Browsing Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Life Sciences by Journal
Now showing items 1-3 of 3
Felbamate add‐on therapy for drug‐resistant focal epilepsyBackground This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2017. Epilepsy is a chronic and disabling neurological disorder, affecting approximately 1% of the population. Up to 30% of people with epilepsy have seizures that are resistant to currently available antiepileptic drugs and require treatment with multiple antiepileptic drugs in combination. Felbamate is a second-generation antiepileptic drug that can be used as add-on therapy to standard antiepileptic drugs. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of felbamate versus placebo when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal-onset epilepsy. Search methods For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), on 18 December 2018. There were no language or time restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies. We also contacted the manufacturers of felbamate and experts in the field for information about any unpublished or ongoing studies. Selection criteria We searched for randomised placebo-controlled add-on studies of people of any age with drug-resistant focal seizures. The studies could be double-blind, single-blind or unblinded and could be of parallel-group or crossover design. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted information. In the case of disagreements, the third review author arbitrated. Review authors assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; absolute or percentage reduction in seizure frequency; treatment withdrawal; adverse effects; quality of life. Main results We included four randomised controlled trials, representing a total of 236 participants, in the review. Two trials had parallel-group design, the third had a two-period cross-over design, and the fourth had a three-period cross-over design. We judged all four studies to be at an unclear risk of bias overall. Bias arose from the incomplete reporting of methodological details, the incomplete and selective reporting of outcome data, and from participants having unstable drug regimens during experimental treatment in one trial. Due to significant methodological heterogeneity, clinical heterogeneity and differences in outcome measures, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis of the extracted data. Only one study reported the outcome, 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, whilst three studies reported percentage reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo. One study claimed an average seizure reduction of 35.8% with add-on felbamate while another study claimed a more modest reduction of 4.2%. Both studies reported that seizure frequency increased with add-on placebo and that there was a significant difference in seizure reduction between felbamate and placebo (P = 0.0005 and P = 0.018, respectively). The third study reported a 14% reduction in seizure frequency with add-on felbamate but stated that the difference between treatments was not significant. There were conflicting results regarding treatment withdrawal. One study reported a higher treatment withdrawal for placebo-randomised participants, whereas the other three studies reported higher treatment withdrawal rates for felbamate-randomised participants. Notably, the treatment withdrawal rates for felbamate treatment groups across all four studies remained reasonably low (less than 10%), suggesting that felbamate may be well tolerated. Felbamate-randomised participants most commonly withdrew from treatment due to adverse effects. The adverse effects consistently reported by all four studies were: headache, dizziness and nausea. All three adverse effects were reported by 23% to 40% of felbamate-treated participants versus 3% to 15% of placebo-treated participants. We assessed the evidence for all outcomes using GRADE and found it as being very-low certainty, meaning that we have little confidence in the findings reported. We mainly downgraded evidence for imprecision due to the narrative synthesis conducted and the low number of events. We stress that the true effect of felbamate could likely be significantly different from that reported in this current review update. Authors' conclusions In view of the methodological deficiencies, the limited number of included studies and the differences in outcome measures, we have found no reliable evidence to support the use of felbamate as an add-on therapy in people with drug-resistant focal-onset epilepsy. A large-scale, randomised controlled trial conducted over a longer period of time is required to inform clinical practice.
Ketogenic diets for drug-resistant epilepsyBackground Ketogenic diets (KDs) are high in fat and low in carbohydrates and have been suggested to reduce seizure frequency in people with epilepsy. Such diets may be beneficial for children with drug-resistant epilepsy. This is an update of a review first published in 2003, and last updated in 2018. Objectives To assess the effects of ketogenic diets for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. Search methods For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 26 April 2019) on 29 April 2019. The Cochrane Register of Studies includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We imposed no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional relevant studies. Selection criteria RCTs or quasi-RCTs of KDs for people of any age with drug-resistant epilepsy. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently applied predefined criteria to extract data and evaluated study quality. We assessed the outcomes: seizure freedom, seizure reduction (50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency), adverse effects, cognition and behaviour, quality of life, and attrition rate. We incorporated a meta-analysis. We utilised an intention-to-treat (ITT) population for all primary analyses. We presented the results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Main results We identified 13 studies with 932 participants; 711 children (4 months to 18 years) and 221 adults (16 years and over). We assessed all 13 studies to be at high risk of performance and detection bias, due to lack of blinding. Assessments varied from low to high risk of bias for all other domains. We rated the evidence for all outcomes as low to very low certainty. Ketogenic diets versus usual care for children Seizure freedom (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.20 to 8.35; P = 0.02; 4 studies, 385 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and seizure reduction(RR 5.80, 95% CI 3.48 to 9.65; P < 0.001; 4 studies, 385 participants; low-certainty evidence) favoured KDs (including: classic KD, medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) KD combined, MCT KD only, simplified modified Atkins diet (MAD) compared to usual care for children. We are not confident that these estimated effects are accurate. The most commonly reported adverse effects were vomiting, constipation and diarrhoea for both the intervention and usual care group, but the true effect could be substantially different (low-certainty evidence). Ketogenic diet versus usual care for adults In adults, no participants experienced seizure freedom. Seizure reduction favoured KDs (MAD only) over usual care but, again, we are not confident that the effect estimated is accurate (RR 5.03, 95% CI 0.26 to 97.68; P = 0.29; 2 studies, 141 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adults receiving MAD most commonly reported vomiting, constipation and diarrhoea (very low-certainty evidence). One study reported a reduction in body mass index (BMI) plus increased cholesterol in the MAD group. The other reported weight loss. The true effect could be substantially different to that reported. Ketogenic diet versus ketogenic diet for children Up to 55% of children achieved seizure freedom with a classical 4:1 KD aDer three months whilst up to 85% of children achieved seizure reduction (very low-certainty evidence). One trial reported a greater incidence of seizure reduction with gradual-onset KD, as opposed to fasting-onset KD. Up to 25% of children were seizure free with MAD and up to 60% achieved seizure reduction.Up to 25% of children became seizure free with MAD and up to 60% experienced seizure reduction. One study used a simplified MAD (sMAD)and reported that 15% of children gained seizure freedom rates and 56% achieved seizure reduction. We judged all the evidence described as very low certainty, thus we are very unsure whether the results are accurate.The most commonly reported adverse effects were vomiting, constipation and diarrhoea (5 studies, very low-certainty evidence). Two studies reported weight loss. One stated that weight loss and gastrointestinal disturbances were more frequent, with 4:1 versus 3:1 KD,whilst one reported no difference in weight loss with 20 mg/d versus 10 mg/d carbohydrates. In one study, there was a higher incidence of hypercalcuria amongst children receiving classic KD compared to MAD. All effects described are unlikely to be accurate. Ketogenic diet versus ketogenic diet for adults One study randomised 80 adults (aged 18 years and over) to either MAD plus KetoCal during the first month with MAD alone for the second month, or MAD alone for the first month followed by MAD plus KetoCal for the second month. No adults achieved seizure freedom. More adults achieved seizure reduction at one month with MAD alone (42.5%) compared to MAD plus KetoCal (32.5%), however, by three months only 10% of adults in both groups maintained seizure reduction. The evidence for both outcomes was of very low certainty; we are very uncertain whether the effects are accurate.Constipation was more frequently reported in the MAD plus KetoCal group (17.5%) compared to the MAD only group (5%) (1 study, very low-certainty evidence). Diarrhoea and increase/change in seizure pattern/semiology were also commonly reported (17.5% to 20% of participants). The true effects of the diets could be substantially different to that reported. Authors' conclusions The evidence suggests that KDs could demonstrate effectiveness in children with drug-resistant epilepsy, however, the evidence for the use of KDs in adults remains uncertain. We identified a limited number of studies which all had small sample sizes. Due to the associatedr isk of bias and imprecision caused by small study populations, the evidence for the use of KDs was of low to very low certainty.More palatable but related diets, such as the MAD, may have a similar effect on seizure control as the classical KD, but could be associated with fewer adverse effects. This assumption requires more investigation. For people who have drug-resistant epilepsy or who are unsuitable for surgical intervention, KDs remain a valid option. Further research is required, particularly for adults with drug-resistant epilepsy.
Sulthiame add-on therapy for epilepsyBackground This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 10. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people respond to conventional antiepileptic drugs, however, around 30% will continue to experience seizures, despite treatment with multiple antiepileptic drugs. Sulthiame, also known as sultiame, is a widely used antiepileptic drug in Europe and Israel. We present a summary of the evidence for the use of sulthiame as add-on therapy in epilepsy. Objectives To assess the efficacy and tolerability of sulthiame as add-on therapy for people with epilepsy of any aetiology compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug. Search methods For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group’s Specialized Register and CENTRAL (17 January 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to January 16, 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP Search Portal (17 January 2019). We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of sulthiame, and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of add-on sulthiame, with any level of blinding (single, double or unblinded) in people of any age, with epilepsy of any aetiology. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, and extracted relevant data. We assessed these outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency between baseline and end of follow-up; (2) complete cessation of seizures during follow-up; (3) mean seizure frequency; (4) time-to-treatment withdrawal; (5) adverse effects; and (6) quality of life. We used intention-to-treat for primary analyses. We presented results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). However, due to the paucity of trials, we mainly conducted a narrative analysis. Sulthiame add-on therapy for epilepsy (Review) 1 Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. For Preview Only Main results We included one placebo-controlled trial that recruited 37 infants with newly diagnosed West syndrome. This trial was funded by DESITIN Pharma, Germany. During the study, sulthiame was given as an add-on therapy to pyridoxine. No data were reported for the outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency between baseline and end of follow-up; mean seizure frequency; or quality of life. For complete cessation of seizures during a nine-day follow-up period for add-on sulthiame versus placebo, the RR was 11.14 (95% CI 0.67 to 184.47; very low-certainty evidence), however, this difference was not shown to be statistically significant (P = 0.09). The number of infants experiencing one or more adverse events was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.64; very low-certainty evidence; P = 0.63). Somnolence was more prevalent amongst infants randomised to add-on sulthiame compared to placebo, but again, the difference was not statistically significant (RR 3.40, 95% CI 0.42 to 27.59; very low-certainty evidence; P = 0.25). We were unable to conduct meaningful analysis of time-to-treatment withdrawal and adverse effects due to incomplete data. Authors’ conclusions Sulthiame may lead to a cessation of seizures when used as an add-on therapy to pyridoxine in infants with West syndrome, however, we are very uncertain about the reliability of this finding. The included study was small and had a significant risk of bias, largely due to the lack of details regarding blinding and the incomplete reporting of outcomes. Both issues negatively impacted the certainty of the evidence. No conclusions can be drawn about the occurrence of adverse effects, change in quality of life, or mean reduction in seizure frequency. No evidence exists for the use of sulthiame as an add-on therapy in people with epilepsy outside West syndrome. Large, multi-centre randomised controlled trials are needed to inform clinical practice, if sulthiame is to be used as an add-on therapy for epilepsy