-
Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2016. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2016. 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 phenobarbitone are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for focal onset seizures, and is used in the USA and Europe. Phenobarbitone is no longer considered a first-line treatment because of concerns over associated adverse events, particularly documented behavioural adverse events in children treated with the drug. However, phenobarbitone is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone 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 phenobarbitone 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 24 May 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or phenobarbitone 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
We included 13 trials in this review and IPD were available for 836 individuals out of 1455 eligible individuals from six trials, 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine.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 676 participants: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 619 participants: 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97, low-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 487 participants: 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78, moderate-quality evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 822 participants: 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38, moderate-quality evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 683 participants: 1.09, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40, low-quality evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 683 participants: 1.01, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).Results of these secondary outcomes suggest that there may be an association between treatment effect in terms of efficacy and seizure type; that is, that participants with focal onset seizures experience seizure recurrence later and hence remission of seizures earlier on phenobarbitone than carbamazepine, and vice versa for individuals with generalised seizures. It is likely that the analyses of these outcomes were confounded by several methodological issues and misclassification of seizure type, which could have introduced the heterogeneity and bias into the results of this review.Limited information was available regarding adverse events in the trials and we could not compare the rates of adverse events between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. Some adverse events reported on both drugs were abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, drowsiness, motor and cognitive disturbances, dysmorphic side effects (such as rash), and behavioural side effects in three paediatric trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-quality evidence from this review suggests that carbamazepine is likely to be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate- to low-quality evidence from this review also suggests an association between treatment efficacy and seizure type in terms of seizure recurrence and seizure remission, with an advantage for phenobarbitone for focal onset seizures and an advantage for carbamazepine for generalised onset seizures.However, some of the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and inconsistencies that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Child; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy, Generalized; Epilepsy, Tonic-Clonic; Humans; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Remission Induction; Seizures; Time Factors; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 30353945
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001904.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in Issue 3, 2015.The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in Issue 3, 2015.The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five-year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre- or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 26 June 2017: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta-analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One three-armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three-armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence.Incidences of death were reported in only five trials. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no-treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability.We considered the evidence to be of low quality for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited, low-quality evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good-quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Craniotomy; Humans; Isoxazoles; Levetiracetam; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide
PubMed: 29791030
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007286.pub4 -
BMC Veterinary Research Mar 2018Understanding the efficacy and safety profile of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in feline epilepsy is a crucial consideration for managing this important brain disease....
BACKGROUND
Understanding the efficacy and safety profile of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in feline epilepsy is a crucial consideration for managing this important brain disease. However, there is a lack of information about the treatment of feline epilepsy and therefore a systematic review was constructed to assess current evidence for the AEDs' efficacy and tolerability in cats. The methods and materials of our former systematic reviews in canine epilepsy were mostly mirrored for the current systematic review in cats. Databases of PubMed, CAB Direct and Google scholar were searched to detect peer-reviewed studies reporting efficacy and/or adverse effects of AEDs in cats. The studies were assessed with regards to their quality of evidence, i.e. study design, study population, diagnostic criteria and overall risk of bias and the outcome measures reported, i.e. prevalence and 95% confidence interval of the successful and affected population in each study and in total.
RESULTS
Forty studies describing clinical outcomes of AEDs' efficacy and safety were included. Only two studies were classified as "blinded randomised controlled trials". The majority of the studies offered high overall risk of bias and described low feline populations with unclear diagnostic criteria and short treatment or follow-up periods. Individual AED assessments of efficacy and safety profile showed that phenobarbital might currently be considered as the first choice AED followed by levetiracetam and imepitoin. Only imepitoin's safety profile was supported by strong level of evidence. Imepitoin's efficacy as well as remaining AEDs' efficacy and safety profile were supported by weak level of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review reflects an evidence-based assessment of the published data on the AEDs' efficacy and safety for feline epilepsy. Currently, phenobarbital is likely to be the first-line for feline epileptic patients followed by levetiracetam and imepitoin. It is essential that clinicians evaluate both AEDs' effectiveness and tolerability before tailoring AED to the individual patient. Further studies in feline epilepsy treatment are by far crucial in order to establish definite guidelines for AEDs' efficacy and safety.
Topics: Animals; Anticonvulsants; Cat Diseases; Cats; Epilepsy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29499762
DOI: 10.1186/s12917-018-1386-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a disfiguring movement disorder, often of the orofacial region, frequently caused by using antipsychotic drugs. A wide range of strategies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a disfiguring movement disorder, often of the orofacial region, frequently caused by using antipsychotic drugs. A wide range of strategies have been used to help manage TD, and for those who are unable to have their antipsychotic medication stopped or substantially changed, the benzodiazepine group of drugs have been suggested as a useful adjunctive treatment. However, benzodiazepines are very addictive.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of benzodiazepines for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or other chronic mental illnesses.
SEARCH METHODS
On 17 July 2015 and 26 April 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including trial registers), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of each included trial for additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on people with schizophrenia (or other chronic mental illnesses) and antipsychotic-induced TD that compared benzodiazepines with placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention for the treatment of TD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently extracted data from the included studies and ensured that they were reliably selected, and quality assessed. For homogenous dichotomous data, we calculated random effects, risk ratio (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We synthesised continuous data from valid scales using mean differences (MD). For continuous outcomes, we preferred endpoint data to change data. We assumed that people who left early had no improvement.
MAIN RESULTS
The review now includes four trials (total 75 people, one additional trial since 2006, 21 people) randomising inpatients and outpatients in China and the USA. Risk of bias was mostly unclear as reporting was poor. We are uncertain about all the effects as all evidence was graded at very low quality. We found no significant difference between benzodiazepines and placebo for the outcome of 'no clinically important improvement in TD' (2 RCTs, 32 people, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.09, very low quality evidence). Significantly fewer participants allocated to clonazepam compared with phenobarbital (as active placebo) experienced no clinically important improvement (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.96, 1 RCT, 21 people, very low quality evidence). For the outcome 'deterioration of TD symptoms,' we found no clear difference between benzodiazepines and placebo (2 RCTs, 30 people, RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.22 to 9.82, very low quality evidence). All 10 participants allocated to benzodiazepines experienced any adverse event compared with 7/11 allocated to phenobarbital (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.41, 1 RCT, 21 people, very low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the incidence of participants leaving the study early for benzodiazepines compared with placebo (3 RCTs, 56 people, RR 2.73, 95% CI 0.15 to 48.04, very low quality evidence) or compared with phenobarbital (as active placebo) (no events, 1 RCT, 21 people, very low quality evidence). No trials reported on social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life, which are outcomes designated important by patients. No trials comparing benzodiazepines with placebo or treatment as usual reported on adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is only evidence of very low quality from a few small and poorly reported trials on the effect of benzodiazepines as an adjunctive treatment for antipsychotic-induced TD. These inconclusive results mean routine clinical use is not indicated and these treatments remain experimental. New and better trials are indicated in this under-researched area; however, as benzodiazepines are addictive, we feel that other techniques or medications should be adequately evaluated before benzodiazepines are chosen.
Topics: Anti-Anxiety Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Clonazepam; Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced; GABA Modulators; Humans; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29352477
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000205.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Tonic-clonic convulsions and convulsive status epilepticus (currently defined as a tonic-clonic convulsion lasting at least 30 minutes) are medical emergencies and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tonic-clonic convulsions and convulsive status epilepticus (currently defined as a tonic-clonic convulsion lasting at least 30 minutes) are medical emergencies and require urgent and appropriate anticonvulsant treatment. International consensus is that an anticonvulsant drug should be administered for any tonic-clonic convulsion that has been continuing for at least five minutes. Benzodiazepines (diazepam, lorazepam, midazolam) are traditionally regarded as first-line drugs and phenobarbital, phenytoin and paraldehyde as second-line drugs. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and updated in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anticonvulsant drugs used to treat any acute tonic-clonic convulsion of any duration, including established convulsive (tonic-clonic) status epilepticus in children who present to a hospital or emergency medical department.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (23 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 23 May 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 23 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (23 May 2017), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 23 May 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing any anticonvulsant drugs used for the treatment of an acute tonic-clonic convulsion including convulsive status epilepticus in children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes 18 randomised trials involving 2199 participants, and a range of drug treatment options, doses and routes of administration (rectal, buccal, nasal, intramuscular and intravenous). The studies vary by design, setting and population, both in terms of their ages and also in their clinical situation. We have made many comparisons of drugs and of routes of administration of drugs in this review; our key findings are as follows:(1) This review provides only low- to very low-quality evidence comparing buccal midazolam with rectal diazepam for the treatment of acute tonic-clonic convulsions (risk ratio (RR) for seizure cessation 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.38; 4 trials; 690 children). However, there is uncertainty about the effect and therefore insufficient evidence to support its use. There were no included studies which compare intranasal and buccal midazolam.(2) Buccal and intranasal anticonvulsants were shown to lead to similar rates of seizure cessation as intravenous anticonvulsants, e.g. intranasal lorazepam appears to be as effective as intravenous lorazepam (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 1 trial; 141 children; high-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam was equivalent to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; 2 trials; 122 children; moderate-quality evidence).(3) Intramuscular midazolam also showed a similar rate of seizure cessation to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09; 2 trials; 105 children; low-quality evidence).(4) For intravenous routes of administration, lorazepam appears to be as effective as diazepam in stopping acute tonic clonic convulsions: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 3 trials; 414 children; low-quality evidence. Furthermore, we found no statistically significant or clinically important differences between intravenous midazolam and diazepam (RR for seizure cessation 1.08, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate-quality evidence) or intravenous midazolam and lorazepam (RR for seizure cessation 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate-quality evidence). In general, intravenously-administered anticonvulsants led to more rapid seizure cessation but this was usually compromised by the time taken to establish intravenous access.(5) There is limited evidence from a single trial to suggest that intranasal lorazepam may be more effective than intramuscular paraldehyde in stopping acute tonic-clonic convulsions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.52; 160 children; moderate-quality evidence).(6) Adverse side effects were observed and reported very infrequently in the included studies. Respiratory depression was the most common and most clinically relevant side effect and, where reported, the frequency of this adverse event was observed in 0% to up to 18% of children. None of the studies individually demonstrated any difference in the rates of respiratory depression between the different anticonvulsants or their different routes of administration; but when pooled, three studies (439 children) provided moderate-quality evidence that lorazepam was significantly associated with fewer occurrences of respiratory depression than diazepam (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93).Much of the evidence provided in this review is of mostly moderate to high quality. However, the quality of the evidence provided for some important outcomes is low to very low, particularly for comparisons of non-intravenous routes of drug administration. Low- to very low-quality evidence was provided where limited data and imprecise results were available for analysis, methodological inadequacies were present in some studies which may have introduced bias into the results, study settings were not applicable to wider clinical practice, and where inconsistency was present in some pooled analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have not identified any new high-quality evidence on the efficacy or safety of an anticonvulsant in stopping an acute tonic-clonic convulsion that would inform clinical practice. There appears to be a very low risk of adverse events, specifically respiratory depression. Intravenous lorazepam and diazepam appear to be associated with similar rates of seizure cessation and respiratory depression. Although intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam lead to more rapid seizure cessation, the time taken to obtain intravenous access may undermine this effect. In the absence of intravenous access, buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam are therefore acceptable first-line anticonvulsants for the treatment of an acute tonic-clonic convulsion that has lasted at least five minutes. There is no evidence provided by this review to support the use of intranasal midazolam or lorazepam as alternatives to buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Administration, Rectal; Anticonvulsants; Child; Diazepam; Epilepsy, Tonic-Clonic; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Injections, Intravenous; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 29320603
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001905.pub3 -
Hospital Pharmacy Oct 2017Benzodiazepines are the drug of choice for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS); however, phenobarbital is an alternative agent used with or without concomitant...
Benzodiazepines are the drug of choice for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS); however, phenobarbital is an alternative agent used with or without concomitant benzodiazepine therapy. In this systematic review, we evaluate patient outcomes with phenobarbital for AWS. Medline, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched from 1950 through February 2017 for controlled trials and observational studies using ["phenobarbital" or "barbiturate"] and ["alcohol withdrawal" or "delirium tremens."] Risk of bias was assessed using tools recommended by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. From 294 nonduplicative articles, 4 controlled trials and 5 observational studies (n = 720) for AWS of any severity were included. Studies were of good quality (n = 2), fair (n = 4), and poor (n = 3). In 6 studies describing phenobarbital without concomitant benzodiazepine therapy, phenobarbital decreased AWS symptoms ( < .00001) and displayed similar rates of treatment failure versus comparator therapies (38% vs 29%). A study with 2 cohorts showed similar rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (phenobarbital: 16% and 9% vs benzodiazepine: 14%) and hospital length of stay (phenobarbital: 5.85 and 5.30 days vs benzodiazepine: 6.64 days). In 4 studies describing phenobarbital with concomitant benzodiazepine therapy, phenobarbital groups had similar ICU admission rates (8% vs 25%), decreased mechanical ventilation (21.9% vs 47.3%), decreased benzodiazepine requirements by 50% to 90%, and similar ICU and hospital lengths of stay and AWS symptom resolution versus comparator groups. Adverse effects with phenobarbital, including dizziness and drowsiness, rarely occurred. Phenobarbital, with or without concomitant benzodiazepines, may provide similar or improved outcomes when compared with alternative therapies, including benzodiazepines alone.
PubMed: 29276297
DOI: 10.1177/0018578717720310 -
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for partial onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) review and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than current first-line treatment carbamazepine and other current first-line treatment lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam); carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.
Topics: Adult; Amines; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Child; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy; Epilepsy, Generalized; Fructose; Gabapentin; Humans; Isoxazoles; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxcarbazepine; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Remission Induction; Topiramate; Triazines; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 29243813
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub3 -
Jornal de Pediatria 2017This systematic review of national or regional guidelines published in English aimed to better understand variance in pre-hospital and emergency department treatment of...
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review of national or regional guidelines published in English aimed to better understand variance in pre-hospital and emergency department treatment of status epilepticus.
SOURCES
Systematic search of national or regional guidelines (January 2000 to February 2017) contained within PubMed and Google Scholar databases, and article reference lists. The search keywords were status epilepticus, prolonged seizure, treatment, and guideline.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
356 articles were retrieved and 13 were selected according to the inclusion criteria. In all six pre-hospital guidelines, the preferred route of medication administration was to use alternatives to the intravenous route: all recommended buccal and intranasal midazolam; three also recommended intramuscular midazolam, and five recommended using rectal diazepam. All 11 emergency department guidelines described three phases in therapy. Intravenous medication, by phase, was indicated as such: initial phase - ten/11 guidelines recommended lorazepam, and eight/11 recommended diazepam; second phase - most (ten/11) guidelines recommended phenytoin, but other options were phenobarbital (nine/11), valproic acid (six/11), and either fosphenytoin or levetiracetam (each four/11); third phase - four/11 guidelines included the choice of repeating second phase therapy, whereas the other guidelines recommended using a variety of intravenous anesthetic agents (thiopental, midazolam, propofol, and pentobarbital).
CONCLUSIONS
All of the guidelines share a similar framework for management of status epilepticus. The choice in route of administration and drug type varied across guidelines. Hence, the adoption of a particular guideline should take account of local practice options in health service delivery.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Child; Clinical Protocols; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 28941387
DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2017.08.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Cerebral palsy is an umbrella term encompassing disorders of movement and posture, attributed to non-progressive disturbances occurring in the developing fetal or infant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cerebral palsy is an umbrella term encompassing disorders of movement and posture, attributed to non-progressive disturbances occurring in the developing fetal or infant brain. As there are diverse risk factors and causes, no one strategy will prevent all cerebral palsy. Therefore, there is a need to systematically consider all potentially relevant interventions for their contribution to prevention.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane reviews regarding the effects of antenatal and intrapartum interventions for preventing cerebral palsy.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 7 August 2016, for reviews of antenatal or intrapartum interventions reporting on cerebral palsy. Two authors assessed reviews for inclusion, extracted data, assessed review quality, using AMSTAR and ROBIS, and quality of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. We organised reviews by topic, and summarised findings in text and tables. We categorised interventions as effective (high-quality evidence of effectiveness); possibly effective (moderate-quality evidence of effectiveness); ineffective (high-quality evidence of harm or of lack of effectiveness); probably ineffective (moderate-quality evidence of harm or of lack of effectiveness); and no conclusions possible (low- to very low-quality evidence).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 Cochrane reviews. A further 62 reviews pre-specified the outcome cerebral palsy in their methods, but none of the included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported this outcome. The included reviews were high quality and at low risk of bias. They included 279 RCTs; data for cerebral palsy were available from 27 (10%) RCTs, involving 32,490 children. They considered interventions for: treating mild to moderate hypertension (two) and pre-eclampsia (two); diagnosing and preventing fetal compromise in labour (one); preventing preterm birth (four); preterm fetal maturation or neuroprotection (five); and managing preterm fetal compromise (one). Quality of evidence ranged from very low to high. Effective interventions: high-quality evidence of effectiveness There was a reduction in cerebral palsy in children born to women at risk of preterm birth who received magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection of the fetus compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.87; five RCTs; 6145 children). Probably ineffective interventions: moderate-quality evidence of harm There was an increase in cerebral palsy in children born to mothers in preterm labour with intact membranes who received any prophylactic antibiotics versus no antibiotics (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.34; one RCT; 3173 children). There was an increase in cerebral palsy in children, who as preterm babies with suspected fetal compromise, were born immediately compared with those for whom birth was deferred (RR 5.88, 95% CI 1.33 to 26.02; one RCT; 507 children). Probably ineffective interventions: moderate-quality evidence of lack of effectiveness There was no clear difference in the presence of cerebral palsy in children born to women at risk of preterm birth who received repeat doses of corticosteroids compared with a single course (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.50; four RCTs; 3800 children). No conclusions possible: low- to very low-quality evidence Low-quality evidence found there was a possible reduction in cerebral palsy for children born to women at risk of preterm birth who received antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation compared with placebo (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.03; five RCTs; 904 children). There was no clear difference in the presence of cerebral palsy with interventionist care for severe pre-eclampsia versus expectant care (RR 6.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 48.14; one RCT; 262 children); magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia versus placebo (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.26; one RCT; 2895 children); continuous cardiotocography for fetal assessment during labour versus intermittent auscultation (average RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.63; two RCTs; 13,252 children); prenatal progesterone for prevention of preterm birth versus placebo (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.48; one RCT; 274 children); and betamimetics for inhibiting preterm labour versus placebo (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; one RCT; 246 children).Very low-quality found no clear difference for the presence of cerebral palsy with any antihypertensive drug (oral beta-blockers) for treatment of mild to moderate hypertension versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one RCT; 110 children); magnesium sulphate for prevention of preterm birth versus other tocolytic agents (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.51; one RCT; 106 children); and vitamin K and phenobarbital prior to preterm birth for prevention of neonatal periventricular haemorrhage versus placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.76; one RCT; 299 children).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This overview summarises evidence from Cochrane reviews on the effects of antenatal and intrapartum interventions on cerebral palsy, and can be used by researchers, funding bodies, policy makers, clinicians and consumers to aid decision-making and evidence translation. We recommend that readers consult the included Cochrane reviews to formally assess other benefits or harms of included interventions, including impacts on risk factors for cerebral palsy (such as the reduction in intraventricular haemorrhage for preterm babies following exposure to antenatal corticosteroids).Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection can prevent cerebral palsy. Prophylactic antibiotics for women in preterm labour with intact membranes, and immediate rather than deferred birth of preterm babies with suspected fetal compromise, may increase the risk of cerebral palsy. Repeat doses compared with a single course of antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm birth do not clearly impact the risk of cerebral palsy.Cerebral palsy is rarely diagnosed at birth, has diverse risk factors and causes, and is diagnosed in approximately one in 500 children. To date, only a small proportion of Cochrane reviews assessing antenatal and intrapartum interventions have been able to report on this outcome. There is an urgent need for long-term follow-up of RCTs of interventions addressing risk factors for cerebral palsy, and consideration of the use of relatively new interim assessments (including the General Movements Assessment). Such RCTs must be rigorous in their design, and aim for consistency in cerebral palsy outcome measurement and reporting to facilitate pooling of data, to focus research efforts on prevention.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cerebral Palsy; Female; Fetal Distress; Humans; Hypertension; Infant, Premature; Magnesium Sulfate; Neuroprotective Agents; Parturition; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular; Premature Birth; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28786098
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012077.pub2 -
BMJ Open Jul 2017Compare the safety of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on neurodevelopment of infants/children exposed in utero or during breast feeding. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative safety of antiepileptic drugs for neurological development in children exposed during pregnancy and breast feeding: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
Compare the safety of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on neurodevelopment of infants/children exposed in utero or during breast feeding.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Systematic review and Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA). MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until 27 April 2017. Screening, data abstraction and quality appraisal were completed in duplicate by independent reviewers.
PARTICIPANTS
29 cohort studies including 5100 infants/children.
INTERVENTIONS
Monotherapy and polytherapy AEDs including first-generation (carbamazepine, clobazam, clonazepam, ethosuximide, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, valproate) and newer-generation (gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, vigabatrin) AEDs. Epileptic women who did not receive AEDs during pregnancy or breast feeding served as the control group.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES
Cognitive developmental delay and autism/dyspraxia were primary outcomes. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, language delay, neonatal seizures, psychomotor developmental delay and social impairment were secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
The NMA on cognitive developmental delay (11 cohort studies, 933 children, 18 treatments) suggested that among all AEDs only valproate was statistically significantly associated with more children experiencing cognitive developmental delay compared with control (OR=7.40, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3.00 to 18.46). The NMA on autism (5 cohort studies, 2551 children, 12 treatments) suggested that oxcarbazepine (OR 13.51, CrI 1.28 to 221.40), valproate (OR 17.29, 95% CrI 2.40 to 217.60), lamotrigine (OR 8.88, CrI 1.28 to 112.00) and lamotrigine+valproate (OR 132.70, CrI 7.41 to 3851.00) were associated with significantly greater odds of developing autism compared with control. The NMA on psychomotor developmental delay (11 cohort studies, 1145 children, 18 treatments) found that valproate (OR 4.16, CrI 2.04 to 8.75) and carbamazepine+phenobarbital+valproate (OR 19.12, CrI 1.49 to 337.50) were associated with significantly greater odds of psychomotor delay compared with control.
CONCLUSIONS
Valproate alone or combined with another AED is associated with the greatest odds of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes compared with control. Oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine were associated with increased occurrence of autism. Counselling is advised for women considering pregnancy to tailor the safest regimen.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO database (CRD42014008925).
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Autistic Disorder; Bayes Theorem; Breast Feeding; Carbamazepine; Child; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Observational Studies as Topic; Oxcarbazepine; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Triazines; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 28729328
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017248