-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Any type of seizure can be observed in Alzheimer's disease. Antiepileptic drugs seem to prevent the recurrence of epileptic seizures in most people with Alzheimer's...
BACKGROUND
Any type of seizure can be observed in Alzheimer's disease. Antiepileptic drugs seem to prevent the recurrence of epileptic seizures in most people with Alzheimer's disease. There are pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease, however there are no current systematic reviews to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of these treatments. This review aims to investigate these different modalities. This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease (including sporadic Alzheimer's disease and dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease).
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, on 3 August 2020 we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 31 July 2020). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials from PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Cochrane Epilepsy. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists and relevant conference proceedings; we also contacted trial authors and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials investigating treatment for epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease, with the primary outcomes of proportion of participants with seizure freedom and proportion of participants experiencing adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality. We performed no meta-analyses due to there being limited available data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one randomized controlled trial (RCT) on pharmacological interventions; the trial included 95 participants. No studies were found for non-pharmacological interventions. Concerning the proportion of participants with seizure freedom, no significant differences were found for the comparisons of levetiracetam versus lamotrigine (RR) 1.20, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.71; 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence), levetiracetam versus phenobarbital (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.19; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or lamotrigine versus phenobarbital (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.02; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It seemed that levetiracetam could improve cognition and lamotrigine could relieve depression, while phenobarbital and lamotrigine could worsen cognition, and levetiracetam and phenobarbital could worsen mood. The risk of bias relating to allocation, blinding and selective reporting was unclear. We judged the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to be very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review does not provide sufficient evidence to support levetiracetam, phenobarbital or lamotrigine for the treatment of epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease. Regarding efficacy and tolerability, no significant differences were found between levetiracetam, phenobarbital and lamotrigine. Large RCTs with a double-blind, parallel-group design are required to determine the efficacy and tolerability of treatment for epilepsy in people with Alzheimer's disease.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Anticonvulsants; Cognition; Depression; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Male; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 33973646
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011922.pub4 -
Italian Journal of Pediatrics Apr 2021The existing treatment options for neonatal seizures have expanded over the last few decades, but no consensus has been reached regarding the optimal therapeutic...
AIM
The existing treatment options for neonatal seizures have expanded over the last few decades, but no consensus has been reached regarding the optimal therapeutic protocols. We systematically reviewed the available literature examining neonatal seizure treatments to clarify which drugs are the most effective for the treatment of specific neurologic disorders in newborns.
METHOD
We reviewed all available, published, literature, identified using PubMed (published between August 1949 and November 2020), that focused on the pharmacological treatment of electroencephalogram (EEG)-confirmed neonatal seizures.
RESULTS
Our search identified 427 articles, of which 67 were included in this review. Current knowledge allowed us to highlight the good clinical and electrographic responses of genetic early-onset epilepsies to sodium channel blockers and the overall good response to levetiracetam, whose administration has also been demonstrated to be safe in both full-term and preterm newborns.
INTERPRETATION
Our work contributes by confirming the limited availability of evidence that can be used to guide the use of anticonvulsants to treat newborns in clinical practice and examining the efficacy and potentially harmful side effects of currently available drugs when used to treat the developing newborn brain; therefore, our work might also serve as a clinical reference for future studies.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Channelopathies; Humans; Hypoxia-Ischemia, Brain; Infant, Newborn; Seizures; Sodium Potassium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors; Stroke
PubMed: 33827647
DOI: 10.1186/s13052-021-01027-2 -
Thrombosis Research Oct 2020Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as safe and effective alternatives to Vitamin-K antagonists for treatment and prevention of arterial and venous... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as safe and effective alternatives to Vitamin-K antagonists for treatment and prevention of arterial and venous thrombosis. Due to their novelty, pharmacokinetic DOAC drug-drug interactions (DDIs) that result in clinical adverse events have not been well-documented.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to systematically review reported pharmacokinetic DDIs resulting in clinical adverse events through documented observational evidence to better inform clinicians in clinical practice.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Ovid HealthStar was conducted through March 10th, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data from eligible articles according to pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles reporting bleeding or thrombotic outcomes in non-controlled (observational) settings resulting from suggested pharmacokinetic DOAC DDIs were included.
RESULTS
A total of 5567 citations were reviewed, of which 24 were included following data extraction. The majority were case reports (n = 21) documenting a single adverse event resulting from a suspected DOAC DDI, while the remaining papers were a case series (n = 1) and cohort studies (n = 2). The most commonly reported interacting drugs were amiodarone and ritonavir (bleeding), and phenobarbital, phenytoin, and carbamazepine (thrombosis). Bleeding events more often resulted from a combined mechanism (P-glycoprotein AND CYP3A4 inhibition), whereas thrombotic events resulted from either combined OR single P-glycoprotein/CYP3A4 induction.
CONCLUSION
Current literature evaluating the real-world risk of DOAC DDIs is limited to few case reports and retrospective observational analyses. Clinicians are encouraged to continue to report suspected drug interactions resulting in adverse events.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Drug Interactions; Hemorrhage; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33213849
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.016 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2020Still circa 25% to 30% of patients with epilepsy cannot be efficiently controlled with available antiepileptic drugs so newer pharmacological treatment options have been...
Still circa 25% to 30% of patients with epilepsy cannot be efficiently controlled with available antiepileptic drugs so newer pharmacological treatment options have been continuously searched for. In this context, a group of endogenous or exogenous neurosteroids allosterically positively modulating GABA-A receptors may offer a promising approach. Among endogenous neurosteroids synthesized in the brain, allopregnanolone or allotetrahydrodeoxycorticosterone have been documented to exert anticonvulsant activity in a number of experimental models of seizures-pentylenetetrazol-, bicuculline- pilocarpine-, or 6 Hz-induced convulsions in rodents. Neurosteroids can also inhibit fully kindled seizures and some of them have been reported to counteract maximal electroshock-induced convulsions. An exogenous neurosteroid, alphaxalone, significantly elevated the threshold for maximal electroconvulsions in mice but it did not potentiate the anticonvulsive action of a number of conventional antiepileptic drugs against maximal electroshock-induced seizures. Androsterone not only elevated the threshold but significantly enhanced the protective action of carbamazepine, gabapentin and phenobarbital against maximal electroshock in mice, as well. Ganaxolone (a 3beta-methylated analog of allopregnanolone) needs special consideration for two reasons. First, it performed better than conventional antiepileptic drugs, diazepam or valproate, in suppressing convulsive and lethal effects of pentylenetetrazol in pentylenetetrazol-kindled mice. Second, ganaxolone has been evaluated in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial in patients with intractable partial seizures, taking maximally 3 antiepileptic drugs. The initial results indicate that add-on therapy with ganaxolone resulted in reduced seizure frequency with adverse effect being mainly mild to moderate. Possibly, ganaxolone may be also considered against catamenial seizures. Some positive effects of ganaxolone as an adjuvant were also observed in children with refractory seizures and its use may also prove efficient for the management of neonatal seizures associated with hypoxic injury. Neurosteroids positively modulating GABA-A receptor complex exert anticonvulsive activity in many experimental models of seizures. Their interactions with antiepileptic drugs seem ambiguous in mice. Initial clinical data indicate that ganaxolone may provide a better seizure control in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.
Topics: Allosteric Regulation; Animals; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy; GABA-A Receptor Agonists; Humans; Neurosteroids; Seizures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33117274
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2020.541802 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Apr 2021Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed,... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed, but they are mainly based on expert opinion or retrospective chart reviews. Therefore, evidence for the clinical aspects of palliative sedation is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To explore clinical aspects of palliative sedation in recent prospective studies.
METHODS
Systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered at PROSPERO. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014-December 2019), combining sedation, palliative care, and prospective. Article quality was assessed.
RESULTS
Ten prospective articles were included, involving predominantly patients with cancer. Most frequently reported refractory symptoms were delirium (41%-83%), pain (25%-65%), and dyspnea (16%-59%). In some articles, psychological and existential distress were mentioned (16%-59%). Only a few articles specified the tools used to assess symptoms. Level of sedation assessment tools were the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Ramsay Sedation Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Bispectral Index monitoring. The palliative sedation practice shows an underlying need for proportionality in relation to symptom intensity. Midazolam was the main sedative used. Other reported medications were phenobarbital, promethazine, and anesthetic medication-propofol. The only study that reported level of patient's discomfort as a palliative sedation outcome showed a decrease in patient discomfort.
CONCLUSION
Assessment of refractory symptoms should include physical evaluation with standardized tools applied and interviews for psychological and existential evaluation by expert clinicians working in teams. Future research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of palliative sedation for refractory symptom relief.
Topics: Hospice and Palliative Care Nursing; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Palliative Care; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Terminal Care
PubMed: 32961218
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.09.022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology...
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. 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 29 September 2019: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, 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, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. 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. Only five trials reported incidences of death. 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 certainty for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited, low-certainly 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: 32343399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007286.pub5 -
Medicine Jan 2020Sedoanalgesia secondary iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS) in paediatric intensive units is frequent and its assessment is complex. Therapies are heterogeneous, and...
BACKGROUND
Sedoanalgesia secondary iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS) in paediatric intensive units is frequent and its assessment is complex. Therapies are heterogeneous, and there is currently no gold standard method for diagnosis. In addition, the assessment scales validated in children are scarce. This paper aims to identify and describe both the paediatric diagnostic and assessment tools for the IWS and the treatments for the IWS in critically ill paediatric patients.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. This review included descriptive and observational studies published since 2000 that analyzed paediatric scales for the evaluation of the iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and its treatments. The eligibility criteria included neonates, newborns, infants, pre-schoolers, and adolescents, up to age 18, who were admitted to the paediatric intensive care units with continuous infusion of hypnotics and/or opioid analgesics, and who presented signs or symptoms of deprivation related to withdrawal and prolonged infusion of sedoanalgesia.
RESULTS
Three assessment scales were identified: Withdrawal Assessment Tool-1, Sophia Observation Withdrawal Symptoms, and Opioid and Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Score. Dexmedetomidine, methadone and clonidine were revealed as options for the treatment and prevention of the iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome. Finally, the use of phenobarbital suppressed symptoms of deprivation that are resistant to other drugs.
CONCLUSIONS
The reviewed scales facilitate the assessment of the iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and have a high diagnostic quality. However, its clinical use is very rare. The treatments identified in this review prevent and effectively treat this syndrome. The use of validated iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome assessment scales in paediatrics clinical practice facilitates assessment, have a high diagnostic quality, and should be encouraged, also ensuring nurses' training in their usage.
Topics: Child; Humans; Iatrogenic Disease; Intensive Care Units, Pediatric; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 32000360
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018502 -
Daru : Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy,... Jun 2019Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) which is observed in 55-94% of the newborns from opioids-taking mothers produces deleterious neurological symptoms. Various... (Review)
Review
Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) which is observed in 55-94% of the newborns from opioids-taking mothers produces deleterious neurological symptoms. Various pharmacological therapies have been investigated in neonates with NAS. This article reviews all studies on NAS treatment to analyze the duration of treatment, length of hospitalization and possible drug adverse effects. The search was limited to the randomized clinical trials which examined the treatments of neonates with NAS. Scientific databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Embase and Scopus were systematically searched. Retrieved articles were reviewed by two researchers and evaluated using the JADAD scoring system. Finally, the treatment duration, hospitalization length and drug side-effects were extracted. Methadone, buprenorphine and clonidine were found more effective than morphine. Diluted tincture of opium (DTO) in combination with phenobarbital or clonidine was significantly more effective than DTO alone. Clonidine was a significantly better adjunctive therapy than phenobarbital in reducing morphine treatment days. No significant difference was observed between morphine and DTO effectiveness. Deciding the optimal regimen to manage symptomatic NAS, as a single or an adjunct therapy is not possible based on the literature, due to the low quality, small size and short-term treatment considered in the published studies. Graphical abstract Process of selecting trials included in the present systematic review.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Clonidine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Length of Stay; Methadone; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31093953
DOI: 10.1007/s40199-019-00266-3 -
JAMA Pediatrics Mar 2019Incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome is rising rapidly, and optimal pharmacotherapy may meaningfully reduce length of treatment.
IMPORTANCE
Incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome is rising rapidly, and optimal pharmacotherapy may meaningfully reduce length of treatment.
OBJECTIVE
To compare pharmacological therapies for neonatal abstinence syndrome.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of Medline (1946-June 2018), Embase (1974-June 2018), Cochrane CENTRAL (1966-June 2018), Web of Science (1900-June 2018), and ClinicalTrials.gov (June 2018).
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neonatal abstinence syndrome alone or in combination with adjuvant treatments. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction was conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and data were pooled with fixed-effect models as a result of the low number of trials that were included in the analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the length of treatment. The length of stay, need for adjuvant therapy, and adverse events were considered as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Eighteen trials (N = 1072) were eligible for inclusion. The treatments that were included in the length of treatment analysis were buprenorphine, clonidine, diluted tincture of opium and clonidine, diluted tincture of opium, morphine, methadone, and phenobarbital. Sublingual buprenorphine was considered the optimal treatment for a reduction in the length of treatment (days: mean difference vs morphine, -12.75 [95% CI, -17.97 to -7.58]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) and length of stay (days: mean difference vs morphine, -11.43 [95% CI, -16.95 to -5.82]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) but not the need for adjuvant treatment (odds ratio vs morphine, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.46-3.44]; median rank, 3 [5-1]). The results were robust to bias but sensitive to imprecision.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The current evidence suggests that buprenorphine is the optimal treatment for neonatal abstinence treatment, but limitations are considerable and wide-scale adoption requires a large multisite trial. Morphine, which is considered standard of care in most hospitals, was the lowest-ranked opioid for length of treatment and length of stay.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30667476
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5044 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Any type of seizure can be observed in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Antiepileptic drugs seem to prevent the recurrence of epileptic seizures in most people with AD. There...
BACKGROUND
Any type of seizure can be observed in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Antiepileptic drugs seem to prevent the recurrence of epileptic seizures in most people with AD. There are pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for epilepsy in people with AD. There are no current systematic reviews to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of these treatments; this review aims to review those different modalities. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 11, 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of epilepsy in people with AD (including sporadic AD and dominantly inherited AD).
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, on 10 July 2018 we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946- ), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials investigating treatment for epilepsy in people with AD, with the outcomes of proportion of participants with seizure freedom or proportion of participants experiencing adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality. We performed no meta-analyses due to the limited available data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one randomized controlled trial on pharmacological interventions with 95 participants. No studies were found for non-pharmacological interventions. Concerning the proportion of participants with seizure freedom, no significant differences were found for the comparisons of levetiracetam (LEV) versus lamotrigine (LTG) (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.71), LEV versus phenobarbital (PB) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.19), or LTG versus PB (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.02). It seemed that LEV could improve cognition and LTG could relieve depression, while PB and LTG could worsen cognition, and LEV and PB could worsen mood. Unclear risk of bias was found in allocation, blinding and selective reporting. We judged the quality of the evidence to be very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review does not provide sufficient evidence to support LEV, PB or LTG for the treatment of epilepsy in people with AD. Regarding efficacy and tolerability, no significant differences were found between LEV, PB and LTG. Large randomized controlled trials with a double-blind, parallel-group design are required to determine the efficacy and tolerability of treatment for epilepsy in people with AD.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Anticonvulsants; Cognition; Depression; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Male; Phenobarbital; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 30570742
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011922.pub3