Shi Li Li, Bresnahan Rebecca, Martin-McGill Kirsty J, Dong JianCheng, Ni HengJian, Geng JinSong
Evidence-based Medicine Center, Medical School of Nantong University, Nantong, China.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Aug 1;8(8):CD008295. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008295.pub5.
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2017.Epilepsy is a chronic and disabling neurological disorder, affecting approximately 1% of the population. Up to 30% of people with epilepsy have seizures that are resistant to currently available antiepileptic drugs and require treatment with multiple antiepileptic drugs in combination. Felbamate is a second-generation antiepileptic drug that can be used as add-on therapy to standard antiepileptic drugs.
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of felbamate versus placebo when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal-onset epilepsy.
For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), on 18 December 2018. There were no language or time restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies. We also contacted the manufacturers of felbamate and experts in the field for information about any unpublished or ongoing studies.
We searched for randomised placebo-controlled add-on studies of people of any age with drug-resistant focal seizures. The studies could be double-blind, single-blind or unblinded and could be of parallel-group or cross-over design.
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted information. In the case of disagreements, the third review author arbitrated. Review authors assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; absolute or percentage reduction in seizure frequency; treatment withdrawal; adverse effects; quality of life.
We included four randomised controlled trials, representing a total of 236 participants, in the review. Two trials had parallel-group design, the third had a two-period cross-over design, and the fourth had a three-period cross-over design. We judged all four studies to be at an unclear risk of bias overall. Bias arose from the incomplete reporting of methodological details, the incomplete and selective reporting of outcome data, and from participants having unstable drug regimens during experimental treatment in one trial. Due to significant methodological heterogeneity, clinical heterogeneity and differences in outcome measures, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis of the extracted data.Only one study reported the outcome, 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, whilst three studies reported percentage reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo. One study claimed an average seizure reduction of 35.8% with add-on felbamate while another study claimed a more modest reduction of 4.2%. Both studies reported that seizure frequency increased with add-on placebo and that there was a significant difference in seizure reduction between felbamate and placebo (P = 0.0005 and P = 0.018, respectively). The third study reported a 14% reduction in seizure frequency with add-on felbamate but stated that the difference between treatments was not significant. There were conflicting results regarding treatment withdrawal. One study reported a higher treatment withdrawal for placebo-randomised participants, whereas the other three studies reported higher treatment withdrawal rates for felbamate-randomised participants. Notably, the treatment withdrawal rates for felbamate treatment groups across all four studies remained reasonably low (less than 10%), suggesting that felbamate may be well tolerated. Felbamate-randomised participants most commonly withdrew from treatment due to adverse effects. The adverse effects consistently reported by all four studies were: headache, dizziness and nausea. All three adverse effects were reported by 23% to 40% of felbamate-treated participants versus 3% to 15% of placebo-treated participants.We assessed the evidence for all outcomes using GRADE and found it as being very-low certainty, meaning that we have little confidence in the findings reported. We mainly downgraded evidence for imprecision due to the narrative synthesis conducted and the low number of events. We stress that the true effect of felbamate could likely be significantly different from that reported in this current review update.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In view of the methodological deficiencies, the limited number of included studies and the differences in outcome measures, we have found no reliable evidence to support the use of felbamate as an add-on therapy in people with drug-resistant focal-onset epilepsy. A large-scale, randomised controlled trial conducted over a longer period of time is required to inform clinical practice.
这是对2017年发表的Cochrane系统评价的更新版本。癫痫是一种慢性致残性神经系统疾病,约影响1%的人口。高达30%的癫痫患者的癫痫发作对目前可用的抗癫痫药物耐药,需要联合使用多种抗癫痫药物进行治疗。非氨酯是一种第二代抗癫痫药物,可作为标准抗癫痫药物的附加治疗。
评估非氨酯作为耐药局灶性癫痫患者附加治疗与安慰剂相比的疗效和耐受性。
为进行最新更新,我们于2018年12月18日检索了Cochrane研究注册库(CRS网络版)、MEDLINE、ClinicalTrials.gov和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)。没有语言或时间限制。我们查阅了检索到的研究的参考文献列表,以寻找相关研究的其他报告。我们还联系了非氨酯的制造商和该领域的专家,以获取任何未发表或正在进行的研究的信息。
我们检索了针对任何年龄耐药局灶性癫痫患者的随机安慰剂对照附加治疗研究。这些研究可以是双盲、单盲或非盲的,可以是平行组设计或交叉设计。
两位综述作者独立选择纳入研究并提取信息。如有分歧,则由第三位综述作者进行仲裁。综述作者评估了以下结局:癫痫发作频率降低50%或更多;癫痫发作频率的绝对或百分比降低;治疗退出;不良反应;生活质量。
我们在综述中纳入了四项随机对照试验,共236名参与者。两项试验采用平行组设计,第三项试验采用两阶段交叉设计,第四项试验采用三阶段交叉设计。我们判断所有四项研究总体偏倚风险均不明确。偏倚源于方法学细节报告不完整、结局数据报告不完整且有选择性,以及一项试验中参与者在实验治疗期间药物治疗方案不稳定。由于存在显著的方法学异质性、临床异质性和结局测量差异,无法对提取的数据进行荟萃分析。只有一项研究报告了癫痫发作频率降低50%或更多这一结局,而三项研究报告了与安慰剂相比癫痫发作频率的百分比降低情况。一项研究称附加非氨酯治疗后癫痫发作平均减少35.8%,而另一项研究称减少幅度较小,为4.2%。两项研究均报告附加安慰剂后癫痫发作频率增加,且非氨酯与安慰剂在癫痫发作减少方面存在显著差异(分别为P = 0.0005和P = 0.018)。第三项研究报告附加非氨酯后癫痫发作频率降低14%,但表示治疗组之间差异不显著。关于治疗退出存在相互矛盾的结果。一项研究报告安慰剂随机分组参与者的治疗退出率较高,而其他三项研究报告非氨酯随机分组参与者的治疗退出率较高。值得注意的是,所有四项研究中非氨酯治疗组的治疗退出率仍然相当低(低于10%),这表明非氨酯可能耐受性良好。非氨酯随机分组参与者最常见的治疗退出原因是不良反应。所有四项研究一致报告的不良反应为:头痛、头晕和恶心。23%至40%接受非氨酯治疗的参与者报告了这三种不良反应,而接受安慰剂治疗的参与者中这一比例为3%至15%。我们使用GRADE评估了所有结局的证据,发现其确定性非常低,这意味着我们对所报告的结果几乎没有信心。我们主要因进行的叙述性综合分析和事件数量少而将证据降级为不精确。我们强调,非氨酯的真实效果可能与本次综述更新中报告的有显著差异。
鉴于方法学缺陷、纳入研究数量有限以及结局测量差异,我们未找到可靠证据支持将非氨酯用作耐药局灶性癫痫患者的附加治疗。需要进行一项大规模、长期的随机对照试验以指导临床实践。