Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Mar 29;3(3):CD005612. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005612.pub5.
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review last published in Issue 7, 2019; it includes two additional studies. Epilepsy is a common neurological disease that affects approximately 1% of the UK population. Approximately one-third of these people continue to have seizures despite drug treatment. Pregabalin is one of the newer antiepileptic drugs that has been developed to improve outcomes. In this review we summarised the current evidence regarding pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
To assess the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 16 November 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 16 November 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of pregabalin and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies.
We included randomised controlled trials comparing pregabalin with placebo or an alternative antiepileptic drug as an add-on for people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Double-blind and single-blind trials were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; secondary outcomes were seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and proportion of individuals experiencing adverse effects.
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT). We presented summary risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
We included 11 randomised controlled trials (3949 participants). Nine trials compared pregabalin to placebo. For the primary outcome, participants randomised to pregabalin were significantly more likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.72, 9 trials, 2663 participants, low-certainty evidence). The odds of response doubled with an increase in dose from 300 mg/day to 600 mg/day (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.28), indicating a dose-response relationship. Pregabalin was significantly associated with seizure freedom (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.37, 4 trials, 1125 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Participants were significantly more likely to withdraw from pregabalin treatment than placebo for any reason (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.60; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and for adverse effects (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.64; 9 trials, 2663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared pregabalin to three active-control drugs: lamotrigine, levetiracetam and gabapentin. Participants allocated to pregabalin were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those allocated to lamotrigine (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12; 1 trial, 293 participants) but not those allocated to levetiracetam (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 1 trial, 509 participants) or gabapentin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12; 1 trial, 484 participants). We found no significant differences between pregabalin and lamotrigine for seizure freedom (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83). However, significantly fewer participants achieved seizure freedom with add-on pregabalin compared to levetiracetam (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85). No data were reported for this outcome for pregabalin versus gabapentin. We detected no significant differences in treatment withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse effects, specifically, during either pooled analysis or subgroup analysis. Ataxia, dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, headache and fatigue were significantly associated with pregabalin than in active control. We rated the overall risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear due to the possibility of publication bias and lack of methodological details provided. We assessed all the studies to be at a high risk of funding bias as they were all sponsored by Pfizer. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low to moderate using the GRADE approach.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, pregabalin when used as an add-on treatment was significantly more effective than placebo at producing a 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom. Results demonstrated efficacy for doses from 150 mg/day to 600 mg/day, with increasing effectiveness at 600 mg doses, although there were issues with tolerability at higher doses. However, the trials included in this review were of short duration, and longer-term trials are needed to inform clinical decision-making. This review focused on the use of pregabalin in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of pregabalin when used as monotherapy.
这是一篇 Cochrane 综述的更新版本,最初发表于 2019 年 7 月第 7 期,本次更新纳入了两项新的研究。癫痫是一种常见的神经系统疾病,影响英国约 1%的人口。大约三分之一的此类人群尽管接受了药物治疗,但仍持续存在癫痫发作。普瑞巴林是新开发的一种抗癫痫药物,旨在改善治疗效果。在本综述中,我们总结了普瑞巴林作为耐药性局灶性癫痫附加治疗的当前证据。
评估普瑞巴林作为耐药性局灶性癫痫附加治疗的疗效和耐受性。
截至 2020 年 11 月 16 日,我们对以下数据库进行了最新更新:Cochrane 对照试验注册库(CRS Web)和 MEDLINE(Ovid,1946 年至 2020 年 11 月 16 日)。CRS Web 包括来自 PubMed、Embase、ClinicalTrials.gov、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)和 Cochrane 综述组的专门注册库的随机或准随机对照试验,包括癫痫。我们没有设置语言限制。我们联系了普瑞巴林的制造商和该领域的作者,以确定任何相关的未发表研究。
我们纳入了比较普瑞巴林与安慰剂或其他抗癫痫药物作为附加治疗用于耐药性局灶性癫痫的任何年龄人群的随机对照试验。双盲和单盲试验都符合纳入标准。主要结局是癫痫发作频率减少 50%或更多;次要结局是无癫痫发作、因任何原因停药、因不良反应停药以及出现不良反应的个体比例。
两名综述作者独立选择试验并提取相关数据。主要分析为意向治疗(ITT)。我们以比值比(OR)和风险比(RR)及其 95%置信区间(CI)呈现汇总结果。我们在回归模型中评估了剂量反应。我们使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具对纳入的每项研究进行了偏倚风险评估,并使用 GRADE 方法评估了证据的总体确定性。
我们纳入了 11 项随机对照试验(3949 名参与者)。9 项试验比较了普瑞巴林与安慰剂。对于主要结局,与安慰剂相比,随机接受普瑞巴林治疗的参与者更有可能出现癫痫发作频率减少 50%或更多(RR 1.95,95%CI 1.40 至 2.72,9 项试验,2663 名参与者,低质量证据)。剂量从 300mg/天增加到 600mg/天,反应的可能性增加一倍(OR 1.99,95%CI 1.74 至 2.28),表明存在剂量反应关系。普瑞巴林与任何原因(RR 3.94,95%CI 1.50 至 10.37,4 项试验,1125 名参与者,中等质量证据)或不良反应(RR 2.60,95%CI 1.86 至 3.64,9 项试验,2663 名参与者,中等质量证据)停药的可能性显著高于安慰剂。3 项试验比较了普瑞巴林与三种活性对照药物:拉莫三嗪、左乙拉西坦和加巴喷丁。与分配到拉莫三嗪的参与者相比,分配到普瑞巴林的参与者更有可能出现癫痫发作频率减少 50%或更多(RR 1.47,95%CI 1.03 至 2.12;1 项试验,293 名参与者),但与分配到左乙拉西坦的参与者相比(RR 0.94,95%CI 0.80 至 1.11;1 项试验,509 名参与者)或加巴喷丁(RR 0.96,95%CI 0.82 至 1.12;1 项试验,484 名参与者)的参与者相比则无显著差异。我们未发现普瑞巴林和拉莫三嗪在无癫痫发作方面有显著差异(RR 1.39,95%CI 0.40 至 4.83)。然而,与左乙拉西坦相比,添加普瑞巴林治疗的参与者无癫痫发作的比例显著降低(RR 0.50,95%CI 0.30 至 0.85)。对于普瑞巴林与加巴喷丁的结局,我们没有报告数据。在汇总分析或亚组分析中,我们未发现任何原因或因不良反应而停药的发生率有显著差异。与活性对照药物相比,普瑞巴林组的共济失调、头晕、嗜睡、体重增加、头痛和疲劳发生率显著更高。我们将纳入研究的整体偏倚风险评为低或不清楚,原因是可能存在发表偏倚和提供的方法学细节不足。我们评估所有研究的资助偏倚风险均很高,因为它们均由辉瑞公司赞助。我们使用 GRADE 方法评估证据的确定性为非常低至中等。
对于耐药性局灶性癫痫患者,普瑞巴林作为附加治疗药物,在产生 50%或更大的癫痫发作减少和无癫痫发作方面比安慰剂更有效。结果表明,剂量从 150mg/天到 600mg/天有效,600mg 剂量效果增加,但高剂量时耐受性存在问题。然而,本综述纳入的试验持续时间较短,需要进行更长时间的试验来为临床决策提供信息。本综述重点关注普瑞巴林在耐药性局灶性癫痫中的应用,结果不能推广到一般癫痫的附加治疗。同样,不能推断普瑞巴林作为单药治疗的效果。