-
Drug Safety Dec 2017β-lactam antibiotics are commonly prescribed antibiotic drugs. To describe the clinical characteristics, risk markers and outcomes of β-lactam antibiotic-induced... (Review)
Review
β-lactam antibiotics are commonly prescribed antibiotic drugs. To describe the clinical characteristics, risk markers and outcomes of β-lactam antibiotic-induced neurological adverse effects, we performed a general literature review to provide updated clinical data about the most used β-lactam antibiotics. For selected drugs in each class available in France (ticarcillin, piperacillin, temocillin, ceftazidime, cefepime, cefpirome, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, ceftolozane, ertapenem and aztreonam), a systematic literature review was performed up to April 2016 via an electronic search on PubMed. Articles that reported original data, written in French, Spanish, Portuguese or English, with available individual data for patients with neurological symptoms (such as seizure, disturbed vigilance, confusional state, myoclonia, localising signs, and/or hallucinations) after the introduction of a β-lactam antibiotic were included. The neurological adverse effects of piperacillin and ertapenem are often described as seizures and hallucinations (>50 and 25% of cases, respectively). Antibiotic treatment is often adapted to renal function (>70%), and underlying brain abnormalities are seen in one in four to one in three cases. By contrast, the neurological adverse drug reactions of ceftazidime and cefepime often include abnormal movements but few hallucinations and seizures. These reactions are associated with renal insufficiency (>80%) and doses are rarely adapted to renal function. Otherwise, it appears that monobactams do not have serious neurological adverse drug reactions and that valproic acid and carbapenem combinations should be avoided. The onset of disturbed vigilance, myoclonus, and/or seizure in a patient taking β-lactam antibiotics, especially if associated with renal insufficiency or underlying brain abnormalities, should lead physicians to suspect adverse drug reactions and to consider changes in antibacterial therapy.
Topics: Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Nervous System Diseases; beta-Lactams
PubMed: 28755095
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-017-0578-2 -
CNS Drugs Jun 2017Lamotrigine is used in pregnancy to control epilepsy and mood disorders. The reproductive safety of this widely used drug remains undefined and may represent a... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Lamotrigine is used in pregnancy to control epilepsy and mood disorders. The reproductive safety of this widely used drug remains undefined and may represent a significant public health concern.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing knowledge related to malformation rates and maternal-neonatal outcomes after in utero exposure to monotherapy with lamotrigine.
METHODS
Relevant studies were identified through systematic searches conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Ovid), and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) from database inception to July 2016; no language or date restrictions were applied. All publications of clinically relevant outcomes of pregnancies following in utero exposure to lamotrigine were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 21 studies describing immediate pregnancy outcomes and rates of congenital malformations fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Compared with disease-matched controls (n = 1412, total number of patients) and healthy controls (n = 774,571, total number of patients), in utero exposure to lamotrigine monotherapy was found to be associated with significantly decreased rates of inborn defects (odds ratio [OR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-2.16 and OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.89-1.74, respectively). Rates of miscarriages, stillbirths, preterm deliveries, and small for gestational age (SGA) neonates were not found to have been increased after in-utero exposure to LTG compared to the general population. Similarly, in utero exposure to lamotrigine monotherapy was not found to be associated with increased rates of inborn defects compared with in utero exposure to carbamazepine, and lamotrigine was found to be statistically significantly less teratogenic than valproic acid (n = 12,958 and 10,748; OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.68-1.03 and OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.26-0.39, respectively).
CONCLUSION
No association was found between prenatal lamotrigine monotherapy and increased rates of birth defects and other explored variables related to adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lamotrigine; Mood Disorders; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Triazines; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 28434134
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-017-0433-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of valproate (valproic acid or sodium valproate or a combination of the two) for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of valproate taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between valproate and comparator (placebo, active control, or valproate in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and, in select cases, risk ratios (RRs); we also calculated numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We calculated MDs for Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores. We also summarised data on adverse events from placebo-controlled trials and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs).
MAIN RESULTS
Ten papers describing 10 unique trials met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of data from two trials (63 participants) showed that sodium valproate reduced headache frequency by approximately four headaches per 28 days as compared to placebo (MD -4.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.32 to -0.30). Data from four trials (542 participants) showed that divalproex sodium (a stable combination of sodium valproate and valproic acid in a 1:1 molar ratio) more than doubled the proportion of responders relative to placebo (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.72; NNT 4; 95% CI 2 to 11). One study of sodium valproate (34 participants) versus placebo supported the latter findings (RR for responders 2.83; 95% CI 1.27 to 6.31; NNT 3; 95% CI 2 to 9). There was no significant difference in the proportion of responders between sodium valproate versus flunarizine (one trial, 41 participants) or between divalproex sodium versus propranolol (one trial, 32 participants). Pooled analysis of post-treatment mean headache frequencies in two trials (88 participants) demonstrates a slight but significant advantage for topiramate 50 mg over valproate 400 mg (MD -0.90; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.22). For placebo-controlled trials of sodium valproate and divalproex sodium, NNHs for clinically important adverse events ranged from 7 to 14.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Valproate is effective in reducing headache frequency and is reasonably well tolerated in adult patients with episodic migraine.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Flunarizine; Fructose; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Topiramate; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 23797677
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010611 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Seizures after stroke are an important clinical problem and may result in poor outcomes. The indications of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for seizure prophylaxis after... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Seizures after stroke are an important clinical problem and may result in poor outcomes. The indications of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for seizure prophylaxis after stroke remain unclear. This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of AEDs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures after stroke. For primary prevention, we aimed to assess whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of seizures in people who have a stroke but do not have a seizure. For secondary prevention, we aimed to assess whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of further seizures in people who have a stroke and at least one post-stroke seizure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 9 March 2021: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to March 08, 2021). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy and Stroke. We also checked the reference lists of articles retrieved from these searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies that recruited participants with a clinical diagnosis of stroke, either ischaemic or haemorrhagic. We excluded studies that only recruited participants with subarachnoid haemorrhage, subdural haemorrhage, extradural haemorrhage, or other non-stroke diagnoses such as tumour- or infection-related infarction or haemorrhage. We also excluded studies that recruited only participants who had undergone neurosurgery. We included participants of all ages suffering any seizure type who were assigned to AEDs or placebo groups.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
In accordance with standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration, two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion before evaluating trial risk of bias and extracting relevant data. The primary outcome assessed was the proportion of participants who experienced seizures in the follow-up period. We presented results as summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. Where we had sufficient data, we calculated random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses for dichotomous outcomes; otherwise, we reported results narratively. We used the I statistic to analyse statistical heterogeneity. We planned to use funnel plots to assess publication bias in meta-analyses with at least 10 included studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Two studies with a total of 856 subjects were included. AEDs were not shown to be effective in primary prophylaxis of post-stroke seizure (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.26; 2 studies, 856 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The first study was a randomised double-blind study comparing valproic acid with placebo for primary seizure prevention up to one year after stroke. The study included 72 adults with intracerebral haemorrhage. There was no difference in the risk of post-stroke seizures (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.16) or of death (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.58). The second study was a substudy on the use of diazepam in acute stroke. It was a randomised double-blind study, comparing a three-day diazepam treatment versus placebo for primary seizure prevention up to three months after stroke in 784 adults with acute stroke. There was no evidence of a difference in the risk of post-stroke seizures for all stroke or subgroups of haemorrhagic or ischaemic stroke (RR for all stroke 0.47, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.22). In a subgroup analysis of anterior circulation cortical infarcts, primary prophylaxis with diazepam was associated with a reduced risk of post-stroke seizures (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.95). Risks of mortality did not differ between the diazepam and the placebo group at two weeks (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.26) and three months follow-up (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26). We assessed both studies to be at a low overall risk of bias. Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the overall certainty of the evidence as low to moderate.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of AEDs on the primary and secondary prevention of seizures after stroke. Further well-conducted studies are warranted for this important clinical problem.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Brain Ischemia; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Seizures; Stroke
PubMed: 35129214
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005398.pub4 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Sep 2021Polypharmacy is common in maintenance treatment of bipolar illness, but proof of greater efficacy compared to monotherapy is assumed rather than well known. We... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Polypharmacy is common in maintenance treatment of bipolar illness, but proof of greater efficacy compared to monotherapy is assumed rather than well known. We systematically reviewed the evidence from the literature to provide recommendations for clinical management and future research.
METHOD
A systematic review was conducted on the use of polypharmacy in bipolar prophylaxis. Relevant papers published in English through 31 December 2019 were identified searching the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library.
RESULTS
Twelve studies matched inclusion criteria, including 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The best drug combination in prevention is represented by lithium + valproic acid which showed a significant effect on time to mood relapses (HR = 0.57) compared to valproic acid monotherapy, especially for manic episodes (HR = 0.51). The effect was significant in terms of time to new drug treatment (HR = 0.51) and time to hospitalization (HR = 0.57). A significant reduction in the frequency of mood relapses was also reported for lithium + valproic acid vs. lithium monotherapy (RR=0.12); however, the trial had a small sample size. Lamotrigine + valproic acid reported significant efficacy in prevention of depressive episodes compared to lamotrigine alone.
CONCLUSIONS
The literature to support a generally greater efficacy with polypharmacy in bipolar illness is scant and heterogeneous. Within that limited evidence base, the best drug combination in bipolar prevention is represented by lithium + valproic acid for manic, but not depressive episodes. Clinical practice should focus more on adequate monotherapy before considering polypharmacy.
Topics: Antimanic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lithium Compounds; Polypharmacy; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 33960396
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13312 -
Health Technology Assessment... May 2004To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder. (Review)
Review
A rapid and systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for treatment of mania associated with bipolar affective disorder.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases; industry submissions made to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
REVIEW METHODS
Randomised trials and economic evaluations that evaluated the effectiveness of quetiapine, olanzapine or valproate semisodium in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder were selected for inclusion. Data were extracted by one reviewer into a Microsoft Access database and checked for quality and accuracy by a second. The quality of the cost-effectiveness studies was assessed using a checklist updated from that developed by Drummond and colleagues. Relative risk and mean difference data were presented as Forest plots but only pooled where this made sense clinically and statistically. Studies were grouped by drug and, within each drug, by comparator used. Chi-squared tests of heterogeneity were performed for the outcomes if pooling was indicated. A probabilistic model was developed to estimate costs from the perspective of the NHS, and health outcomes in terms of response rate, based on an improvement of at least 50% in a patient's baseline manic symptoms derived from an interview-based mania assessment scale. The model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the alternative drugs when used as part of treatment for the acute manic episode only.
RESULTS
Eighteen randomised trials met the inclusion criteria. Aspects of three of the quetiapine studies were commercial-in-confidence. The quality of the included trials was limited and overall, key methodological criteria were not met in most trials. Quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium appear superior to placebo in reducing manic symptoms, but may cause side-effects. There appears to be little difference between these treatments and lithium in terms of effectiveness, but quetiapine is associated with somnolence and weight gain, whereas lithium is associated with tremor. Olanzapine as adjunct therapy to mood stabilisers may be more effective than placebo in reducing mania and improving global health, but it is associated with more dry mouth, somnolence, weight gain, increased appetite, tremor and speech disorder. There was little difference between these treatments and haloperidol in reducing mania, but haloperidol was associated with more extrapyramidal side-effects and negative implications for health-related quality of life. Intramuscular olanzapine and lorazepam were equally effective and safe in one very short (24 hour) trial. Valproate semisodium and carbamazepine were equally effective and safe in one small trial in children. Olanzapine may be more effective than valproate semisodium in reducing mania, but was associated with more dry mouth, increased appetite, oedema, somnolence, speech disorder, Parkinson-like symptoms and weight gain. Valproate semisodium was associated with more nausea than olanzapine. The results from the base-case analysis demonstrate that choice of optimal strategy is dependent on the maximum that the health service is prepared to pay per additional responder. For a figure of less than 7179 British pounds per additional responder, haloperidol is the optimal decision; for a spend in excess of this, it would be olanzapine. Under the most favourable scenario in relation to the costs of responders and non-responders beyond the 3-week period considered in the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of olanzapine is reduced to 1236 British pounds.
CONCLUSIONS
In comparison with placebo, quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium appear superior in reducing manic symptoms, but all drugs are associated with adverse events. In comparison with lithium, no significant differences were found between the three drugs in terms of effectiveness, and all were associated with adverse events. Several limitations of the cost-effectiveness analysis exist, which inevitably means that the results should be treated with some caution. There remains a need for well-conducted, randomised, double-blind head-to-head comparisons of drugs used in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder and their cost-effectiveness. Participant demographic, diagnostic characteristics, the treatment of mania in children, the use of adjunctive therapy and long-term safety issues in the elderly population, and acute and long-term treatment are also subjects for further study.
Topics: Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dibenzothiazepines; Humans; Lithium; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 15147609
DOI: 10.3310/hta8190 -
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... May 2014Acupuncture is increasingly used in people with epilepsy. It remains unclear whether existing evidence is rigorous enough to support its use. This is an update of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acupuncture is increasingly used in people with epilepsy. It remains unclear whether existing evidence is rigorous enough to support its use. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in people with epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (June 2013) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and other databases (from inception to June 2013). We reviewed reference lists from relevant trials. We did not impose any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture with placebo or sham treatment, antiepileptic drugs or no treatment; or comparing acupuncture plus other treatments with the same other treatments, involving people of any age with any type of epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 RCTs with 1538 participants that had a wide age range and were suffering mainly from generalized epilepsy. The duration of treatment varied from 7.5 weeks to 1 year. All included trials had a high risk of bias with short follow-up. Compared with Chinese herbs, needle acupuncture plus Chinese herbs was not effective in achieving at least 50% reduction in seizure frequency (80% in control group versus 90% in intervention group, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.31, 2 trials; assumed risk 500 per 1000, corresponding risk 485 to 655 per 1000). Compared with valproate, needle acupuncture plus valproate was not effective in achieving freedom from seizures (44% in control group versus 42.7% in intervention group, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.30, 2 trials; assumed risk 136 per 1000, corresponding risk 97 to 177 per 1000) or at least 50% reduction in seizure frequency (69.3% in control group versus 81.3% in intervention group, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.48, 2 trials; assumed risk 556 per 1000, corresponding risk 289 to 1000 per 1000) but may have achieved better quality of life (QOL) after treatment (QOLIE-31 score (higher score indicated better QOL) mean 170.22 points in the control group versus 180.32 points in the intervention group, MD 10.10 points, 95% CI 2.51 to 17.69 points, 1 trial). Compared with phenytoin, needle acupuncture was not effective in achieving at least 50% reduction in seizure frequency (70% in control group versus 94.4% in intervention group, RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.44, 2 trials; assumed risk 700 per 1000, corresponding risk 322 to 1000 per 1000). Compared with valproate, needle acupuncture was not effective in achieving seizure freedom (14.1% in control group versus 25.2% in intervention group, RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.27, 2 trials; assumed risk 136 per 1000, corresponding risk 126 to 445 per 1000) but may be effective in achieving at least 50% reduction in seizure frequency (55.3% in control group versus 73.7% in intervention group, RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.66, 2 trials; assumed risk 556 per 1000, corresponding risk 583 to 923 per 1000) and better QOL after treatment (QOLIE-31 score mean 172.6 points in the control group versus 184.64 points in the intervention group, MD 12.04 points, 95% CI 4.05 to 20.03 points, 1 trial). Compared with antiepileptic drugs, catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs was not effective in achieving seizure freedom (13% in control group versus 19.6% in intervention group, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.43, 4 trials; assumed risk 127 per 1000, corresponding risk 118 to 309 per 1000) but may be effective in achieving at least 50% reduction in seizure frequency (63.1% in control group versus 82% in intervention group, RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.89, 5 trials; assumed risk 444 per 1000, corresponding risk 475 to 840 per 1000) and better QOL after treatment (QOLIE-31 score (higher score indicated worse quality of life) mean 53.21 points in the control group versus 45.67 points in the intervention group, MD -7.54 points, 95% CI -14.47 to -0.61 points, 1 trial). Compared with valproate, catgut implantation may be effective in achieving seizure freedom (8% in control group versus 19.7% in intervention group, RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.94, 4 trials; assumed risk 82 per 1000, corresponding risk 132 to 406 per 1000) and better QOL after treatment (QOLIE-31 score (higher score indicated better quality of life) mean 172.6 points in the control group versus 191.33 points in the intervention group, MD 18.73 points, 95% CI 11.10 to 26.36 points, 1 trial) but not at least 50% reduction in seizure frequency (65.6% in control group versus 91.7% in intervention group, RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.84, 4 trials; assumed risk 721 per 1000, corresponding risk 677 to 1000 per 1000). Acupuncture did not have excess adverse events compared to control treatment in the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Available RCTs are small, heterogeneous and have high risk of bias. The current evidence does not support acupuncture for treating epilepsy.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Anticonvulsants; Child; Combined Modality Therapy; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Epilepsy, Generalized; Humans; Phenytoin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 24801225
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005062.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 -
Epileptic Disorders : International... Feb 2023Ketogenic diet therapy (KDT) is a nonpharmacological treatment that has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing seizures in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.... (Review)
Review
Ketogenic diet therapy (KDT) is a nonpharmacological treatment that has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing seizures in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. As the majority of patients on KDT are also receiving anti-seizure medications (ASMs), questions about their combination often arise. KDT is typically implemented as an add-on, and not a substitute for ASMs. Drug monitoring and specific laboratory studies may be helpful in specific cases of cotherapy. Valproate, topiramate, zonisamide, and lamotrigine may be potentially problematic with KDT, but the evidence for this is not conclusive. ASM reduction is usually attempted after 1 month of KDT if a child is showing seizure reduction (but weaning ASMs does not require seizure freedom). Failure to wean an ASM does not mean KDT has failed and adding a new ASM may be beneficial in those cases after several months of KDT fine-tuning. The purpose of this review was to discuss the evidence for possible negative (or positive) pharmacodynamic interactions between KDT and ASMs. In addition, practical suggestions for the weaning or adding of ASMs in patients on KDT are provided.
Topics: Child; Humans; Epilepsy; Diet, Ketogenic; Anticonvulsants; Valproic Acid; Topiramate; Ketone Bodies
PubMed: 36987562
DOI: 10.1002/epd2.20055