Nevitt Sarah J, Sudell Maria, Tudur Smith Catrin, Marson Anthony G
Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Block F, Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, UK, L69 3GL.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 24;6(6):CD012065. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012065.pub3.
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2016. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.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 go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy, the majority of which may be able to achieve remission with a single antiepileptic drug (AED).The correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance and should be based on the highest-quality evidence available regarding the potential benefits and harms of various treatments for an individual.Topiramate and carbamazepine are commonly used AEDs. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of results of outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability, and may help inform a choice between the two drugs.
To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with topiramate compared with 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).
For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (Ovid); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to 22 May 2018. We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monotherapy with either topiramate or carbamazepine in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-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.
IPD were available for 1151 of 1239 eligible individuals from two of three eligible studies (93% of the potential data). A small proportion of individuals recruited into these trials had 'unclassified seizures;' for analysis purposes, these individuals are grouped with those with generalised onset seizures. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine, and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for topiramate.The main overall results for the primary outcome, time to treatment failure, given as pooled HR adjusted for seizure type were: time to failure for any reason related to treatment 1.16 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.38); time to failure due to adverse events 1.02 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.27); and time to failure due to lack of efficacy 1.46 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.98). Overall results for secondary outcomes were time to first seizure 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.29); and time to six-month remission 0.88 (0.76 to 1.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs. A statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to 12-month remission: 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.99).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 81% of individuals included within the analysis experienced seizures of this type at baseline. For individuals with focal onset seizures, a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to failure for any reason related to treatment (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.46), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.02), and time to 12-month remission (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99). There was no statistically significant difference between topiramate and carbamazepine for 'time to first seizure' and 'time to six-month remission'.Evidence for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (9% of participants contributing to the analysis), and unclassified seizure types (10% of participants contributing to the analysis) was very limited; no statistically significant differences were found but CIs were wide; therefore we cannot exclude an advantage to either drug, or a difference between drugs.The most commonly reported adverse events with both drugs were drowsiness or fatigue, "pins and needles" (tingling sensation), headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and anxiety or depression. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.We judged the methodological quality of the included trials generally to be good; however, there was some evidence that the open-label design of the larger of the two trials may have influenced the treatment failure rate within the trial. Hence, we judged the certainty of the evidence for 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 certainty of evidence from this review to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset or unclassified seizures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with focal onset seizures, there is moderate-certainty evidence that carbamazepine is less likely to be withdrawn and high-certainty evidence that 12-month remission will be achieved earlier than with topiramate. We did not find any differences between the drugs in terms of the other outcomes measured in the review and for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures or unclassified epilepsy; however, we encourage caution in the interpretation of results including small numbers of participants with these seizure types.Future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible and take into consideration masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.
这是2016年第12期发表的原始Cochrane系统评价的更新版本。本系统评价是一系列Cochrane系统评价中的一篇,旨在研究两两单药治疗的比较。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的无诱因发作。据信,通过有效的药物治疗,高达70%的活动性癫痫患者在开始药物治疗后不久有可能无发作并进入长期缓解期,其中大多数患者可能仅用一种抗癫痫药物(AED)就能实现缓解。为新诊断发作的患者正确选择一线AED非常重要,应基于关于各种治疗方法对个体潜在益处和危害的最高质量证据。托吡酯和卡马西平是常用的AED。综合现有试验的证据将提高疗效和耐受性相关结局结果的精确性,并可能有助于在两种药物之间做出选择。
比较托吡酯和卡马西平单药治疗局灶性发作(简单或复杂局灶性发作以及继发全身性发作)或全身性强直阵挛发作(伴或不伴其他全身性发作类型)患者时的治疗失败时间、缓解时间和首次发作时间。
在最新更新中,我们检索了Cochrane研究注册库(CRS网络版),其中包括Cochrane癫痫小组专业注册库和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL);MEDLINE(Ovid);ClinicalTrials.gov;以及世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP),检索截至2018年5月22日。我们未设语言限制。我们还联系了制药公司和试验研究者。
比较托吡酯或卡马西平单药治疗儿童或成人局灶性发作或全身性强直阵挛发作(伴或不伴其他全身性发作类型)的随机对照试验(RCT)。
这是一项个体参与者数据(IPD)系统评价。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发作时间、6个月缓解时间、12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各试验特定的风险比(HR)估计值及95%置信区间(CI),采用通用逆方差法获得总体合并HR及95%CI。
三项符合条件的研究中有两项的1239名符合条件个体中的1151名(占潜在数据的93%)提供了IPD。纳入这些试验的一小部分个体有“未分类发作”;为分析目的,这些个体与全身性发作个体归为一组。对于缓解结局,HR<1表明卡马西平有优势,对于首次发作和治疗失败结局,HR<1表明托吡酯有优势。作为根据发作类型调整后的合并HR给出的主要结局治疗失败时间的主要总体结果为:因任何与治疗相关原因导致的失败时间为1.16(95%CI0.97至1.38);因不良事件导致的失败时间为1.02(95%CI0.82至1.27);因缺乏疗效导致的失败时间为1.46(95%CI1.08至1.98)。次要结局的总体结果为首次发作时间1.11(95%CI0.96至1.29);6个月缓解时间0.88(0.76至1.01)。两种药物之间无统计学显著差异。卡马西平在12个月缓解时间方面显示出统计学显著优势:0.84(95%CI0.71至0.99)。本系统评价的结果主要适用于局灶性发作个体;分析中纳入的个体有81%在基线时经历过此类发作。对于局灶性发作个体,卡马西平在因任何与治疗相关原因导致的失败时间(HR1.21,95%CI1.01至1.46)、因缺乏疗效导致的治疗失败时间(HR1.47,95%CI1.07至2.02)以及12个月缓解时间(HR0.82,95%CI0.69至0.99)方面显示出统计学显著优势。托吡酯和卡马西平在“首次发作时间”和“6个月缓解时间”方面无统计学显著差异。全身性强直阵挛发作个体(占分析参与者的9%)和未分类发作类型个体(占分析参与者的10%)的证据非常有限;未发现统计学显著差异,但CI较宽;因此我们不能排除任何一种药物有优势或两种药物之间存在差异。两种药物最常报告的不良事件是嗜睡或疲劳、“针刺感”(刺痛感)、头痛、胃肠道不适以及焦虑或抑郁。两种药物的不良事件发生率相似。我们判断纳入试验的方法学质量总体良好;然而,有一些证据表明两项试验中较大的一项的开放标签设计可能影响了试验中的治疗失败率。因此,我们判断局灶性发作个体治疗失败证据的确定性为中等,全身性发作个体的确定性为低。对于疗效结局(首次发作缓解),我们判断本系统评价对局灶性发作个体证据的确定性为高,对全身性发作或未分类发作个体的确定性为中等。
对于局灶性发作个体,有中等确定性证据表明卡马西平停药的可能性较小,有高确定性证据表明卡马西平比托吡酯更早实现12个月缓解。在本系统评价中测量的其他结局方面,我们未发现两种药物之间存在差异,对于全身性强直阵挛发作或未分类癫痫个体也是如此;然而,对于包括这些发作类型的少数参与者的结果解释,我们鼓励谨慎。未来的试验应设计到尽可能高的质量,并考虑设盲、人群选择、发作类型分类、随访持续时间、结局选择与分析以及结果呈现。