Nevitt Sarah J, 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 Jul 31;7(7):CD002217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002217.pub3.
This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and last updated in 2013. 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 with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, particularly in the developing world, phenytoin and phenobarbitone are commonly used antiepileptic drugs, primarily because they are inexpensive. The aim of this review is to summarise data from existing trials comparing phenytoin and phenobarbitone.
To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with phenobarbitone compared with phenytoin 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 following databases on 21 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either phenobarbitone or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures.
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 and time to 12-month remission. 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.
Individual participant data were obtained for five studies, which recruited a total of 635 participants, representing 80% of 798 individuals from all seven identified eligible trials. For remission outcomes, an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.61, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.87, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.66, moderate-certainty evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for phenytoin compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between phenytoin and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 624 participants: 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06, moderate-certainty evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.19, moderate-certainty evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.15, moderate-certainty evidence).For individuals with focal onset seizures (73% of individuals contributing to analysis), numerical results were similar and conclusions the same as for analyses of all individuals and for individuals with generalised onset seizures (27% of individuals contributing to analysis), results were imprecise and no clear differences between the drugs were observed.Several confounding factors, most notably the differences in design of the trials with respect to blinding, were likely to have impacted on the results of the primary outcome 'time to treatment failure', and in turn, the treatment failure rates may have impacted on the secondary efficacy outcomes of time to first seizure and time to 12-month and six-month remission.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence from this review suggests that phenytoin may be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate-certainty evidence from this review also indicates no differences between the drugs in terms of time to seizure recurrence and seizure remission.However, the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and methodological design differences that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. 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.
这是对一篇Cochrane系统评价的更新,该评价首次发表于2001年,上次更新于2013年。本评价是一系列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%的活动性癫痫患者在开始使用单一抗癫痫药物进行单药治疗后不久,有可能实现无癫痫发作并进入长期缓解期。在全球范围内,尤其是在发展中世界,苯妥英钠和苯巴比妥是常用的抗癫痫药物,主要是因为它们价格便宜。本评价的目的是总结现有比较苯妥英钠和苯巴比妥的试验数据。
比较苯巴比妥与苯妥英钠单药治疗局灶性发作(简单或复杂局灶性发作及继发全身性发作)或全身性强直-阵挛发作(伴有或不伴有其他全身性发作类型)患者时,至治疗失败、缓解及首次癫痫发作的时间。
为进行最新更新,我们于2018年8月21日检索了以下数据库:Cochrane研究注册库(CRS Web),其中包括Cochrane癫痫专业注册库和Cochrane系统评价数据库;MEDLINE;美国国立卫生研究院正在进行的试验注册库(ClinicalTrials.gov);以及世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)。我们手工检索了相关期刊,并联系了制药公司、原始试验研究者以及该领域的专家。
比较苯巴比妥或苯妥英钠单药治疗儿童或成人局灶性发作或全身性强直-阵挛发作的随机对照试验。
这是一项个体参与者数据(IPD)评价。我们的主要结局是至治疗失败的时间。次要结局是随机分组后至首次癫痫发作的时间、至6个月缓解的时间和至12个月缓解的时间。我们使用Cox比例风险回归模型获得试验特异性的风险比(HRs)估计值及95%置信区间(CIs),采用通用逆方差法获得总体合并HR及95% CI。
从5项研究中获取了个体参与者数据,这些研究共招募了635名参与者,占所有7项已识别的合格试验中798名个体的80%。对于缓解结局,HR小于1表明苯妥英钠具有优势;对于首次癫痫发作和治疗失败结局,HR小于1表明苯巴比妥具有优势。
因任何与治疗相关原因导致的治疗失败时间(对499名参与者根据癫痫发作类型进行调整后的合并HR:1.61,95% CI 1.22至2.12,低质量证据),因不良事件导致的治疗失败时间(对499名参与者根据癫痫发作类型进行调整后的合并HR:1.99,95% CI 1.37至2.87,低质量证据),因缺乏疗效导致的治疗失败时间(对499名参与者根据癫痫发作类型进行调整后的合并HR:1.87,95% CI 1.32至2.66,中等质量证据),表明与苯巴比妥相比,苯妥英钠具有统计学显著优势。
对于次要结局,我们未发现苯妥英钠与苯巴比妥之间存在任何统计学显著差异:随机分组后至首次癫痫发作的时间(对624名参与者根据癫痫发作类型进行调整后的合并HR:0.85,95% CI 0.69至1.06,中等质量证据),至12个月缓解的时间(对588名参与者根据癫痫发作类型进行调整后的合并HR:0.90,95% CI 0.69至1.19,中等质量证据),以及至6个月缓解的时间(对588名参与者根据癫痫发作类型进行调整后的合并HR:0.91,95% CI 0.71至1.15,中等质量证据)。
对于局灶性发作的个体(占分析个体的73%),数值结果相似,结论与对所有个体的分析相同;对于全身性发作的个体(占分析个体的27%),结果不精确,未观察到药物之间的明显差异。
几个混杂因素,最显著的是试验在设盲方面的设计差异,可能影响了主要结局“至治疗失败的时间”的结果,进而,治疗失败率可能影响了次要疗效结局,即至首次癫痫发作的时间以及至12个月和6个月缓解的时间。
本评价的低质量证据表明,就治疗维持(因缺乏疗效或不良事件或两者导致的治疗失败)而言,苯妥英钠可能比苯巴比妥更有效。本评价的中等质量证据还表明,在癫痫复发时间和癫痫缓解时间方面,两种药物无差异。
然而,纳入分析的试验存在方法学缺陷和方法学设计差异,这可能影响了本评价的结果。因此,我们不建议仅依据本评价的结果就为新发癫痫患者形成治疗选择的基础。我们建议,未来的试验设计应尽可能达到最高质量,同时考虑设盲、研究人群的选择、癫痫发作类型的分类、随访时间、结局和分析的选择以及结果的呈现。