Brigo Francesco, Bragazzi Nicola, Nardone Raffaele, Trinka Eugen
Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement, University of Verona, Italy; Department of Neurology, Franz Tappeiner Hospital, Merano, Italy.
School of Public Health, Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health (DINOGMI), Section of Psychiatry, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Epilepsy Behav. 2016 Nov;64(Pt A):110-115. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.09.030. Epub 2016 Oct 11.
The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of published studies to directly compare intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) with IV phenytoin (PHT) or IV valproate (VPA) as second-line treatment of status epilepticus (SE), to indirectly compare intravenous IV LEV with IV VPA using common reference-based indirect comparison meta-analysis, and to verify whether results of indirect comparisons are consistent with results of head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing IV LEV with IV VPA.
Random-effects Mantel-Haenszel meta-analyses to obtain odds ratios (ORs) for efficacy and safety of LEV versus VPA and LEV or VPA versus PHT were used. Adjusted indirect comparisons between LEV and VPA were used.
Two RCTs comparing LEV with PHT (144 episodes of SE) and 3 RCTs comparing VPA with PHT (227 episodes of SE) were included. Direct comparisons showed no difference in clinical seizure cessation, neither between VPA and PHT (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.57 to 2.03) nor between LEV and PHT (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.79). Indirect comparisons showed no difference between LEV and VPA for clinical seizure cessation (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.97). Results of indirect comparisons are consistent with results of a recent RCT directly comparing LEV with VPA.
The absence of a statistically significant difference in direct and indirect comparisons is due to the lack of sufficient statistical power to detect a difference. Conducting a RCT that has not enough people to detect a clinically important difference or to estimate an effect with sufficient precision can be regarded a waste of time and resources and may raise several ethical concerns, especially in RCT on SE.
本研究旨在对已发表的研究进行荟萃分析,以直接比较静脉注射左乙拉西坦(LEV)与静脉注射苯妥英(PHT)或静脉注射丙戊酸盐(VPA)作为癫痫持续状态(SE)二线治疗的效果;使用基于共同对照的间接比较荟萃分析间接比较静脉注射LEV与静脉注射VPA;并验证间接比较的结果是否与直接比较静脉注射LEV与静脉注射VPA的头对头随机对照试验(RCT)结果一致。
采用随机效应的Mantel-Haenszel荟萃分析来获得LEV与VPA以及LEV或VPA与PHT疗效和安全性的比值比(OR)。使用LEV和VPA之间的校正间接比较。
纳入了两项比较LEV与PHT的RCT(144例SE发作)和三项比较VPA与PHT的RCT(227例SE发作)。直接比较显示,在临床癫痫停止方面,VPA与PHT之间(OR:1.07;95%CI:0.57至2.03)以及LEV与PHT之间(OR:1.18;95%CI:0.50至2.79)均无差异。间接比较显示,在临床癫痫停止方面,LEV与VPA之间无差异(OR:1.16;95%CI:0.45至2.97)。间接比较的结果与最近一项直接比较LEV与VPA的RCT结果一致。
直接和间接比较均无统计学显著差异是由于缺乏足够的统计效力来检测差异。进行一项没有足够人数来检测临床重要差异或没有足够精度来估计效应的RCT可被视为浪费时间和资源,并且可能引发一些伦理问题,尤其是在SE的RCT中。