-
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 -
Neurology Jul 2009To reassess the evidence for management issues related to the care of women with epilepsy (WWE) during pregnancy. (Review)
Review
Practice parameter update: management issues for women with epilepsy--focus on pregnancy (an evidence-based review): teratogenesis and perinatal outcomes: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee and Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and...
OBJECTIVE
To reassess the evidence for management issues related to the care of women with epilepsy (WWE) during pregnancy.
METHODS
Systematic review of relevant articles published between January 1985 and June 2007.
RESULTS
It is highly probable that intrauterine first-trimester valproate (VPA) exposure has higher risk of major congenital malformations (MCMs) compared to carbamazepine and possible compared to phenytoin or lamotrigine. Compared to untreated WWE, it is probable that VPA as part of polytherapy and possible that VPA as monotherapy contribute to the development of MCMs. It is probable that antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy as compared to monotherapy regimens contributes to the development of MCMs and to reduced cognitive outcomes. For monotherapy, intrauterine exposure to VPA probably reduces cognitive outcomes. Further, monotherapy exposure to phenytoin or phenobarbital possibly reduces cognitive outcomes. Neonates of WWE taking AEDs probably have an increased risk of being small for gestational age and possibly have an increased risk of a 1-minute Apgar score of <7.
RECOMMENDATIONS
If possible, avoidance of valproate (VPA) and antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy during the first trimester of pregnancy should be considered to decrease the risk of major congenital malformations (Level B). If possible, avoidance of VPA and AED polytherapy throughout pregnancy should be considered to prevent reduced cognitive outcomes (Level B). If possible, avoidance of phenytoin and phenobarbital during pregnancy may be considered to prevent reduced cognitive outcomes (Level C). Pregnancy risk stratification should reflect that the offspring of women with epilepsy taking AEDs are probably at increased risk for being small for gestational age (Level B) and possibly at increased risk of 1-minute Apgar scores of <7 (Level C).
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Anticonvulsants; Birth Weight; Cognition Disorders; Contraindications; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Risk; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 19398681
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181a6b312 -
CNS Drugs Apr 2013Partial-onset seizures contribute the bulk of seizure burden in childhood epilepsy. The therapeutic decision making involves consideration of factors specific to drug,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Partial-onset seizures contribute the bulk of seizure burden in childhood epilepsy. The therapeutic decision making involves consideration of factors specific to drug, patient and socioeconomic situation.
OBJECTIVES
This paper systematically reviews the available efficacy/effectiveness evidence for various anti-epileptic drugs (AED) as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in children.
DATA SOURCES
Relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified by a structured PubMed search, supplemented by an additional hand search of reference lists and authors' files.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Eligible studies were reviewed and data extracted into tables. Included RCTs were classified based on accepted published criteria.
OUTCOMES
Only efficacy and effectiveness outcome measures were evaluated since there is little scientifically rigorous comprehensive AED adverse effects data.
RESULTS
Oxcarbazepine is the only AED with Class I evidence for efficacy/effectiveness as initial monotherapy for partial-onset seizures in children. Carbamazepine, clobazam, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, topiramate, valproate, vigabatrin and zonisamide have, at best, Class III efficacy/effectiveness evidence for monotherapy of partial-onset seizures in children. For adjunctive therapy, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine and topiramate have Class I efficacy/effectiveness evidence for treatment of pediatric partial-onset seizures.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS
This efficacy/effectiveness analysis must not be used in isolation when selecting therapy. AED selection for a specific child needs to integrate a drug's efficacy/effectiveness data with its safety and tolerability profile, pharmacokinetic properties, available formulations, and patient specific characteristics. It is critical that physicians and patients incorporate all these relevant variables when choosing AED therapy.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Child; Decision Making; Drug Approval; Epilepsies, Partial; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Socioeconomic Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23515971
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-013-0048-z -
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy : JMCP 2006Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are intended not only to provide supportive information for health care providers but also to act as a guide for health care policy... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVE
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are intended not only to provide supportive information for health care providers but also to act as a guide for health care policy decisions. However, extant CPGs do not always reach the same conclusions. The objective of this study was to compare recommendations for initial pharmacological treatment of new-onset epilepsy in adults as stated within published CPGs.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of CPGs, which were published by prominent national organizations between January 2000 and June 2005, regarding the initial pharmacological treatment of epilepsy in adults.
RESULTS
Five CPGs and 1 evidence report were identified that focus on pharmaceutical management in epilepsy. The 3 guidelines most relevant to the question of new-onset epilepsy treatment in adults were developed by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). AAN recommends the use of both recently introduced antiepileptic drugs (AEDs: gabapentin, lamotrigine, topiramate, and oxcarbazepine) and standard agents (carbamazepine, phenytoin, valproic acid/divalproex, and phenobarbital) in newly diagnosed epilepsy, i.e., a nontiered approach. Alternatively, NICE recommends using newer AEDs (lamotrigine, topiramate, and oxcarbazepine) only in patients who derive no benefit from older agents--a tiered approach. SIGN notes that all AEDs licensed for monotherapy have similar efficacy in newly diagnosed epilepsy--a recommendation for a nontiered approach. The newer AEDs (lamotrigine and oxcarbazepine) are recommended as first-line initial treatment as are standard agents (carbamazepine and valproic acid/divalproex). The NICE guideline includes economic and quality-of-life evidence in their recommendations while AAN and SIGN do not. In these regards, current data fails to show superiority for newer agents.
CONCLUSION
In the past 5 years, several CPGs have been published in epilepsy management. Only 3 guidelines have explicit recommendations for initial pharmacological treatment of adults with epilepsy. With some variation regarding which medications are recommended from each group, all CPGs promote standard and newer AEDs as having similar clinical efficacy. Until efficacy, quality of life, or cost data for the newer agents demonstrates a superior outcome, older AEDs remain viable options as first-line for monotherapy in newly diagnosed patients and may provide cost benefits over newer agents.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy; Humans; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; United States
PubMed: 16420108
DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2006.12.1.55 -
Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, first published in Issue 1, 2003 and updated in 2015. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, first published in Issue 1, 2003 and updated in 2015. 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 partial 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 studies are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.
OBJECTIVES
To review the time to withdrawal, remission, and first seizure of carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial 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 18 August 2016: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (from 1823) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenobarbitone monotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. 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 'adverse events'. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD were available for 836 participants out of 1455 eligible individuals from six out of 13 trials; 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for phenobarbitone, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were HR 1.50 for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; P = 0.003); HR 0.93 for time to achieve 12-month remission (95% CI 0.72 to 1.20; P = 0.57); HR 0.99 for time to achieve six-month remission (95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; P = 0.95); and HR 0.87 for time to first seizure (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06; P = 0.18). Results suggest an advantage for carbamazepine over phenobarbitone in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and no statistically significant evidence between the drugs for the other outcomes. We found evidence of a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (Chi² test for subgroup differences P = 0.03), where phenobarbitone was favoured for partial onset seizures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02) and carbamazepine was favoured for generalised onset seizures (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.77; P = 0.27). We found no evidence of an interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for the other outcomes. However, methodological quality of the included studies was variable, with 10 out of the 13 included studies (4 out of 6 studies contributing IPD) judged at high risk of bias for at least one methodological aspect, leading to variable individual study results, and therefore, heterogeneity in the analyses of this review. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of poor methodological aspects, where possible.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we found evidence suggestive of an advantage for carbamazepine in terms of drug effectiveness compared with phenobarbitone (retention of the drug in terms of seizure control and adverse events) and evidence suggestive of an association between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (phenobarbitone favoured for partial seizures and carbamazepine favoured for generalised seizures). However, this evidence was judged to be of low quality due to poor methodological quality and the potential impact on individual study results (and therefore variability (heterogeneity) present in the analysis within this review), we encourage caution when interpreting the results of this review and do not advocate that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations for allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, 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; Remission Induction; Seizures
PubMed: 27976799
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001904.pub3 -
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 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 both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam), and 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: 28661008
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub2 -
PloS One 2015Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a subtype of stroke associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. No proven treatments are available for this condition.... (Review)
Review
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a subtype of stroke associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. No proven treatments are available for this condition. Iron-mediated free radical injury is associated with secondary damage following ICH. Deferoxamine (DFX), a ferric-iron chelator, is a candidate drug for the treatment of ICH. We performed a systematic review of studies involving the administration of DFX following ICH. In total, 20 studies were identified that described the efficacy of DFX in animal models of ICH and assessed changes in the brain water content, neurobehavioral score, or both. DFX reduced the brain water content by 85.7% in animal models of ICH (-0.86, 95% CI: -.48- -0.23; P < 0.01; 23 comparisons), and improved the neurobehavioral score by -1.08 (95% CI: -1.23- -0.92; P < 0.01; 62 comparisons). DFX was most efficacious when administered 2-4 h after ICH at a dose of 10-50 mg/kg depending on species, and this beneficial effect remained for up to 24 h postinjury. The efficacy was higher with phenobarbital anesthesia, intramuscular injection, and lysed erythrocyte infusion, and in Fischer 344 rats or aged animals. Overall, although DFX was found to be effective in experimental ICH, additional confirmation is needed due to possible publication bias, poor study quality, and the limited number of studies conducting clinical trials.
Topics: Animals; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Deferoxamine; Disease Models, Animal; Mice; Rats; Siderophores; Swine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26000830
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127256 -
Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2003, of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2003, of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.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 (AED) in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine (CBZ) and phenobarbitone (PB) are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for partial onset seizures 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, PB is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between CBZ and PB in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.
OBJECTIVES
To review the time to withdrawal, remission, and first seizure of CBZ compared with PB when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to September 2014: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946), Scopus (from 1823), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry platform (WHO ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of CBZ monotherapy versus PB monotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'Time to 12-month remission', 'Time to 6-month remission', and 'Time to first seizure postrandomisation'. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
Individual participant data were available for 836 participants out of 1455 eligible individuals from 6 out of 13 trials, 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for PB, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for CBZ.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were HR 1.50 for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (95% CI 1.15 to 1.95, P = 0.003); HR 0.93 for time to 12-month remission (95% CI 0.72 to 1.20, P = 0.57); HR 0.99 for time to 6-month remission (95% CI 0.80 to 1.23, P = 0.95); and HR 0.87 for time to first seizure (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, P = 0.18). Results suggest an advantage for CBZ over PB in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and no statistically significant evidence between the drugs for the other outcomes. We found evidence of a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (Chi² test for subgroup differences P = 0.03), where PB was favoured for partial onset seizures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96, P = 0.02) and CBZ was favoured for generalised onset seizures (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.77, P = 0.27). However, methodological quality of the included studies was variable, with 10 out of the 13 included studies (4 out of 6 studies contributing IPD) judged as high risk of bias for at least 1 methodological aspect, leading to variable individual study results and therefore heterogeneity in the analyses of this review. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of poor methodological aspects where possible.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we found evidence suggestive of an advantage for CBZ in terms of drug effectiveness compared with PB (retention of the drug in terms of seizure control and adverse events) and evidence of an association between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (PB favoured for partial seizures and CBZ favoured for generalised seizures). Given the varying quality of studies included in this review and the impact of poor methodological quality on individual study results (and therefore variability (heterogeneity) present in the analysis within this review), we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review and do not recommend that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between CBZ and PB. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations for allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, 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
PubMed: 26204241
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001904.pub2 -
Developmental Medicine and Child... Nov 2021To assess the effectiveness and safety of levetiracetam when used as first-line treatment of neonatal seizures. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To assess the effectiveness and safety of levetiracetam when used as first-line treatment of neonatal seizures.
METHOD
Four electronic databases, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception until 20th November 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that included neonates born preterm and term were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measure was levetiracetam effectiveness, defined as seizure cessation within 24 hours of starting treatment. Secondary outcomes included short-term adverse events, mortality before discharge, and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies assessing 1188 neonates were included: four RCTs, three observational trials with phenobarbital as the control arm, and seven observational studies of levetiracetam with no control arm. Pooled efficacy of levetiracetam from observational studies was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 34-57%) (GRADE - very low). Meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating levetiracetam versus phenobarbital showed that both were equally effective (risk ratio [95% CI] 0.6 [0.30-1.20]) (GRADE - very low). Levetiracetam resulted in a lower risk of short-term adverse events compared to phenobarbital (risk ratio [95% CI] 0.24 [0.06-0.92]) (GRADE - moderate).
INTERPRETATION
Very low certainty of evidence suggests levetiracetam might not be more effective than phenobarbital. Moderate certainty of evidence indicates levetiracetam is associated with a lower risk of adverse events. Future trials on neonatal antiseizure medication therapy should include continuous electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring as standard of care and enrol a homogenous population with similar seizure aetiology. What this paper adds Levetiracetam is effective in 45% of neonatal seizures. Levetiracetam might not be more effective than phenobarbital. Levetiracetam is likely to be safer than phenobarbital. Evidence available is limited and of very low certainty.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Levetiracetam; Seizures
PubMed: 34124790
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.14943 -
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