Bresnahan Rebecca, Panebianco Mariangela, Marson Anthony G
Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 1;7(7):CD007783. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007783.pub3.
This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2010; it includes one additional study. Primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures are a type of generalised seizure. Other types of seizures include: absence, myoclonic, and atonic seizures. Effective control of tonic-clonic seizures reduces the risk of injury and death, and improves quality of life. While most people achieve seizure control with one antiepileptic drug, around 30% do not, and require a combination of antiepileptic drugs.
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of add-on lamotrigine for drug-resistant primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures.
For the latest update, we searched these databases on 19 March 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) Web, MEDLINE Ovid, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The CRS includes records from the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of lamotrigine.
Randomised controlled parallel or cross-over trials of add-on lamotrigine for people of any age with drug-resistant primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures.
We followed standard Cochrane methodology; two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, evaluated risk of bias, extracted relevant data, and GRADE-assessed evidence. We investigated these outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in primary generalised tonic-clonic seizure frequency; (2) seizure freedom; (3) treatment withdrawal; (4) adverse effects; (5) cognitive effects; and (6) quality of life. We used an intention-to-treat (ITT) population for all analyses, and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for adverse effects, we used 99% CIs to compensate for multiple hypothesis testing.
We included three studies (total 300 participants): two parallel-group studies and one cross-over study. We assessed varied risks of bias across studies; most limitations arose from the poor reporting of methodological details. We meta-analysed data extracted from the two parallel-group studies, and conducted a narrative synthesis for data from the cross-over study. Both parallel-group studies (270 participants) reported all dichotomous outcomes. Participants taking lamotrigine were almost twice as likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in primary generalised tonic-clonic seizure frequency than those taking a placebo (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.45; low-certainty evidence). The results between groups were inconclusive for the likelihood of seizure freedom (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.72; very low-certainty evidence); treatment withdrawal (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.99; very low-certainty evidence); and individual adverse effects: ataxia (RR 3.05, 99% CI 0.05 to 199.36); dizziness (RR 0.91, 99% CI 0.29 to 2.86; very low-certainty evidence); fatigue (RR 1.02, 99% CI 0.13 to 8.14; very low-certainty evidence); nausea (RR 1.60, 99% CI 0.48 to 5.32; very low-certainty evidence); and somnolence (RR 3.73, 99% CI 0.36 to 38.90; low-certainty evidence). The cross-over trial (26 participants) reported that 7/14 participants with generalised tonic-clonic seizures experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency with add-on lamotrigine compared to placebo. The authors reported four treatment withdrawals, but did not specify during which treatment allocation they occurred. Rash (seven lamotrigine participants; zero placebo participants) and fatigue (five lamotrigine participants; zero placebo participants) were the most frequently reported adverse effects. None of the included studies measured cognition. One parallel-group study (N = 153) evaluated quality of life. They reported inconclusive results for the overall quality of life score between groups (P = 0.74).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides insufficient information to inform clinical practice. Low-certainty evidence suggests that lamotrigine reduces the rate of generalised tonic-clonic seizures by 50% or more. Very low-certainty evidence found inconclusive results between groups for all other outcomes. Therefore, we are uncertain to very uncertain that the results reported are accurate, and suggest that the true effect could be grossly different. More trials, recruiting larger populations, over longer periods, are necessary to determine lamotrigine's clinical use.
这是对2010年首次发表的Cochrane系统评价的更新;新增了一项研究。原发性全面性强直阵挛发作是全面性发作的一种类型。其他类型的发作包括:失神发作、肌阵挛发作和失张力发作。有效控制强直阵挛发作可降低受伤和死亡风险,并改善生活质量。虽然大多数人使用一种抗癫痫药物就能控制发作,但约30%的人无法控制,需要联合使用抗癫痫药物。
评估添加拉莫三嗪治疗耐药性原发性全面性强直阵挛发作的有效性和耐受性。
为进行最新更新,我们于2019年3月19日检索了以下数据库:Cochrane研究注册库(CRS)网络版、MEDLINE Ovid以及世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)。CRS包括来自Cochrane癫痫小组专业注册库、CENTRAL、Embase和ClinicalTrials.gov的记录。我们未设语言限制。我们还联系了拉莫三嗪的制造商葛兰素史克公司。
针对任何年龄、患有耐药性原发性全面性强直阵挛发作的人群,进行添加拉莫三嗪的随机对照平行或交叉试验。
我们遵循Cochrane标准方法;两名综述作者独立评估试验是否纳入、评估偏倚风险、提取相关数据,并采用GRADE方法评估证据。我们研究了以下结局:(1)原发性全面性强直阵挛发作频率降低50%或更多;(2)无发作;(3)治疗退出;(4)不良反应;(5)认知影响;(6)生活质量。所有分析均采用意向性分析(ITT)人群,并将结果表示为风险比(RRs)及95%置信区间(CIs);对于不良反应,我们使用99% CIs以补偿多重假设检验。
我们纳入了三项研究(共300名参与者):两项平行组研究和一项交叉研究。我们评估了各研究中不同的偏倚风险;大多数局限性源于方法学细节报告不佳。我们对从两项平行组研究中提取的数据进行了Meta分析,并对交叉研究的数据进行了叙述性综合分析。两项平行组研究(270名参与者)报告了所有二分法结局。服用拉莫三嗪的参与者原发性全面性强直阵挛发作频率降低50%或更多的可能性几乎是服用安慰剂者的两倍(RR 1.88,95% CI 1.43至2.45;低确定性证据)。两组之间在无发作可能性(RR 1.55,95% CI 0.89至2.72;极低确定性证据)、治疗退出(RR 1.20,95% CI 0.72至1.99;极低确定性证据)以及个体不良反应方面:共济失调(RR 3.05,99% CI 0.05至199.36)、头晕(RR 0.91,99% CI 0.29至2.86;极低确定性证据)、疲劳(RR 1.02,99% CI 0.13至8.14;极低确定性证据)、恶心(RR 1.60,99% CI 0.48至5.32;极低确定性证据)和嗜睡(RR 3.73,99% CI 0.36至38.90;低确定性证据)方面的结果尚无定论。交叉试验(26名参与者)报告称,与安慰剂相比,14名全面性强直阵挛发作参与者中有7名在添加拉莫三嗪后发作频率降低了50%或更多。作者报告了4例治疗退出,但未说明发生在哪个治疗分配阶段。皮疹(7名拉莫三嗪参与者;0名安慰剂参与者)和疲劳(5名拉莫三嗪参与者;0名安慰剂参与者)是最常报告的不良反应。纳入的研究均未测量认知情况。一项平行组研究(N = 153)评估了生活质量。他们报告两组之间总体生活质量评分结果尚无定论(P = 0.74)。
本综述提供的信息不足以指导临床实践。低确定性证据表明拉莫三嗪可使全面性强直阵挛发作频率降低50%或更多。极低确定性证据表明两组之间在所有其他结局方面结果尚无定论。因此,我们不确定至非常不确定所报告的结果是否准确,并认为真实效果可能差异很大。需要更多纳入更大样本量、更长时间的试验来确定拉莫三嗪的临床应用。