-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 10, 2014. There is a need to expand monotherapy options available to a clinician for the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 10, 2014. There is a need to expand monotherapy options available to a clinician for the treatment of new focal or generalized seizures. A Cochrane systematic review for clobazam monotherapy is expected to define its place in the treatment of new-onset or untreated seizures and highlight gaps in evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, tolerability and safety of clobazam as monotherapy in people with new-onset focal or generalized seizures.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 19 March 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946- ), BIOSIS Previews (1969- ), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing clobazam monotherapy versus placebo or other anti-seizure medication in people with two or more unprovoked seizures or single acute symptomatic seizure requiring short-term continuous anti-seizure medication, were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Primary outcome measure was time on allocated treatment (retention time), reflecting both efficacy and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included short- and long-term effectiveness measures, tolerability, quality of life, and tolerance measures. Two authors independently extracted the data.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three trials fulfilling the review criteria, which included 206 participants. None of the identified studies reported the preselected primary outcome measure. A meta-analysis was not possible. Lack of detail regarding allocation concealment and a high risk of performance and detection bias in two studies prompted us to downgrade the quality of evidence (by using the GRADE approach) for some of our results due to risk of bias.Regarding retention at 12 months, we detected no evidence of a statistically significant difference between clobazam and carbamazepine (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.12; low-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence that clobazam led to better retention compared with phenytoin (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.90). We could not determine whether participants receiving clobazam were found to be less likely to discontinue it due to adverse effects as compared to phenytoin (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.65, low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no advantage for clobazam over carbamazepine for retention at 12 months in drug-naive children and a slight advantage of clobazam over phenytoin for retention at six months in adolescents and adults with neurocysticercosis in a single clinical trial each. At present, the available evidence is insufficient to inform clinical practice.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Benzodiazepines; Carbamazepine; Child; Clobazam; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy, Generalized; Humans; Phenytoin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures
PubMed: 29995989
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009258.pub3 -
Clinical Neuropharmacology 2016Our study aimed to determine whether data obtained from the medical literature can be used to estimate the therapeutic index of 5 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs):... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Our study aimed to determine whether data obtained from the medical literature can be used to estimate the therapeutic index of 5 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs): carbamazepine, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and valproate.
METHODS
We performed a literature search using PubMed and EMBASE to collect published safety, efficacy, and therapeutic monitoring data for 5 AEDs and extracted all relevant information into a drug- and study-specific drug database. For each AED, we summarized (1) type, severity, and incidence of toxicity-related adverse events and toxicity-associated range of drug doses or concentrations; (2) effective versus toxic concentration and dose (therapeutic range); and (3) therapeutic drug monitoring practices. We defined therapeutic index as the ratio of the minimum toxic concentration to the minimum effective concentration.
RESULTS
We reviewed a total of 810 full-text articles and extracted data from 163. The literature suggests that the therapeutic index of phenytoin is 2. The therapeutic indices of phenobarbital and valproate exceed 2. There were insufficient data to precisely quantify the therapeutic indices of carbamazepine and lamotrigine.
CONCLUSIONS
For some drugs, this approach offers a low-cost method of therapeutic index estimation. Our results can serve as preliminary data for future trials and as guidance for US Food and Drug Administration decision making regarding narrow therapeutic index classification.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Databases, Bibliographic; Drug Monitoring; Epilepsy; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27428884
DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000172 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Pressure ulcers are common in clinical practice and pose a significant health problem worldwide. Apart from causing suffering to patients, they also result in longer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers are common in clinical practice and pose a significant health problem worldwide. Apart from causing suffering to patients, they also result in longer hospital stays and increase the cost of health care. A variety of methods are used for treating pressure ulcers, including pressure relief, patient repositioning, biophysical strategies, nutritional supplementation, debridement, topical negative pressure, and local treatments including dressings, ointments and creams such as bacitracin, silver sulphadiazine, neomycin, and phenytoin. Phenytoin is a drug more commonly used in the treatment of epilepsy, but may play an important role in accelerating ulcer healing.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical phenytoin on the rate of healing of pressure ulcers of any grade, in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2016, we searched the following electronic databases to identify relevant randomized clinical trials: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We handsearched conference proceedings from the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Wound Management Association and the Tissue Viability Society for all available years. We searched the references of the retrieved trials to identify further relevant trials. We also searched clinical trials registries to identify ongoing and unpublished studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the effects (both benefits and harms) of topical phenytoin on the healing of pressure ulcers of any grade compared with placebo or alternative treatments or no therapy, irrespective of blinding, language, and publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted information on participants, interventions, methods and results and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane methodological procedures. For dichotomous variables, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous variables, we calculated the mean difference with 95% CI. We rated the quality of the evidence by using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE).
MAIN RESULTS
Three small RCTs met our inclusion criteria and included a total of 148 participants. These compared three treatments with topical phenytoin: hydrocolloid dressings, triple antibiotic ointment and simple dressings. In the three RCTs, 79% of participants had grade II ulcers, and 21% of participants had grade I ulcers; no participants had grade III or IV ulcers. Two RCTs had a high risk of bias overall and the other RCT was at unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting. Two RCTs had three intervention arms and the other had two intervention arms.Two studies compared topical phenytoin with hydrocolloid dressing (84 participants analysed). The available data suggest that hydrocolloid dressings may improve ulcer healing compared to topical phenytoin (39.3% ulcers healed for phenytoin versus 71.4% ulcers healed for hydrocolloid dressings (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92; 56 participants, 1 study; low quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence twice: once due to serious limitations (high risk of bias) and once due to the small sample size and small number of events. Two studies compared topical phenytoin with simple dressings (81 participants analysed). From the available data, we are uncertain whether topical phenytoin improves ulcer healing compared to simple dressings (39.3% ulcers healed for phenytoin versus 29.6% ulcers healed for the simple dressing (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.78; 55 participants, 1 study; very low quality evidence). This evidence was downgraded once due to serious limitations (high risk of bias) and twice due to the low number of outcome events and resulting wide CI which included the possibility of both increased healing and reduced healing. We therefore considered it to be insufficient to determine the effect of topical phenytoin on ulcer healing. One study compared topical phenytoin with triple antibiotic ointment, however, none of the outcomes of interest to this review were reported. No adverse drug reactions or interactions were detected in any of the three RCTs. Minimal pain was reported in all groups in one trial that compared topical phenytoin with hydrocolloid dressings and triple antibiotic ointment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review has considered the available evidence and the result shows that it is uncertain whether topical phenytoin improves ulcer healing for patients with grade I and II pressure ulcers. No adverse events were reported from three small trials and minimal pain was reported in one trial. Therefore, further rigorous, adequately powered RCTs examining the effects of topical phenytoin for treating pressure ulcers, and to report on adverse events, quality of life and costs are necessary.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bandages; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Ointments; Phenytoin; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28225152
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008251.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Chronic (present > 48 hours) non-hypovolaemic hyponatraemia occurs frequently, can be caused by various conditions, and is associated with shorter survival and longer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic (present > 48 hours) non-hypovolaemic hyponatraemia occurs frequently, can be caused by various conditions, and is associated with shorter survival and longer hospital stays. Many treatments, such as fluid restriction or vasopressin receptor antagonists can be used to improve the hyponatraemia, but whether that translates into improved patient-important outcomes is less certain.
OBJECTIVES
This review aimed to 1) look at the benefits and harms of interventions for chronic non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia when compared with placebo, no treatment or head-to-head; and 2) determine if benefits and harms vary in absolute or relative terms dependent on the specific compound within a drug class, on the dosage used, or the underlying disorder causing the hyponatraemia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 1 December 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also screened the reference lists of potentially relevant studies, contacted authors, and screened the websites of regulatory agencies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of any intervention with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or any other intervention in patients with chronic non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia. We also included subgroups with hyponatraemia from studies with broader inclusion criteria (e.g. people with chronic heart failure or people with cirrhosis with or without hyponatraemia), provided we could obtain outcomes for participants with hyponatraemia from the report or the study authors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed treatment effects as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (health-related quality of life, length of hospital stay, change from baseline in serum sodium concentration, cognitive function), and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (death, response and rapid increase in serum sodium concentration, hypernatraemia, polyuria, hypotension, acute kidney injury, liver function abnormalities) together with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 35 studies, enrolling 3429 participants. Twenty-eight studies (3189 participants) compared a vasopressin receptor antagonist versus placebo, usual care, no treatment, or fluid restriction. In adults with chronic, non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia, vasopressin receptor antagonists have uncertain effects on death at six months (15 studies, 2330 participants: RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.33) due to risk of selective reporting and serious imprecision; and on health-related quality of life because results are at serious risk of performance, selective reporting and attrition bias, and suffer from indirectness related to the validity of the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) in the setting of hyponatraemia. Vasopressin receptor antagonists may reduce hospital stay (low certainty evidence due to risk of performance bias and imprecision) (3 studies, 610 participants: MD -1.63 days, 95% CI -2.96 to -0.30), and may make little or no difference to cognitive function (low certainty evidence due to indirectness and imprecision). Vasopressin receptor antagonists probably increase the intermediate outcome of serum sodium concentration (21 studies, 2641 participants: MD 4.17 mmol/L, 95% CI 3.18 to 5.16), corresponding to two and a half as many people having a 5 to 6 mmol/L increase in sodium concentration compared with placebo at 4 to 180 days (moderate certainty evidence due to risk of attrition bias) (18 studies, 2014 participants: RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.95 to 3.18). But they probably also increase the risk of rapid serum sodium correction - most commonly defined as > 12 mmol/L/d (moderate certainty evidence due to indirectness) (14 studies, 2058 participants: RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.40) and commonly cause side-effects such as thirst (13 studies, 1666 participants: OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.80 to 4.27) and polyuria (6 studies, 1272 participants): RR 4.69, 95% CI 1.59 to 13.85) (high certainty evidence). The potential for liver toxicity remains uncertain due to large imprecision. Effects were generally consistent across the different agents, suggesting class effect.Data for other interventions such as fluid restriction, urea, mannitol, loop diuretics, corticosteroids, demeclocycline, lithium and phenytoin were largely absent.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with chronic hyponatraemia, vasopressin receptor antagonists modestly raise serum sodium concentration at the cost of a 3% increased risk of it being rapid. To date there is very low certainty evidence for patient-important outcomes; the effects on mortality and health-related quality of life are unclear and do not rule out appreciable benefit or harm; there does not appear to be an important effect on cognitive function, but hospital stay may be slightly shorter, although available data are limited. Treatment decisions must weigh the value of an increase in serum sodium concentration against its short-term risks and unknown effects on patient-important outcomes. Evidence for other treatments is largely absent.Further studies assessing standard treatments such as fluid restriction or urea against placebo and one-another would inform practice and are warranted. Given the limited available evidence for patient-important outcomes, any study should include these outcomes in a standardised manner.
Topics: Antidiuretic Hormone Receptor Antagonists; Chronic Disease; Humans; Hyponatremia; Length of Stay; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium
PubMed: 29953167
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010965.pub2 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Jul 2016The aim of this study was to perform an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of prophylactic administration of levetiracetam in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The aim of this study was to perform an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of prophylactic administration of levetiracetam in brain tumour patients.
METHOD
A systematic review of studies published until April 2015 was conducted using Scopus/Elsevier, EMBASE and MEDLINE. The search was limited to articles reporting results from adult patients, suffering from brain tumour, undergoing supratentorial craniotomy for tumour resection or biopsy and administered levetiracetam in the perioperative period for seizure prophylaxis. Outcomes included the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, as well as the tolerability of the specific regimen, defined by the discontinuation of the treatment due to side effects.
RESULTS
The systematic review included 1148 patients from 12 studies comparing levetiracetam with no treatment, phenytoin and valproate, while only 243 patients from three studies, comparing levetiracetam vs phenytoin efficacy and safety, were included in the meta-analysis. The combined results from the meta-analysis showed that levetiracetam administration was followed by significantly fewer seizures than treatment with phenytoin (OR = 0.12 [0.03-0.42]: χ(2) = 1.76: I(2) = 0%). Analysis also showed significantly fewer side effects in patients receiving levetiracetam, compared to other groups (P < 0.05). The combined results showed fewer side effects in the levetiracetam group compared to the phenytoin group (OR = 0.65 [0.14-2.99]: χ(2) = 8.79: I(2) = 77%).
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of prophylaxis with levetiracetam seems to be superior to that with phenytoin and valproate administration. Moreover, levetiracetam use demonstrates fewer side effects in brain tumour patients. Nevertheless, high risk of bias and moderate methodological quality must be taken into account when considering these results.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Craniotomy; Humans; Levetiracetam; Perioperative Care; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Seizures; Supratentorial Neoplasms; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 26945547
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12926 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in Issue 3, 2015.The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in Issue 3, 2015.The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five-year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre- or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 26 June 2017: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta-analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One three-armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three-armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence.Incidences of death were reported in only five trials. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no-treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability.We considered the evidence to be of low quality for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited, low-quality evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good-quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Craniotomy; Humans; Isoxazoles; Levetiracetam; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide
PubMed: 29791030
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007286.pub4 -
Seizure Sep 2015Our goal was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of intravenous lidocaine in adults for status epilepticus (SE) and refractory status epilepticus... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Our goal was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of intravenous lidocaine in adults for status epilepticus (SE) and refractory status epilepticus (RSE) to determine its impact on seizure control.
METHODS
All articles from MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, HealthStar, Scopus, Cochrane Library, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to November 2014), and gray literature were searched. The strength of evidence was adjudicated using both the Oxford and GRADE methodology by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Overall, 13 studies were identified, with 11 manuscripts and 2 meeting abstracts. Seventy-six adult patients were treated for 82 episodes of SE/RSE. Patients had varying numbers of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs), 1-12, on board prior to lidocaine therapy. During 69 of the 82 (84.1%) episodes of SE/RSE, phenytoin was on board. The dose regimen of lidocaine varied, with some utilizing bolus dosing alone; others utilizing a combination of bolus and infusion therapy. Overall, 70.7% of seizures responded to lidocaine, with complete cessation and greater than 50% reduction seen in 64.1% and 6.1% respectively. Patient outcomes were sparingly reported.
CONCLUSIONS
There currently exists level 4, GRADE C evidence to support the consideration of lidocaine for SE and RSE in the adult population. Thus there is currently weak evidence to support the use of lidocaine in this context. Further prospective studies of lidocaine administration in this setting are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Humans; Lidocaine; Seizures; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 26362376
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2015.07.003 -
Drugs in R&D Sep 2017Genetic polymorphisms are known to influence outcomes with phenytoin yet effects in the Middle East and North Africa region are poorly understood. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Genetic polymorphisms are known to influence outcomes with phenytoin yet effects in the Middle East and North Africa region are poorly understood.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of genetic polymorphisms on phenytoin pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes in populations originating from the Middle East and North Africa region, and to characterize genotypic and allelic frequencies within the region for genetic polymorphisms assessed.
METHODS
MEDLINE (1946-3 May, 2017), EMBASE (1974-3 May, 2017), Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base, and Public Health Genomics Knowledge Base online databases were searched. Studies were included if genotyping and analyses of phenytoin pharmacokinetics were performed in patients of the Middle East and North Africa region. Study quality was assessed using a National Institutes of Health assessment tool. A secondary search identified studies reporting genotypic and allelic frequencies of assessed genetic polymorphisms within the Middle East and North Africa region.
RESULTS
Five studies met the inclusion criteria. CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and multidrug resistance protein 1 C3435T variants were evaluated. While CYP2C9*2 and *3 variants significantly reduced phenytoin metabolism, the impacts of CYP2C19*2 and *3 variants were unclear. The multidrug resistance protein 1 CC genotype was associated with drug-resistant epilepsy, but reported impacts on phenytoin pharmacokinetics were conflicting. Appreciable variability in minor allele frequencies existed both between and within countries of the Middle East and North Africa region.
CONCLUSIONS
CYP2C9 decrease-of-function alleles altered phenytoin pharmacokinetics in patients originating from the Middle East and North Africa region. The impacts of CYP2C19 and multidrug resistance protein 1 C3435T variants on phenytoin pharmacokinetic and clinical outcomes are unclear and require further investigation. Future research should focus on the clinical outcomes associated with phenytoin therapy. PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017057850.
Topics: Africa, Northern; Anticonvulsants; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C9; Epilepsy; Genotype; Humans; Middle East; Phenytoin; Polymorphism, Genetic
PubMed: 28748348
DOI: 10.1007/s40268-017-0195-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2011Seizures are a common symptom of brain tumours. The mainstay of treatment for seizures is medical therapy with antiepileptic drugs. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Seizures are a common symptom of brain tumours. The mainstay of treatment for seizures is medical therapy with antiepileptic drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the relative effectiveness and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs commonly used to treat seizures in adults with brain tumours.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched CENTRAL (Issue 2 of 4, The Cochrane Library 2011), MEDLINE (1948 to May week 3, 2011) and EMBASE (1980 to 31 May 2011) databases. In addition, we handsearched articles published since 2000 in the following journals selected by the authors: Epilepsia; The Lancet Neurology and Neuro-Oncology.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Controlled clinical trials with random allocation of the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat seizures in adults with brain tumours.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Both review authors screened the search results and reviewed the abstracts of potentially relevant articles before retrieving the full text of eligible articles.
MAIN RESULTS
Only one trial met the inclusion criteria for this review which was a small, open-label, unblinded, randomised trial of the safety and feasibility of switching from phenytoin to levetiracetam monotherapy or continuing phenytoin for glioma-related seizure control following craniotomy (Lim 2009). Levetiracetam (a non enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drug) appears to have been at least as well tolerated and as effective as phenytoin (an enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drug) for the treatment of seizures in people with brain tumours. Eighty-seven per cent of participants treated with levetiracetam were free of seizures at six months compared with 75% of participants treated with phenytoin. There is one ongoing study of levetiracetam versus pregabalin for the treatment of seizures in adults undergoing chemotherapy, radiotherapy,or both for primary brain tumours. No data from this study were available at the time of preparing this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of robust, randomised, controlled evidence to support the choice of antiepileptic drug for the treatment of seizures in adults with brain tumours. While some authors support the use of non enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs, reliable, comparative evidence to provide clinical justification for this is limited. There is a need for further large, randomised, controlled trials in this area.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Brain Neoplasms; Drug Substitution; Humans; Levetiracetam; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures
PubMed: 21833969
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008586.pub2 -
Seizure Nov 2022Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are extensively used to manage epilepsy and other comorbidities associated with seizures. Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) has a strong... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are extensively used to manage epilepsy and other comorbidities associated with seizures. Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) has a strong association with AED-induced severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify, critically evaluate, and synthesize the best possible evidence on HLA-associated AED-induced Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (SJS/TEN).
METHODS
MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched for literature from inception up to July 2022. We included case control studies analyzing association between HLA and AED-induced SJS/TEN. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in using Quality of genetic studies (Q-genie) tool. Outcomes focused on association (risk) between HLA and AED-induced SJS/TEN. The estimated risk was presented in the form of odds ratio (OR).
RESULTS
We included 37 studies (51,422 participants; 7027 cases and 44,395 controls). There was a significantly higher risk of Carbamazepine-induced SJS/TEN with HLA-A (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.17), HLA-B (OR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.45 to 2.58), HLA-C (OR: 7.83; 95% CI: 4.72 to 12.98), and HLA-DRB1 (OR: 2.82; 95% CI: 1.94 to 4.12). Lamotrigine-induced SJS/TEN posed a higher risk with HLA-A (OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.26 to 4.46) and HLA-B (OR: 2.79; 95% CI: 1.75 to 4.46). Phenytoin-induced SJS/TEN showed a higher risk with HLA-A (OR: 3.47; 95% CI: 2.17 to 5.56), HLA-B (OR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.38 to 2.15), and HLA-C (OR: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.77 to 4.83). Phenobarbital-induced SJS/TEN had a higher risk with HLA-A (OR: 6.98; 95% CI: 1.81 to 26.84), HLA-B (OR: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.39 to 4.17), and HLA-C (OR: 3.37; 95% CI: 1.03 to 11.01). Zonisamide-induced SJS/TEN was significantly associated with HLA-A*02:07 (OR: 9.77; 95% CI: 3.07 to 31.1), HLA-B*46:01 (OR: 6.73; 95% CI: 2.12 to 21.36), and HLA-DRB1×08:03 (OR: 3.78; 95% CI: 1.20 to 11.97). All other alleles of HLA were observed to have a non-significant association with AED-induced SJS/TEN. All included studies were of good quality, with a score of >50 and a mean score of 54.96 out of 77.
CONCLUSION
Our study showed a significant association between few variants of HLA alleles and AED-induced SJS/TEN. Evidences from our study could help in population-based studies and in implementation of individualized treatment regimens. These findings could be part of translational research helping in precision therapy.
Topics: Humans; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; HLA-DRB1 Chains; HLA-C Antigens; Asian People; HLA-B Antigens; Anticonvulsants; HLA Antigens
PubMed: 36183454
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2022.09.011