-
Journal of Affective Disorders Aug 2022Rapid cycling is a phase of bipolar disorder with increased episode frequencies. It is a severe and disabling condition that often poses a major challenge to the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Rapid cycling is a phase of bipolar disorder with increased episode frequencies. It is a severe and disabling condition that often poses a major challenge to the clinician. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the evidence-based treatment options for rapid cycling.
METHODS
A systematic search on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases from inception until December 2021 was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. An additional search on clinicaltrials.gov was done. References of retrieved papers and key reviews were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials including at least 10 patients with bipolar disorder, rapid cycling, reporting an objective outcome measure were selected.
RESULTS
Our search, initially revealing 1330 articles, resulted in 16 papers about treatment of an acute mood episode, relapse prevention or both. Lithium, anticonvulsants, second generation antipsychotics, antidepressants and thyroid hormone were assessed as treatment options in the presented data. Evidence supporting the use of aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, valproate and lamotrigine for treatment of rapid cycling bipolar disorder was found.
LIMITATIONS
Small sample sizes, different index episodes and variety of outcome measures.
CONCLUSION
Evidence regarding treatment of rapid cycling remains scarce. Evidence supports the use of aripiprazole, olanzapine, and valproate for acute manic or mixed episodes, quetiapine for acute depressive episodes and aripiprazole and lamotrigine for relapse prevention. Given the paucity of available evidence, and the burden that accompanies rapid cycling, future research is warranted.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35545157
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.05.017 -
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology May 2022This study reviewed all published valproic acid (VPA) population pharmacokinetic (PPK) models in adult patients and assessed them using external validation methods to...
Published population pharmacokinetic models of valproic acid in adult patients: a systematic review and external validation in a Chinese sample of inpatients with bipolar disorder.
BACKGROUND
This study reviewed all published valproic acid (VPA) population pharmacokinetic (PPK) models in adult patients and assessed them using external validation methods to determine predictive performance.
METHODS
Thirteen published PPK models (labeled with letters A to M) not restricted to children were identified in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. They were evaluated in a sample totaling 411 serum concentrations from 146 adult inpatients diagnosed with bipolar disorder in a Chinese hospital. Serum concentrations of VPA were analyzed by validated ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Performance was assessed by four tests (prediction-based diagnostics, visual predictive checks, normalized prediction distribution error, and Bayesian forecasting).
RESULTS
Models K and L, developed in large samples of Chinese and Thai patients, showed good performance in our Chinese dataset. Models H and J demonstrated good performance in 2 and 3 of the 4 tests, respectively. Another seven models exhibited intermediate performance. The models with the worst performance, F and M, could not be improved by Bayesian forecasting.
CONCLUSION
In our validation study, the most important factors contributing to good performance were absence of children, Asian ethnicity, one-compartment models, and inclusion of body weight and VPA dose in previously published models.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Bayes Theorem; Bipolar Disorder; Child; China; Epilepsy; Humans; Inpatients; Models, Biological; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35536685
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2022.2075849 -
Epilepsy & Behavior : E&B Jun 2022New-onset movement disorders have been frequently reported in association with the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs). The frequency of specific motor manifestations... (Review)
Review
New-onset movement disorders have been frequently reported in association with the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs). The frequency of specific motor manifestations and the spectrum of their semiology for various ASMs have not been well characterized. We carried out a systematic review of literature and conducted a search on CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus from inception to April 2021. We compiled the data for all currently available ASMs using the conventional terminology of movement disorders. Among 5123 manuscripts identified by the search, 437 met the inclusion criteria. The largest number of reports of abnormal movements were in association with phenobarbital, valproic acid, lacosamide, and perampanel, and predominantly included tremor and ataxia. The majority of attempted interventions for all agents were discontinuation of the offending drug or dose reduction which led to the resolution of symptoms in most patients. Familiarity with the movement disorder phenomenology previously encountered in relation with specific ASMs facilitates early recognition of adverse effects and timely institution of targeted interventions.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Humans; Lacosamide; Movement Disorders; Phenobarbital; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35483204
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2022.108693 -
Seizure May 2022Recent position papers and guidelines encourage women with epilepsy (WWE) to exclusively breastfeed their infants because the benefits to their infants outweigh the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Recent position papers and guidelines encourage women with epilepsy (WWE) to exclusively breastfeed their infants because the benefits to their infants outweigh the potential adverse effects caused by exposure to antiseizure medications (ASMs).
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this review were: to evaluate concentrations of ASMs in breastmilk of lactating WWE, qualitatively synthesize evidence that can be used to estimate theoretical doses as estimated daily intake (EDI) and relative infant dose (RID) of ASMs, and to evaluate potential risks to infants as a result of exposure to ASMs from breastmilk.
METHODS
This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) as CRD42020223645. The databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL/EBSCO, COCHRANE, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, Summon, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and SCOPUS were systematically searched. A qualitative synthesis was adopted in this study.
RESULTS
A total of 15 records were included in this systematic review. The included studies reported levels of 8 ASMs in the breastmilk of WWE. The highest RIDs of carbamazepine, lamotrigine, primidone, phenobarbital, gabapentin, valproic acid, ethosuximide, levetiracetam, and topiramate were 3.70%, 36.33%, 4.96%, 3.15%, 4.37%, 1.90%, 31.49%, 12.50%, and 12.18%, respectively. Breastfeeding might be limited or even discontinued when signs of excessive sedation/drowsiness and/or poor weight gain are evident on infants exposed to primidone and phenobarbital, ethosuximide/primidone, or ethosuximide/phenobarbital.
CONCLUSIONS
Concentrations of ASMs can be detected in breastmilk of WWE and plasma/serum of infants exposed via breastmilk. Healthcare providers and WWE might use the findings of this study to make informed decisions on the safety of breastfeeding while taking ASMs.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Breast Feeding; Epilepsy; Ethosuximide; Female; Humans; Infant; Lactation; Milk, Human; Phenobarbital; Primidone
PubMed: 35427849
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2022.03.017 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of Anti-Seizure medication (ASM) treatment in patients with BECTS. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library,...
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of Anti-Seizure medication (ASM) treatment in patients with BECTS. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG DATA, and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) between 1 Jan 1990, and 1 Sep 2021, for randomized controlled studies. Data on seizure freedom rate, rate of treatment withdrawal due to serious adverse events, rate of any adverse events and dropout, 50% remission rate, the proportion of patients whose EEG to be normalized, and improvement in cognitive function were extracted by two authors independently. The pooled data were meta-analyzed using a random effects model. A total of 27 studies evaluating 9 ASMs were included, 19 of which were suitable for meta-analysis. Compared with sulthiame (STM), levetiracetam (LEV) was associated with a higher probability of treatment withdrawal due to serious adverse events [RR = 5.12, 95% CI (1.19, 22.01), = 0.0%], experiencing any adverse events [RR = 5.12, 95% CI (1.19, 22.01)], and dropping out for any reason [RR = 3.17, 95% CI (1.36, 10.11)], while it did not affect the seizure freedom rate [RR = 0.90, 95% CI (0.75, 1.06)]. LEV significantly improved cognitive performance relative to carbamazepine (CBZ) but had no effect on the proportion of any adverse events [RR = 0.62, 95% CI (0.25, 1.59)] and EEG to be normalized [RR = 1.27, 95% CI (0.94, 1.71)]. There was no higher probability of a 50% remission rate when comparing valproic acid (VPA) to LEV [RR = 0.96, 95% CI (0.57, 1.61)] and oxcarbazepine (OXC) [RR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.31, 1.20)]. In addition, STM was related to a higher probability of EEG normalization than placebo [RR = 4.61, 95% CI (2.12, 10.01)]. The included single studies also provided some evidence for the efficacy and/or tolerability of other ASMs in BECTS, including topiramate, lamotrigine, clobazam, and clonazepam. The risk of bias of the included studies was frequently low or unclear. This study indicated some discrepancies in efficacy and tolerability among ASMs used in patients with BECTS. More randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ASMs with larger populations are required to ascertain the optimum antiepileptic drug treatment to guide clinicians.
PubMed: 35359874
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.821639 -
Psychiatry Research May 2022There are currently no evidence-based treatment recommendations for impulse control disorders, which include intermittent explosive disorder (IED), kleptomania and... (Review)
Review
There are currently no evidence-based treatment recommendations for impulse control disorders, which include intermittent explosive disorder (IED), kleptomania and pyromania. Therefore, this systematic review sought to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated pharmacological treatments for impulse control disorders, to evaluate their efficacy and tolerability. Searches were conducted within MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Eight studies were included, six investigated pharmacotherapies for IED, while two investigated management for kleptomania. For the treatment of IED, oxcarbazepine and fluoxetine were the most efficacious. Importantly, divalproex was not superior to placebo in decreasing IED symptoms and was associated with significant adverse effects. In the treatment of kleptomania, only naltrexone was effective. The existing data suggest that the pharmacological treatment for impulse control disorders is an understudied area of psychiatry. Much of the current research on impulse control disorders focuses on management with anticonvulsants and antidepressants. Further studies conducted on these interventions in this population may yield promising results.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders; Fluoxetine; Humans; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35305343
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114499 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jan 2022Epilepsy is a long-term recurrent chronic brain disease that can cause significant emotional burden to the patient and their family, as well as huge economic costs to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy is a long-term recurrent chronic brain disease that can cause significant emotional burden to the patient and their family, as well as huge economic costs to society. Timely and accurate diagnosis of epilepsy, together with early and standardized treatments can effectively control seizures and restore the patient's quality of life and reduce the economic burden. This meta-analysis examined the efficacy of lamotrigine administration in patients with epilepsy.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and OVID-Medline databases to identify articles related to epilepsy and lamotrigine that were published from the establishment of the database to April 2021. The keywords used for the literature search included "epilepsy", "sodium valproate", "lamotrigine", "effectiveness", and "therapeutic effect". It uses Cochrane review manual 5.3 to evaluate the quality of the included literature and review manager 5.3 software for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 9 studies involving 1,864 patients with epilepsy were included in this meta-analysis. The results revealed that, after treatment failure with the first drug of valproic acid, the total effective rate of lamotrigine treatment had an odds ratio (OR) of 2.21 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.15 to 4.27 (Z=2.37; P=0.02). The total adverse reaction rate (OR =0.70; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.88; Z=2.98; P=0.003) and the improvement rate of epilepsy associated with lamotrigine treatment (OR =4.22; 95% CI: 1.00 to 17.84; Z=1.96; P=0.05) were all significantly higher than that of other drug treatments.
DISCUSSION
A total of 9 articles were included in this meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of lamotrigine in the treatment of epilepsy. The clinical efficacy of lamotrigine addition therapy was found to be superior to lamotrigine replacement therapy, and the incidence of adverse reactions was lower than that of lamotrigine replacement therapy. However, due to the low methodological quality of the included literatures, this conclusion should be further verified using large sample and high-quality randomized double-blinded experiments.
Topics: Epilepsy; Humans; Lamotrigine; Quality of Life; Triazines; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35144403
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-3555 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Sep 2022This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache.
METHODS
We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to January 2021 and identified randomized controlled trials comparing ketorolac to any other medications in treating patients presenting with migraine headache.
RESULTS
Thirteen trials were included in our review, comprising 944 participants. We derived seven comparisons: ketorolac versus phenothiazines, metoclopramide, sumatriptan, dexamethasone, sodium valproate, caffeine, and diclofenac. There were no significant differences in the reduction of pain intensity at 1 h under the comparisons between ketorolac and phenothiazines (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.09, p = 0.74) or metoclopramide (SMD = 0.02, p = 0.95). We also found no difference in the outcome recurrence of headache (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines (risk ratio [RR] =0.98, p = 0.97)], ability to return to work or usual activity (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 0.64, p = 0.13]), need for rescue medication (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines [RR = 1.72, p = 0.27], ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR 2.20, p = 0.18]), and frequency of adverse effects (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 1.07, p = 0.82]). Limited trials suggested that ketorolac offered better pain relief at 1 h compared to sumatriptan and dexamethasone; had lesser frequency of adverse effects than phenothiazines; and was superior to sodium valproate in terms of reduction of pain intensity at 1 h, need for rescue medication, and sustained headache freedom within 24 h.
CONCLUSIONS
Ketorolac may have similar efficacy to phenothiazines and metoclopramide in treating acute migraine headache. Ketorolac may also offer better pain control than sumatriptan, dexamethasone, and sodium valproate. However, given the lack of evidence due to inadequate number of trials available, future studies are warranted.
Topics: Caffeine; Dexamethasone; Diclofenac; Humans; Ketorolac; Metoclopramide; Migraine Disorders; Pain; Phenothiazines; Sumatriptan; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35138658
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14457 -
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 May 2022Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia, but it is associated with severe cardiac adverse events including myocarditis and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia, but it is associated with severe cardiac adverse events including myocarditis and cardiomyopathy. To aid treatment decision-making for clinicians, patients and their carers, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify potential risk factors for clozapine-induced myocarditis and cardiomyopathy.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane and PsycInfo for studies reporting myocarditis and cardiomyopathy among people on clozapine and potential risk factors. We calculated pooled effect sizes on risk factors using a random-effects meta-analytic model. Risk of publication bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
RESULTS
Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, of which six studies had quantitative data included in the meta-analysis. The odds of clozapine-induced myocarditis increased with concurrent sodium valproate use (k = 6, n = 903, pooled OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.81-7.06), but were not significantly greater with the use of quetiapine, lithium or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Our qualitative review identified conflicting results reported for increasing age and higher clozapine dose as risk factors for myocarditis. No other factors, including genetic risk, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, substance abuse or cardiometabolic disease, were associated with greater odds of myocarditis. No risk factors for cardiomyopathy were identified in the literature.
CONCLUSION
Concurrent use of sodium valproate increases the odds of clozapine-induced myocarditis. Thus, clinicians should consider the temporary cessation of sodium valproate during the initial titration phase of clozapine.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Cardiomyopathies; Clozapine; Humans; Myocarditis; Risk Factors; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35067911
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13398