Suppr超能文献

拉莫三嗪与卡马西平单药治疗癫痫的疗效比较:个体参与者数据回顾

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

作者信息

Nevitt Sarah J, Tudur Smith Catrin, Weston Jennifer, Marson Anthony G

机构信息

Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Block F, Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, UK, L69 3GL.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 28;6(6):CD001031. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001031.pub4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 11, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free, and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are recommended as first-line treatments for new onset focal seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the first searches for this review in 1997. For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Clinical Trials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 26 February 2018, without language restrictions SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3787 eligible individuals from nine out of 14 trials: 68% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for carbamazepine; and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.82, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.55 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.66, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR for all participants: 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.41), moderate-quality evidence) showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine in terms of treatment failure for any reason related to treatment and treatment failure due to adverse events, but no different between drugs for treatment failure due to lack of efficacy.Time to first seizure (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 1.26, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41, high-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.97, high-quality evidence), showed a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (pooled HR for all participants 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07, high-quality evidence) or time to 24-month remission (HR for all participants 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25, high-quality evidence), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the treatment failure and withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment failure to be moderate for individuals with focal onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence indicates that treatment failure for any reason related to treatment or due to adverse events occurs significantly earlier on carbamazepine than lamotrigine, but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. The choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

摘要

背景

这是发表于2006年第11期《Cochrane系统评价数据库》的原始Cochrane综述的更新版本。癫痫是一种常见的神经系统疾病,大脑异常放电会导致反复发作的无诱因癫痫发作。据信,通过有效的药物治疗,高达70%的活动性癫痫患者有可能实现无癫痫发作,并在开始使用单一抗癫痫药物(AED)进行单药治疗后不久进入长期缓解期。为新诊断癫痫发作的个体正确选择一线抗癫痫药物非常重要。使用关于各种治疗潜在益处和危害的最高质量证据来为个体选择抗癫痫药物很重要。卡马西平或拉莫三嗪被推荐作为新发性局灶性癫痫发作的一线治疗药物,以及全身性强直阵挛性癫痫发作的一线或二线治疗药物。对现有试验的证据进行综合分析将提高与疗效和耐受性相关结局的结果精度,并可能有助于在这两种药物之间做出选择。

目的

比较拉莫三嗪与卡马西平在局灶性发作(简单或复杂局灶性发作及继发全身性发作)或全身性强直阵挛性发作(伴有或不伴有其他全身性发作类型)患者中作为单药治疗时的治疗失败时间、缓解时间和首次癫痫发作时间。

检索方法

我们于1997年首次检索本综述。为了进行最新更新,我们于2018年2月26日检索了Cochrane癫痫小组专业注册库、通过Cochrane研究在线注册库(CRSO)检索的Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、ClinicalTrials.gov和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台,无语言限制。

选择标准

比较卡马西平或拉莫三嗪单药治疗儿童或成人局灶性发作或全身性强直阵挛性发作的随机对照试验。

数据收集与分析

这是一项个体参与者数据(IPD)综述。我们的主要结局是治疗失败时间,次要结局是随机分组后首次癫痫发作时间、6个月、12个月和24个月缓解时间以及不良事件发生率。我们使用Cox比例风险回归模型获得试验特异性风险比(HRs)的估计值及95%置信区间(CIs),使用通用逆方差法获得总体合并HR和95%CI。

主要结果

我们在本综述中纳入了14项试验。14项试验中有9项试验的3787名符合条件的个体中,有2572名个体的个体参与者数据可用:占潜在数据的68%。对于缓解结局,HR小于1表明卡马西平具有优势;对于首次癫痫发作和治疗失败结局,HR小于1表明拉莫三嗪具有优势。主要总体结果如下:与治疗相关的任何原因导致的治疗失败时间(根据癫痫发作类型调整的合并HR:0.71,95%CI 0.62至0.82,中等质量证据),不良事件导致的治疗失败时间(根据癫痫发作类型调整的合并HR:0.55(95%CI 0.45至0.66,中等质量证据),缺乏疗效导致的治疗失败时间(所有参与者的合并HR:1.03(95%CI 0.75至1.41),中等质量证据),表明在与治疗相关的任何原因导致的治疗失败和不良事件导致的治疗失败方面,拉莫三嗪比卡马西平具有显著优势,但在缺乏疗效导致的治疗失败方面,两种药物没有差异。首次癫痫发作时间(根据癫痫发作类型调整的合并HR:1.26,95%CI 1.12至1.41,高质量证据)和6个月缓解时间(根据癫痫发作类型调整的合并HR:0.86,95%CI 0.76至0.97,高质量证据),表明在首次癫痫发作和6个月缓解方面,卡马西平比拉莫三嗪具有显著优势。我们发现两种药物在12个月缓解时间(所有参与者的合并HR 0.91,95%CI 0.77至1.07,高质量证据)或24个月缓解时间(所有参与者的HR 1.00,95%CI 0.80至1.25)方面没有差异,然而只有两项试验对参与者进行了一年以上的随访,因此证据有限。本综述的结果主要适用于局灶性发作的个体;纳入个体中有88%在基线时经历过此类癫痫发作。在基线时被分类为全身性发作的个体数量有限,其中高达50%的个体可能癫痫发作类型被错误分类,因此我们建议在解释本综述针对全身性发作个体的结果时谨慎。在所有纳入试验中,两种药物最常报告的不良事件是头晕、疲劳、胃肠道不适、头痛和皮肤问题。两种药物的不良事件发生率相似。纳入试验的方法学质量总体良好,然而有一些证据表明,盲法或开放标签治疗的设计选择可能影响了试验的治疗失败率和退出率。因此,我们判断局灶性发作个体治疗失败主要结局的证据质量为中等,全身性发作个体的证据质量为低。对于疗效结局(首次癫痫发作、缓解),我们判断局灶性发作个体的证据质量为高,全身性发作个体的证据质量为中等。

作者结论

中等质量证据表明,与治疗相关的任何原因或不良事件导致的治疗失败在卡马西平上比拉莫三嗪出现得更早,但首次癫痫发作时间的结果表明,卡马西平在癫痫控制方面可能更具优势。必须仔细考虑这些一线治疗之间的选择。我们建议未来的试验应尽可能设计为高质量,同时考虑盲法、人群选择、癫痫发作类型分类、随访持续时间、结局和分析选择以及结果呈现。

相似文献

1
Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 28;6(6):CD001031. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001031.pub4.
2
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Apr 1;4(4):CD011412. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub4.
3
Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 14;11(11):CD001031. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001031.pub3.
4
Topiramate versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 24;6(6):CD012065. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012065.pub3.
5
Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 24;10(10):CD001904. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001904.pub4.
6
Topiramate versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 6;12(12):CD012065. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012065.pub2.
7
Pregabalin add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Mar 29;3(3):CD005612. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005612.pub5.
8
Rufinamide add-on therapy for refractory epilepsy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Apr 25;4(4):CD011772. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011772.pub2.
9
Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25(1):CD001031. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001031.pub2.
10
Drug management for acute tonic-clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 10;1(1):CD001905. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001905.pub3.

引用本文的文献

1
Anti-seizure Medication Induced Cognitive Impairment in Children with Epilepsy: A Narrative Review.
Iran J Child Neurol. 2025;19(2):9-25. doi: 10.22037/ijcn.v19i2.46371. Epub 2025 Mar 11.
2
Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study.
Syst Rev. 2022 Dec 26;11(1):281. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01867-3.
3
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Apr 1;4(4):CD011412. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub4.
4
The effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatment in glioma patients: lamotrigine versus lacosamide.
J Neurooncol. 2021 Aug;154(1):73-81. doi: 10.1007/s11060-021-03800-z. Epub 2021 Jul 1.
5
Nicotinic Receptors in Sleep-Related Hypermotor Epilepsy: Pathophysiology and Pharmacology.
Brain Sci. 2020 Nov 25;10(12):907. doi: 10.3390/brainsci10120907.
6
Phenobarbitone versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 31;7(7):CD002217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002217.pub3.
7
Carbamazepine versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 18;7(7):CD001911. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001911.pub4.
8
Topiramate versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 24;6(6):CD012065. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012065.pub3.
9
Perspective: Therapeutic Potential of Flavonoids as Alternative Medicines in Epilepsy.
Adv Nutr. 2019 Sep 1;10(5):778-790. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmz047.
10
Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 24;10(10):CD001904. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001904.pub4.

本文引用的文献

1
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 15;12(12):CD011412. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub3.
2
ILAE classification of the epilepsies: Position paper of the ILAE Commission for Classification and Terminology.
Epilepsia. 2017 Apr;58(4):512-521. doi: 10.1111/epi.13709. Epub 2017 Mar 8.
3
Carbamazepine versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 27;2(2):CD001911. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001911.pub3.
4
Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 15;12(12):CD001904. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001904.pub3.
5
Topiramate versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 6;12(12):CD012065. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012065.pub2.
6
Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 14;11(11):CD001031. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001031.pub3.
10
Treatment for epilepsy in pregnancy: neurodevelopmental outcomes in the child.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 30;2014(10):CD010236. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010236.pub2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验