Jung Da Eun, Yu Rita, Yoon Jung-Rim, Eun Baik-Lin, Kwon Soon Hak, Lee Yun Jin, Eun So-Hee, Lee Joon Soo, Kim Heung Dong, Nam Sang Ook, Kim Gun-Ha, Hwang Su-Kyeong, Eom Soyong, Kang Dae Ryong, Kang Hoon-Chul
From the Departments of Pediatrics (D.E.J.) and Biostatistics (D.R.K.), Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon; the Division of Pediatric Neurology (R.Y., J.-R.Y., J.S.L., H.D.K., S.E., H.-C.K.), Department of Pediatrics, Severance Children's Hospital, Epilepsy Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul; the Department of Pediatrics (B.-L.E., S.-H.E., G.-H.K.), Kuro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul; the Department of Pediatrics (S.H.K., S.-K.H.), Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu; the Department of Pediatrics (Y.J.L., S.O.N.), Pusan National University Children's Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan; and the Department of Pediatrics (S.-H.E.), Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan, Republic of Korea.
Neurology. 2015 Jun 9;84(23):2312-9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001661. Epub 2015 May 6.
To prospectively evaluate the neuropsychological effect of levetiracetam (LVT) in comparison with carbamazepine (CBZ) and its efficacy and tolerability as a monotherapy in children with focal epilepsy.
A total of 121 out of 135 screened children (4-16 years) were randomly assigned to LVT or CBZ groups in a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label trial. The study's primary endpoints were defined as the end of 52 weeks of treatment, followed by analysis of changes observed in a series of follow-up neurocognitive, behavioral, and emotional function tests performed during treatment in the per protocol population. Drug efficacy and tolerability were also analyzed among the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02208492).
Eighty-one patients (41 LVT, 40 CBZ) from the randomly assigned ITT population of 121 children (57 LVT, 64 CBZ) were followed up to their last visit. No significant worsening or differences were noted between groups in neuropsychological tests, except for the Children's Depression Inventory (LVT -1.97 vs CBZ +1.43, p = 0.027, [+] improvement of function). LVT-treated patients showed an improvement (p = 0.004) in internalizing behavioral problems on the Korean Child Behavior Checklist. Seizure-free outcomes were not different between the 2 groups (CBZ 57.8% vs LVT 66.7%, p = 0.317).
Neither LVT nor CBZ adversely affected neuropsychological function in pediatric patients. Both medications were considered equally safe and effective as monotherapy in children with focal epilepsy.
This study provides Class II evidence that in patients with pediatric focal epilepsy, LVT and CBZ exhibit equivalent effects on neuropsychological function.
前瞻性评估左乙拉西坦(LVT)相较于卡马西平(CBZ)对儿童局灶性癫痫的神经心理学影响,以及其作为单一疗法的疗效和耐受性。
在一项多中心、平行组、开放标签试验中,从135名筛查儿童(4至16岁)中随机选取121名,分为LVT组或CBZ组。研究的主要终点定义为治疗52周结束时,随后对符合方案人群在治疗期间进行的一系列神经认知、行为和情绪功能测试中观察到的变化进行分析。还在意向性治疗(ITT)人群中分析了药物疗效和耐受性(ClinicalTrials.gov,编号NCT02208492)。
随机分配的121名儿童(57名LVT,64名CBZ)的ITT人群中有81名患者(41名LVT,40名CBZ)随访至最后一次就诊。除儿童抑郁量表外,两组在神经心理学测试中均未发现明显恶化或差异(LVT -1.97 vs CBZ +1.43,p = 0.027,[+]功能改善)。接受LVT治疗的患者在韩国儿童行为量表上的内化行为问题有所改善(p = 0.004)。两组的无癫痫发作结果无差异(CBZ 57.8% vs LVT 66.7%,p = 0.317)。
LVT和CBZ均未对儿科患者的神经心理功能产生不利影响。两种药物在儿童局灶性癫痫单一疗法中被认为同样安全有效。
本研究提供了II类证据,即在儿童局灶性癫痫患者中,LVT和CBZ对神经心理功能表现出同等效果。