Panebianco Mariangela, Al-Bachari Sarah, Weston Jennifer, Hutton Jane L, Marson Anthony G
Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Clinical Sciences Centre for Research and Education, Lower Lane, Liverpool, UK, L9 7LJ.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 24;10(10):CD001415. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001415.pub3.
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2013.Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially those with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 20 March 2018), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 March 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (20 March 2018) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 20 March 2018). We imposed no language restrictions.
Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin.
For this update, two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models.
We included 12 trials representing 2607 randomised participants. We combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall RR for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-quality evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-quality evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There were no significant differences for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Overall, the studies were rated at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall quality of evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide confidence intervals.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types.
这是2013年发表的Cochrane系统评价的更新版本。大多数癫痫患者预后良好,其癫痫发作可通过单一抗癫痫药物得到很好的控制,但高达30%的患者会发展为药物难治性癫痫,尤其是那些局灶性癫痫患者。在本系统评价中,我们总结了加巴喷丁作为药物难治性局灶性癫痫附加治疗的随机对照试验(RCT)证据。
评估加巴喷丁作为药物难治性局灶性癫痫附加治疗的疗效和耐受性。
为进行最新更新,我们检索了Cochrane研究注册库(CRS Web,2018年3月20日),其中包括Cochrane癫痫组专业注册库和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE(Ovid,1946年至2018年3月20日)、ClinicalTrials.gov(2018年3月20日)和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP,2018年3月20日)。我们未设语言限制。
加巴喷丁用于药物难治性局灶性癫痫患者的随机、安慰剂对照、双盲、附加试验。我们还纳入了使用活性药物对照组或比较不同剂量加巴喷丁的试验。
对于本次更新,两名系统评价作者独立选择纳入试验并提取相关数据。我们评估了以下结局:癫痫发作频率、无癫痫发作、治疗退出(任何原因)和不良反应。主要分析采用意向性分析。我们还进行了敏感性最佳情况和最差情况分析。我们估计了每个结局的汇总风险比(RR),并在回归模型中评估了剂量反应。
我们纳入了12项试验,共2607名随机参与者。我们将6项试验的数据合并进行了1206名随机参与者的荟萃分析。与安慰剂相比,癫痫发作频率降低50%或更多的总体RR为1.89(95%置信区间(CI)1.40至2.55;6项试验,1206名参与者;中等质量证据)。剂量回归分析(针对成人试验)显示,随着剂量增加疗效增强,加巴喷丁1800 mg组有25.3%(19.3%至32.3%)的人有反应,而安慰剂组为9.7%,反应率增加15.5%(8.5%至22.5%)。与安慰剂相比,治疗退出的RR为1.05(95%CI 0.74至1.49;6项试验,1206名参与者;中等质量证据)。与安慰剂相比,加巴喷丁的不良反应显著相关。RR如下:共济失调2.01(99%CI 0.98至4.11;3项研究,787名参与者;低质量证据)、头晕2.43(99%CI 1.44至4.12;6项研究,1206名参与者;中等质量证据)、疲劳1.95(99%CI 0.99至3.82;5项研究,1161名参与者;低质量证据)和嗜睡1.93(99%CI 1.22至3.06;6项研究,1206名参与者;中等质量证据)。头痛(RR 0.79,99%CI 0.46至1.35;6项研究,1206名参与者;中等质量证据)或恶心(RR 0.95,99%CI 0.52至1.73;4项试验,1034名参与者;中等质量证据)的不良反应无显著差异。总体而言,由于每个偏倚风险领域的信息不可用,这些研究的偏倚风险被评为低到不清楚。由于结局数据缺失导致的潜在失访偏倚以及置信区间较宽导致的结果不精确,我们使用GRADE方法判断证据的总体质量为低到中等。
加巴喷丁作为药物难治性局灶性癫痫的附加治疗具有疗效。然而,所审查的试验持续时间相对较短,没有提供加巴喷丁超过三个月的长期疗效证据。这些结果不能外推至单药治疗或其他癫痫类型的患者。