-
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 -
Alternative Therapies in Health and... Apr 2023This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses aims to critically appraise the methodology and reporting quality of relevant SRs and meta-analyses with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses aims to critically appraise the methodology and reporting quality of relevant SRs and meta-analyses with the aim of identifying whether or not the use of valproate can prevent the switch to mania associated with antidepressant treatment in Chinese patients with depressive episodes.
METHODS
Electronic databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP database) and Wanfang Database were searched for related SRs and meta-analyses from inception to the search date within Chinese restrictions. A total of 2 reviewers independently selected SRs and meta-analyses and collected related data, and a third reviewer was introduced if any disagreement occurred during the assessment. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) were employed to evaluate quality of the reporting and methodology.
RESULTS
The switch rate in the sodium valproate group by 99% and was significantly lower than in the antidepressant-only group (0% vs 5.7%; OR = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.84; Z = 2.18; P = .03). The magnesium valproate group was similar to the sodium valproate group in switch rate; the switch rate in the antidepressant group was (2.2% vs 16.92%; OR = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.39; Z = 3.47; P = .0005). The switch rate in the salt valproate combined with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) group was lower than in the SSRI group (0.51% vs 8.4%; OR = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.04-0.51; Z = 3.01; P = .003). The switch rate in the valproate combined with serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) group was similar to the valproate combined with SNRI group (2.3% vs 17.5%; OR = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.53; Z = 2.79; P = .05).
CONCLUSION
Salt valproate can reduce the switch rate related to antidepressant treatment in patients with depression.
Topics: Humans; Antidepressive Agents; East Asian People; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Valproic Acid; Drug Substitution
PubMed: 36634315
DOI: No ID Found -
Seizure Feb 2022To estimate the safety and efficacy of sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam in paediatric patients with epilepsy based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the safety and efficacy of sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam in paediatric patients with epilepsy based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese Journal Full-Text Database (CNKI), WANGFANG DATA and Sino Med were searched between January 1946 and May 2021. The included literature was randomized controlled clinical trials focusing on sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam in paediatric patients with epilepsy. Two evaluators separately collected the data based on the retrieval strategy, filtered the literature in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and summarized the literature that satisfied the criteria. The statistical programme used for the meta-analysis was Stata V14.0.
RESULTS
Of 577 original titles screened, data were extracted from 7 studies (617 participants). Compared with sodium valproate alone or sodium valproate combined with topiramate, the application of sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam in the treatment of paediatric epilepsy significantly improved the overall therapeutic effect (RR=1.24, 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.33, p=0.927). The observation group significantly reduced the occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) (RR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.79, p=0.602). Egger's regression test of the overall therapeutic effect showed no potential publication bias (p=0.122).
CONCLUSION
Based on this meta-analysis, compared with sodium valproate alone or sodium valproate with topiramate, the application of sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam in the treatment of paediatric epilepsy can significantly improve the overall therapeutic effect and simultaneously reduce the occurrence of ADR. Therefore, we recommend sodium valproate combined with levetiracetam for the therapy of paediatric patients with epilepsy.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Child; Epilepsy; Humans; Levetiracetam; Topiramate; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 34971912
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2021.12.003 -
CNS Drugs Jul 2014The effectiveness of valproate (VPA) in the treatment of focal and generalized epilepsies is well established. The drug has a wide spectrum of action, good tolerability,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The effectiveness of valproate (VPA) in the treatment of focal and generalized epilepsies is well established. The drug has a wide spectrum of action, good tolerability, and has been available as an injectable formulation since 1993. Despite the lack of class A evidence, it has been used extensively in various forms of status epilepticus (SE).
AIM
Our aim was to present a systematic review of data from randomized and non-randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous VPA for the treatment of SE.
METHODS
Data sources included MEDLINE, back tracing of references in pertinent studies, and contact with the manufacturer of VPA (Sanofi-Aventis).
RESULTS
Overall, the search strategy yielded 433 results (425 MEDLINE, seven congress abstracts, one unpublished study); after excluding duplicate publications and case reports, 30 studies were identified (the earliest was published in 1993, the most recent in 2012); ten were controlled (six randomized controlled trials, four non-randomized controlled studies), and 20 uncontrolled trials (eight prospective observational studies, 12 retrospective case series). The cumulative literature describes the experiences of 860 patients with various forms of SE treated with intravenous VPA. The overall response rate to abrogate SE was 70.9% (601/848; 95% confidence interval [CI] 67.8-73.9). Response rates to intravenous VPA were better in children than in adults and did not differ between the SE types. The most commonly reported effective doses were between 15 and 45 mg/kg in bolus (6 mg/kg/min) followed by 1-3 mg/kg/h infusion. Safety studies of intravenous VPA administration in patients with SE showed a low incidence of adverse events overall (<10%), mainly dizziness, thrombocytopenia, and mild hypotension, which was independent of infusion rates. Of note, good cardiovascular and respiratory tolerability was observed in these studies, even at high doses and fast infusion rates (up to 30 mg/kg at 10 mg/kg/min), despite multiple morbidities or other antiepileptic drugs. The most serious concern relates to the possibility of acute encephalopathy, sometimes related to hepatic abnormalities or hyperammonemia.
CONCLUSIONS
The published experience is consistent with VPA being a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with established SE who have previously failed conventional first-line treatment with benzodiazepines, but high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to inform clinicians on its comparative effectiveness in SE.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Adult; Age Factors; Anticonvulsants; Child; Humans; Status Epilepticus; Treatment Outcome; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 24806973
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-014-0167-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Aggressive, agitated or violent behaviour due to psychosis constitutes an emergency psychiatric treatment where fast-acting interventions are required. Risperidone is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Aggressive, agitated or violent behaviour due to psychosis constitutes an emergency psychiatric treatment where fast-acting interventions are required. Risperidone is a widely accessible antipsychotic that can be used to manage psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.
OBJECTIVES
To examine whether oral risperidone alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 2017); this register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid use of risperidone and other drugs, combinations of drugs or placebo for people exhibiting aggression or agitation (or both) thought to be due to psychosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
The review now contains data from nine trials (total n = 582) reporting on five comparisons. Due to risk of bias, small size of trials, indirectness of outcome measures and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was graded as very-low quality. None of the included studies provided useable data on our primary outcome 'tranquillisation or asleep' by 30 minutes, repeated need for tranquillisation or any economic outcomes. Data were available for our other main outcomes of agitation or aggression, needing restraint, and incidence of adverse effects.Risperidone versus haloperidol (up to 24 hours follow-up)For the outcome, specific behaviour - agitation, no clear difference was found between risperidone and haloperidol in terms of efficacy, measured as at least 50% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Psychotic Agitation Sub-score (PANSS-PAS) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) and no effect was observed for need to use restraints (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.21; participants = 28; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Incidence of adverse effects was similar between treatment groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus olanzapineOne small trial (n = 29) reported useable data for the comparison risperidone versus olanzapine. No effect was observed for agitation measured as PANSS-PAS endpoint score at two hours (MD 2.50, 95% CI -2.46 to 7.46; very low-quality evidence); need to use restraints at four days (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.28; very-low quality evidence); specific movement disorders measured as Behavioural Activity Rating Scale (BARS) endpoint score at four days (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.83; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus quetiapineOne trial reported (n = 40) useable data for the comparison risperidone versus quetiapine. Aggression was measured using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) endpoint score at two weeks. A clear difference, favouring quetiapine was observed (MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.40; very-low quality evidence). No evidence of a difference between treatment groups could be observed for incidence of akathisia after 24 hours (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.06; very low-quality evidence). Two participants allocated to risperidone and one allocated to quetiapine experienced myocardial ischaemia during the trial.Risperidone versus risperidone + oxcarbazepineOne trial (n = 68) measured agitation using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Excited Component.(PANSS-EC) endpoint score and found a clear difference, favouring the combination treatment at one week (MD 2.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.98; very low-quality evidence), but no effect was observed for global state using Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) endpoint score at one week (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.21; very-low quality evidence). Incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms after 24 hours was similar between treatment groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14; very-low quality evidence).Risperidone versus risperidone + valproic acidTwo trials compared risperidone with a combination of risperidone plus valproic acid. No clear differences between the treatment groups were observed for aggression (MOAS endpoint score at three days: MD 1.07, 95% CI -0.20 to 2.34; participants = 54; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or incidence of akathisia after 24 hours: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.03; participants = 122; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, results for the main outcomes show no real effect for risperidone. The only data available for use in this review are from nine under-sampled trials and the evidence available is of very low quality. This casts uncertainty on the role of risperidone in rapid tranquillisation for people with psychosis-induced aggression. High-quality pragmatic RCTs are feasible and are needed before clear recommendations can be drawn on the use of risperidone for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Carbamazepine; Humans; Oxcarbazepine; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychotic Disorders; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Tranquilizing Agents; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 29634083
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009412.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2014This review has been withdrawn as the original review author team are unable to update the review. We hope to reallocate to another review author team in the near... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This review has been withdrawn as the original review author team are unable to update the review. We hope to reallocate to another review author team in the near future. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Epilepsy; Epilepsy, Tonic-Clonic; Humans; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 24619450
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006454.pub3 -
Neuro-oncology Practice Oct 2021Comprehensive data on the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AED) treatment in glioma patients with epilepsy are currently lacking. In this systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Comprehensive data on the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AED) treatment in glioma patients with epilepsy are currently lacking. In this systematic review, we specifically assessed the efficacy of AEDs in patients with a grade II-IV glioma.
METHODS
Electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched up to June 2020. Three different outcomes for both mono- and polytherapy were extracted from all eligible articles: (i) seizure freedom; (ii) ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency; and (iii) treatment failure. Weighted averages (WA) were calculated for outcomes at 6 and 12 months.
RESULTS
A total of 66 studies were included. Regarding the individual outcomes on the efficacy of monotherapy, the highest seizure freedom rate at 6 months was with phenytoin (WA = 72%) while at 12-month pregabalin (WA = 75%) and levetiracetam (WA = 74%) showed highest efficacy. Concerning ≥50% seizure reduction rates, levetiracetam showed highest efficacy at 6 and 12 months (WAs of 82% and 97%, respectively). However, treatment failure rates at 12 months were highest for phenytoin (WA = 34%) and pregabalin (41%). When comparing the described polytherapy combinations with follow-up of ≥6 months, levetiracetam combined with phenytoin was most effective followed by levetiracetam combined with valproic acid.
CONCLUSION
Given the heterogeneous patient populations and the low scientific quality across the different studies, seizure rates need to be interpreted with caution. Based on the current limited evidence, with the ranking of AEDs being confined to the AEDs studied, levetiracetam, phenytoin, and pregabalin seem to be most effective as AED monotherapy in glioma patients with epilepsy, with levetiracetam showing the lowest treatment failure rate, compared to the other AEDs studied.
PubMed: 34589231
DOI: 10.1093/nop/npab030 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000Carbamazepine and valproate are drugs of first choice for epilepsy. Despite the lack of hard evidence from individual randomized controlled trials, there is strong... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Carbamazepine and valproate are drugs of first choice for epilepsy. Despite the lack of hard evidence from individual randomized controlled trials, there is strong clinical belief that valproate is the drug of choice for generalized epilepsies and carbamazepine for partial epilepsies.
OBJECTIVES
To overview the best evidence comparing carbamazepine and valproate monotherapy
SEARCH STRATEGY
Our search strategy included: (a) MEDLINE 1966-99, (b) The Cochrane Library 1999 issue 4, (c) The trial register of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group (d) the pharmaceutical industry.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing carbamazepine and valproate monotherapy for epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual patient data review. Outcome measures were time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, time to 12 month remission, and time to first seizure post randomization. Data were analysed using the stratified Logrank test with results expressed as hazard ratios (HR) (95% CI), where HR>1 indicates an event is more likely on valproate. A test for an interaction between treatment and epilepsy type (partial versus generalized) was also undertaken.
MAIN RESULTS
Results Data were available for 1265 patients from five trials, representing 85% of the patients recruited into the eight trials that met our inclusion criteria. The main overall results (HR 95% CI) were: Time to treatment withdrawal 0.97 (0.79-1.18), 12 month remission 0.87 (0.74-1.02), first seizure 1.09 (0.96-1.25) suggesting no overall difference for these outcomes. The test for an interaction between treatment and epilepsy type was non significant for time to treatment withdrawal and 12 month remission, but significant for time to first seizure. The age distribution of adults classified as having a generalized epilepsy indicate that significant numbers of patients may have had their epilepsy misclassified.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
We have found some evidence to support the policy of using carbamazepine as the first treatment of choice in partial epilepsies, but no evidence to support the choice of valproate in generalized epilepsies, but confidence intervals are too wide to confirm equivalence. Misclassification of patients may have confounded our results, and has important implications for the design and conduct of future trials.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Child; Confidence Intervals; Epilepsy; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 10908558
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001030 -
Clinical Neuropsychiatry Oct 2020We reviewed literature on drugs for bipolar disorders (BD), utilized in ovarian cancer (OC).
OBJECTIVE
We reviewed literature on drugs for bipolar disorders (BD), utilized in ovarian cancer (OC).
METHOD
We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in completion of this systematic review.
RESULTS
We identified 73 papers. Thirty-two studies were finally included. BD is rarely diagnosed in OC patients. Limited finding from case reports is available. Drugs used to treat BD (mainly lithium and valproic acid) have been extensively studied in add-on to chemotherapy for treatment-resistant OC cells or in animal models, with promising results in vitro but not in vivo.
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical underestimation of BD in OC has leaded to the almost complete absence of evidences for a soundly based clinical guidance in this field. There is a urgent need for a systematic multi-disciplinary approach to OC.
PubMed: 34909008
DOI: 10.36131/cnfioritieditore20200508 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Chronic antipsychotic drug treatment may cause tardive dyskinesia (TD), a long-term movement disorder. Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonist drugs, which have intense... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic antipsychotic drug treatment may cause tardive dyskinesia (TD), a long-term movement disorder. Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonist drugs, which have intense sedative properties and may exacerbate psychotic symptoms, have been used to treat TD.
OBJECTIVES
1. Primary objectiveThe primary objective was to determine whether using non-benzodiazepine GABA agonist drugs for at least six weeks was clinically effective for the treatment of antipsychotic-induced TD in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or other chronic mental illnesses.2. Secondary objectivesThe secondary objectives were as follows.To examine whether any improvement occurred with short periods of intervention (less than six weeks) and, if this did occur, whether this effect was maintained at longer periods of follow-up.To examine whether there was a differential effect between the various compounds.To test the hypothesis that GABA agonist drugs are most effective for a younger age group (less than 40 years old).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (last searched April 2017), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials, and, when necessary, contacted authors of trials for additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of non-benzodiazepine GABA agonist drugs in people with antipsychotic-induced TD and schizophrenia or other chronic mental illness.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected and critically appraised studies, extracted and analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis. Where possible and appropriate we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD). We assumed that people who left early had no improvement. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies that randomised 343 people. Overall, the risk of bias in the included studies was unclear, mainly due to poor reporting; allocation concealment was not described, generation of the sequence was not explicit, participants and outcome assessors were not clearly blinded. For some studies we were unsure if data were complete, and data were often poorly or selectively reported.Data from six trials showed that there may be a clinically important improvement in TD symptoms after GABA agonist treatment compared with placebo at six to eight weeks follow-up (6 RCTs, n = 258, RR 0.83, CI 0.74 to 0.92; low-quality evidence). Data from five studies showed no difference between GABA agonist treatment and placebo for deterioration of TD symptoms (5 RCTs, n = 136, RR 1.90, CI 0.70 to 5.16; very low-quality evidence). Studies reporting adverse events found a significant effect favouring placebo compared with baclofen, sodium valproate or progabide for dizziness/confusion (3 RCTs, n = 62 RR 4.54, CI 1.14 to 18.11; very low-quality evidence) and sedation/drowsiness (4 RCTS, n = 144, RR 2.29, CI 1.08 to 4.86; very low-quality evidence). Studies reporting on akathisia (RR 1.05, CI 0.32 to 3.49, 2 RCTs, 80 participants), ataxia (RR 3.25, CI 0.36 to 29.73, 2 RCTs, 95 participants), nausea/vomiting (RR 2.61, CI 0.79 to 8.67, 2 RCTs, 64 participants), loss of muscle tone (RR 3.00, CI 0.15 to 59.89, 1 RCT, 10 participants), seizures (RR 3.00, CI 0.24 to 37.67, 1 RCT, 2 participants), hypotension (RR 3.04, CI 0.33 to 28.31, 2 RCTs, 119 participants) found no significant difference between GABA drug and placebo (very low-quality evidence). Evidence on mental state also showed no effect between treatment groups (6 RCTS, n = 121, RR 2.65, CI 0.71 to 9.86; very low-quality evidence) as did data for leaving the study early (around 10% in both groups, 6 RCTS, n = 218, RR 1.47, CI 0.69 to 3.15; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life, a group of outcomes selected as being of particular importance to patients.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain about the evidence of the effects of baclofen, progabide, sodium valproate or tetrahydroisoxazolopyridinol (THIP) for people with antipsychotic-induced TD. Evidence is inconclusive and unconvincing. The quality of data available for main outcomes ranges from very low to low. Any possible benefits are likely to be outweighed by the adverse effects associated with their use.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Baclofen; Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced; GABA Agonists; Humans; Isoxazoles; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Valproic Acid; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 29663328
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000203.pub4