Suppr超能文献

氯硝西泮单药治疗新诊断的癫痫患者。

Clonazepam monotherapy for treating people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

作者信息

Brigo Francesco, Igwe Stanley C, Bragazzi Nicola Luigi, Lattanzi Simona

机构信息

Franz Tappeiner Hospital, Department of Neurology, Via Rossini, 5, Merano, Bolzano, Italy, 39012.

Federal Teaching Hospital, Department of Neuropsychiatry, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria, 48000.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Nov 19;2019(11):CD013028. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013028.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders worldwide, with an age-adjusted prevalence of 4 to 8 per 1000 population and an age-adjusted incidence of 44 per 100,000 person-years in developed countries. Monotherapy represents the best therapeutic option in people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of oral clonazepam used as monotherapy for newly diagnosed epilepsy, when compared with placebo or a different anti-seizure medication.

SEARCH METHODS

The following databases were searched on 24 July 2018: 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) 1946 to 24 July 2018, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing oral clonazepam used as monotherapy treatment (where participants were randomized to treatment with a single drug throughout the study period) versus placebo or a different anti-seizure medication (active comparator) in people of any age with newly diagnosed epilepsy, defined according to the clinical practical definition proposed by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The following outcomes were considered: proportion of participants seizure-free at one, three, six, 12 and 24 months after randomization; proportion of responders (those with at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline to end of treatment); proportion of participants with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during the treatment period or leading to discontinuation during the treatment period; proportion of dropouts/withdrawals due to side effects, lack of efficacy or other reasons; and improvement in quality of life, as assessed by validated and reliable rating scales. Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts to assess the eligibility of publications identified by the searches. They independently extracted data from trial reports and cross-checked them for accuracy. Any disagreements between the two authors regarding data extraction were resolved by discussion and consensus. We scrutinized trials and evaluated the methodological quality of all included studies. We used GRADE assessment criteria to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 115 participants. One study compared clonazepam to carbamazepine as monotherapy for participants with newly diagnosed psychomotor epilepsy (a condition corresponding to what is now termed mesial temporal lobe epilepsy). One study (published as abstract) compared clonazepam to ethosuximide as monotherapy for children with absence seizures. Based on the available data and the details on methodology provided, we judged both studies as being at unclear or high risk of bias for the domains assessed. In the study comparing clonazepam to carbamazepine, no difference was found between the groups regarding the proportion of participants who were seizure-free at one month after randomization (risk ratio (RR) 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 3.94; 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence), three months after randomization (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.29; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and six months after randomization (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73; 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No statistical difference was found between clonazepam and carbamazepine in terms of proportion of participants with TEAEs leading to discontinuation (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.80 to 8.52; 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in terms of dropouts/withdrawals due to side effects, lack of efficacy or other reasons (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.02; 36 participants; very low certainty evidence). The study did not provide any information on our other prespecified outcomes of interest. The study comparing clonazepam to ethosuximide did not provide any data on efficacy. The proportion of dropouts/withdrawal was higher in the group receiving clonazepam compared to the group receiving ethosuximide (RR 3.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 11.74; 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No information on other outcomes of interest was provided in this study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is only limited and very low-certainty evidence from randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of clonazepam used in monotherapy for the treatment of epilepsy. No difference in efficacy and tolerability was found in a small trial comparing clonazepam to carbamazepine for the treatment of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Clonazepam was less well tolerated than ethosuximide in a trial of children with absence seizures, however no comparative data on efficacy were provided. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of clonazepam as monotherapy treatment for epilepsy.

摘要

背景

癫痫是全球最常见的神经系统疾病之一,在发达国家,年龄调整患病率为每1000人中有4至8人,年龄调整发病率为每10万人年44例。单药治疗是新诊断癫痫患者的最佳治疗选择。

目的

评估口服氯硝西泮作为新诊断癫痫单药治疗的疗效和耐受性,并与安慰剂或其他抗癫痫药物进行比较。

检索方法

于2018年7月24日检索了以下数据库:Cochrane研究注册库(CRS网络版),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7月24日、ClinicalTrials.gov以及世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)。

入选标准

我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)或半随机对照试验,比较口服氯硝西泮作为单药治疗(即参与者在整个研究期间随机接受单一药物治疗)与安慰剂或其他抗癫痫药物(活性对照),用于任何年龄新诊断癫痫患者,癫痫的定义依据国际抗癫痫联盟(ILAE)提出的临床实用定义。

数据收集与分析

考虑了以下结局:随机分组后1个月、3个月、6个月、12个月和24个月无癫痫发作的参与者比例;反应者比例(即从基线到治疗结束癫痫发作频率至少降低50%的参与者);治疗期间出现治疗中出现的不良事件(TEAE)或导致治疗期间停药的参与者比例;因副作用、缺乏疗效或其他原因退出/撤回的比例;以及通过经过验证且可靠的评定量表评估的生活质量改善情况。两位综述作者独立筛选所有标题和摘要,以评估检索到的出版物的 eligibility。他们独立从试验报告中提取数据,并相互核对准确性。两位作者在数据提取方面的任何分歧通过讨论和共识解决。我们仔细审查试验并评估所有纳入研究的方法学质量。我们使用GRADE评估标准来评估证据的确定性。

主要结果

纳入了两项随机对照试验,共115名参与者。一项研究比较了氯硝西泮与卡马西平作为新诊断精神运动性癫痫(相当于现在所称的内侧颞叶癫痫)参与者的单药治疗。一项研究(以摘要形式发表)比较了氯硝西泮与乙琥胺作为失神发作儿童的单药治疗。根据现有数据和提供的方法学细节,我们判断这两项研究在所评估的领域中存在不明确或高偏倚风险。在比较氯硝西泮与卡马西平的研究中,随机分组后1个月无癫痫发作的参与者比例在两组之间未发现差异(风险比(RR)1.97,95%置信区间(CI)0.99至3.94;30名参与者;极低确定性证据),随机分组后3个月(RR 1.19,95%CI 0.62至2.29;26名参与者;极低确定性证据),以及随机分组后6个月(RR 0.50,95%CI 0.09至2.73;9名参与者;极低确定性证据)。在导致停药的TEAE参与者比例方面,氯硝西泮与卡马西平之间未发现统计学差异(RR 2.61,95%CI 0.80至8.52;36名参与者;极低确定性证据),在因副作用、缺乏疗效或其他原因退出/撤回方面也未发现差异(RR 1.56,9%CI 0.61至4.02;36名参与者;极低确定性证据)。该研究未提供关于我们其他预先指定的感兴趣结局的任何信息。比较氯硝西泮与乙琥胺的研究未提供任何疗效数据。接受氯硝西泮的组中退出/撤回的比例高于接受乙琥胺的组(RR 3.63,95%CI 1.12至11.74;79名参与者;极低确定性证据)。该研究未提供关于其他感兴趣结局的信息。

作者结论

关于氯硝西泮用于癫痫单药治疗的疗效和耐受性,随机对照试验仅提供了有限且极低确定性的证据。在一项比较氯硝西泮与卡马西平治疗内侧颞叶癫痫的小型试验中,未发现疗效和耐受性方面的差异。在一项失神发作儿童试验中,氯硝西泮的耐受性不如乙琥胺,但未提供疗效的比较数据。目前没有足够的证据支持使用氯硝西泮作为癫痫的单药治疗。

相似文献

1
Clonazepam monotherapy for treating people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Nov 19;2019(11):CD013028. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013028.pub2.
2
Clonazepam monotherapy for treating people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 21;2(2):CD013028. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013028.pub3.
4
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.
5
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.
6
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.
7
Treatments for seizures in catamenial (menstrual-related) epilepsy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 16;9(9):CD013225. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013225.pub3.
8
Ethosuximide, sodium valproate or lamotrigine for absence seizures in children and adolescents.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 21;1(1):CD003032. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003032.pub5.
9
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.
10
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.

本文引用的文献

2
ILAE official report: a practical clinical definition of epilepsy.
Epilepsia. 2014 Apr;55(4):475-82. doi: 10.1111/epi.12550. Epub 2014 Apr 14.
3
The pharmacological treatment of epilepsy in adults.
Lancet Neurol. 2011 May;10(5):446-56. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70047-3.
5
Treatment of pediatric epilepsy: expert opinion, 2005.
J Child Neurol. 2005 Dec;20 Suppl 1:S1-56; quiz S59-60. doi: 10.1177/088307380502000101.
7
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
8
Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues.
Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;31(1):140-9. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.1.140.
10
The effectiveness of clonazepam on the Rolandic discharges.
Brain Dev. 1997 Jun;19(4):274-8. doi: 10.1016/s0387-7604(97)00575-5.

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