Cross-Over Studies; Female; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Insulin; Male; Postprandial Period
PubMed: 28292654
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.01.021 -
Clinical Journal of the American... Dec 2016Vancomycin has been in use for more than half a century, but whether it is truly nephrotoxic and to what extent are still highly controversial. The objective of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Vancomycin has been in use for more than half a century, but whether it is truly nephrotoxic and to what extent are still highly controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the risk of AKI attributable to intravenous vancomycin.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS
We conducted a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and cohort studies that compared patients treated with intravenous vancomycin with a control group of patients given a comparator nonglycopeptide antibiotic and in which kidney function or kidney injury outcomes were reported. PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched from 1990 to September of 2015. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed study risk of bias, and one reviewer adjudicated the assessments. A meta-analysis was conducted on seven randomized, controlled trials (total of 4033 patients).
RESULTS
Moderate quality evidence suggested that vancomycin treatment is associated with a higher risk of AKI, with a relative risk of 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.69 to 3.55). The risk of kidney injury was similar in patients treated for skin and soft tissue infections compared with those treated for nosocomial pneumonia and other complicated infections. There was an uncertain risk of reporting bias, because kidney function was not a prespecified outcome in any of the trials. The preponderance of evidence was judged to be indirect, because the majority of studies compared vancomycin specifically with linezolid.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that there is a measurable risk of AKI associated with vancomycin, but the strength of the evidence is moderate. A randomized, controlled trial designed to study kidney function as an outcome would be needed to draw unequivocal conclusions.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Administration, Intravenous; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Linezolid; Risk Factors; Vancomycin
PubMed: 27895134
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05920616 -
European Journal of Clinical... Jul 2023This systematic review aims to evaluate the existing evidence associating linezolid to serotonin toxicity when used as monotherapy or when co-administered with other... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review aims to evaluate the existing evidence associating linezolid to serotonin toxicity when used as monotherapy or when co-administered with other serotonergic agents.
METHODS
A systematic literature search using PubMed (till March 2023), IDWeek meetings (2003-2023), the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Annual Meetings (2001-2023), and the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (1999-2023) identified studies and abstracts related to linezolid and serotonin toxicity.
RESULTS
A total of 84 studies were included. The data collected in retrospective/observational studies compared the incidence of serotonin toxicity with linezolid monotherapy at 0.0050% and linezolid combination therapy at 0.0134%. All cases which discontinued linezolid and serotonergic agent/s at signs and symptoms of toxicity found symptom resolution; 75% of cases reported serotonin toxicity resolution within 24-48 h after discontinuation.
CONCLUSION
Linezolid therapy when optimal should not be deferred due to the risk of serotonin syndrome. The data collected reveals a low prevalence of serotonin toxicity in both linezolid monotherapy and linezolid concurrent with other serotonergic agents.
Topics: Humans; Linezolid; Serotonin; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin Syndrome; Serotonin Agents
PubMed: 37129603
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-023-03500-9 -
Efficacy of sonic and ultrasonic activation during endodontic treatment: a Meta-analysis of studies.Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Nov 2022To ensure a successful endodontic treatment, it is important to have a proper disinfection of the root canal. The current study compares the root canal cleanliness and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To ensure a successful endodontic treatment, it is important to have a proper disinfection of the root canal. The current study compares the root canal cleanliness and smear layer score between sonic and ultrasonic activation.
METHOD
Systematic literature review was implemented, using 12 databases. All studies comparing the efficacy of sonic and ultrasonic activation and reporting at least one outcome of interest were included.
RESULTS
At the apical level, pooling the data in the random-effects model (I=64%, ) revealed a statistically significant lower smear layer score within the sonic activation group (MD-0.48; 95% CI-0.92, -0.04; ). Furthermore, there was a statistically significant lower push-out bond strength value among the sonic group, in contrast to the ultrasonic group at the middle (MD-0.69; 95% CI-1.13, -0.25; ) and at the apical levels (MD-0.78; 95% CI-1.09, -0.46; ) of the root canal.
CONCLUSIONS
Sonic activation accomplished advancement relative to ultrasonic agitation in removing the smear layer, while ultrasonic activation resulted in significant cohesion between the sealers and the dentine tubules, decreasing the vulnerability of apical leakage and tooth fracture.
Topics: Humans; Smear Layer; Root Canal Irrigants; Root Canal Preparation; Dental Pulp Cavity; Ultrasonics; Sodium Hypochlorite; Therapeutic Irrigation; Edetic Acid; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
PubMed: 35430959
DOI: 10.1080/00016357.2022.2061591 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jan 2022Outcomes of treatment of tuberculosis patients with regimens including pretomanid have not yet been systematically reviewed. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Outcomes of treatment of tuberculosis patients with regimens including pretomanid have not yet been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To appraise existing evidence on efficacy and safety of pretomanid in tuberculosis.
DATA SOURCES
Pubmed, clinicaltrials.gov. and Cochrane library.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Quantitative studies presenting original data on clinical efficacy or safety of pretomanid.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients with tuberculosis.
INTERVENTIONS
Treatment with pretomanid or pretomanid-containing regimens in minimum one study group.
METHODS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data on efficacy (early bactericidal activity, bactericidal activity, end-of-treatment outcomes and acquired resistance) and safety were summarized in tables. Mean differences in efficacy outcomes between regimens across studies were calculated.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included; four randomized controlled trials on 2-week early bactericidal activity in rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis, three trials with randomized rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis arms and a single rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis arm (two on 8-week bactericidal activity, one on end-of-treatment outcomes), one single-arm trial with end-of-treatment outcomes in highly resistant tuberculosis. Activity of pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide was superior to standard treatment on daily change in colony-forming units at days 0-2, 0-56 and 7-56 and time to culture conversion in rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis (hazard ratio: 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.7), but not at end of treatment in one study. This study was stopped due to serious hepatotoxic adverse events, including three deaths, in 4% (95% CI 2-8) patients on pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide and none in controls. In patients with uncomplicated rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis on pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide treatment, 91% (95% CI 59-100) had favourable end-of-treatment outcomes. In patients with highly resistant tuberculosis, 90% (95% CI 83-95) on pretomanid-bedaquiline-linezolid had favourable outcomes six months after treatment, but linezolid-related toxicity was frequent. No acquired resistance to pretomanid was reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests an important role for pretomanid in rifampicin-resistant and highly resistant tuberculosis. Trials comparing pretomanid to existing core and companion drugs are needed to further define that role.
Topics: Antitubercular Agents; Humans; Linezolid; Moxifloxacin; Nitroimidazoles; Pyrazinamide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rifampin; Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant
PubMed: 34400340
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.08.007 -
Seizure Nov 2022Multiple interventions have been studied for benzodiazepine-resistant status epilepticus (SE) in children and adults. This review aimed to summarize the available... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Multiple interventions have been studied for benzodiazepine-resistant status epilepticus (SE) in children and adults. This review aimed to summarize the available evidence and provide estimates of comparative effectiveness and ranking of treatment effects.
METHODS
All randomized controlled trials studying patients (>1 month of age) with benzodiazepine-resistant SE were included. Outcomes including seizure cessation within 60 min, seizure freedom for 24 h, death, respiratory depression warranting intubation and cardiovascular instability were studied. Conventional and network meta-analyses (NMA) were done.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included (16 in NMA). Phenobarbital and high-dose levetiracetam were significantly superior to phenytoin with respect to seizure cessation within 60 min. Network ranking demonstrated that phenobarbital had the highest probability of being the best among the studied interventions followed by high-dose levetiracetam and high-dose valproate. Network meta-analysis was limited by predominant indirect evidence and high heterogeneity.On pairwise comparisons, phenobarbital was found to be associated with a higher risk of need for intubation and cardiovascular instability. Levetiracetam had a better safety profile than fosphenytoin.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on low quality evidence, phenobarbital appears to be the most effective agent for seizure cessation within 60 min of administration in patients with benzodiazepine resistant status epilepticus. High-dose levetiracetam, high-dose valproate and fosphenytoin are probably equally effective. Choice of medication may be guided by effectiveness, safety concerns, availability, cost and systemic co-morbidities.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Anticonvulsants; Benzodiazepines; Levetiracetam; Network Meta-Analysis; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Seizures; Status Epilepticus; Valproic Acid; Drug Resistance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36209676
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2022.09.017 -
Neurocritical Care Feb 2022Levetiracetam is commonly used for seizure prophylaxis in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), traumatic brain injury (TBI), supratentorial neurosurgery, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Levetiracetam is commonly used for seizure prophylaxis in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), traumatic brain injury (TBI), supratentorial neurosurgery, and spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). However, its efficacy, optimal dosing, and the adverse events associated with levetiracetam prophylaxis remain unclear.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) database was conducted from January 1, 2000, to October 30, 2020, including articles addressing treatment with levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis after SAH, ICH, TBI, and supratentorial neurosurgery. Non-English, pediatric (aged < 18 years), preclinical, reviews, case reports, and articles that included patients with a preexisting seizure condition or epilepsy were excluded. The coprimary meta-analyses examined first seizure events in (1) levetiracetam versus no antiseizure medication and (2) levetiracetam versus other antiseizure medications in all ICH, TBI, SAH, and supratentorial neurosurgery populations. Secondary meta-analyses evaluated the same comparator groups in individual disease populations. Risk of bias in non-randomised studies - of interventions (ROBINS-I) and risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) tools were used to assess risk of bias.
RESULTS
A total of 30 studies (n = 6 randomized trials, n = 9 prospective studies, and n = 15 retrospective studies), including 7609 patients (n = 4737 with TBI, n = 701 with SAH, n = 261 with ICH, and n = 1910 with neurosurgical diseases) were included in analyses. Twenty-seven of 30 (90%) studies demonstrated moderate to severe risk of bias, and 11 of 30 (37%) studies used low-dosage levetiracetam (250-500 mg twice daily). In the primary meta-analyses, there were no differences in seizure events for levetiracetam prophylaxis (n = 906) versus no antiseizure medication (n = 2728; odds ratio [OR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.16, P = 0.23, fixed-effect, I = 26%, P = 0.23 for heterogeneity) or levetiracetam (n = 1950) versus other antiseizure prophylaxis (n = 2289; OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55-1.28, P = 0.41, random-effects, I = 49%, P = 0.005 for heterogeneity). Only patients with supratentorial neurosurgical diseases benefited from levetiracetam compared with other antiseizure medications (median 0.70 seizure events per-patient-year with levetiracetam versus 2.20 seizure events per-patient-year for other antiseizure medications, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.58, P < 0.001, fixed-effects, I = 39%, P = 0.13 for heterogeneity). There were no significant differences in meta-analyses of patients with ICH, SAH, or TBI. Adverse events of any severity were reported in a median of 8% of patients given levetiracetam compared with 21% of patients in comparator groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current moderately to seriously biased heterogeneous data, which frequently used low and possibly subtherapeutic doses of levetiracetam, our meta-analyses did not demonstrate significant reductions in seizure incidence and neither supports nor refutes the use of levetiracetam prophylaxis in TBI, SAH, or ICH. Levetiracetam may be preferred post supratentorial neurosurgery. More high-quality randomized trials of prophylactic levetiracetam are warranted.
Topics: Adolescent; Anticonvulsants; Child; Humans; Levetiracetam; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Seizures
PubMed: 34286461
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-021-01296-z