文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

抗癫痫药物单药治疗癫痫:一项个体参与者数据的网络荟萃分析。

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.

机构信息

Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Apr 1;4(4):CD011412. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub4.


DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub4
PMID:35363878
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8974892/
Abstract

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices. OBJECTIVES: To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus). SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: levetiracetam 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and levetiracetam was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or levetiracetam in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), levetiracetam 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, levetiracetam, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug levetiracetam, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.

摘要

背景:这是 2017 年发表的原始 Cochrane 综述的更新版本。癫痫是一种常见的神经系统疾病,全球患病率约为 1%。大约 60%至 70%的癫痫患者会在开始抗癫痫药物治疗后实现更长时间的缓解,大多数患者在开始抗癫痫药物治疗后不久就会达到缓解。大多数癫痫患者接受单药治疗(单一疗法),英国国家卫生与保健优化研究所(NICE)目前针对成人和儿童的指南建议,局灶性发作的一线治疗药物为卡马西平或拉莫三嗪,全身性发作的一线治疗药物为丙戊酸钠;然而,还有一系列其他的抗癫痫药物(AED)治疗方案,需要有证据证明其比较疗效,以便为治疗选择提供信息。

目的:比较 12 种 AED(卡马西平、苯妥英钠、丙戊酸钠、苯巴比妥、奥卡西平、拉莫三嗪、加巴喷丁、托吡酯、左乙拉西坦、唑尼沙胺、乙琥胺、拉科酰胺)在局灶性发作(单纯局灶性、复杂局灶性或继发性全身性)或全身性强直阵挛性发作伴或不伴其他全身性发作类型(失神、肌阵挛)的成人和儿童中的治疗失败、缓解和首次发作的时间。

检索方法:对于最新更新,我们于 2021 年 4 月 12 日在以下数据库中进行了检索:Cochrane 研究注册库(CRS Web),其中包括 PubMed、Embase、ClinicalTrials.gov、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)、Cochrane 中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、Cochrane 癫痫组专门登记册和 MEDLINE(Ovid,1946 年至 2021 年 4 月 9 日)。我们还手工检索了相关期刊,并联系了制药公司、原始试验研究者和该领域的专家。

选择标准:我们纳入了成人或儿童局灶性发作或全身性强直阵挛性发作(伴或不伴其他全身性发作类型)的单药治疗设计的随机对照试验。

数据收集和分析:这是一项个体参与者数据(IPD)和网络荟萃分析(NMA)综述。我们的主要结局是“治疗失败时间”,次要结局是“达到 12 个月缓解时间”、“达到 6 个月缓解时间”和“首次发作后时间”。我们进行了频率论 NMA,以将直接证据与治疗网络中 12 种药物的间接证据结合起来。我们通过节点分裂检查了直接“成对”估计和 NMA 结果之间的不一致性。结果以危险比(HR)和 95%置信区间(CI)表示,我们根据 GRADE 框架,基于 CiNeMA 方法评估证据的确定性。我们还对最常报告的不良事件进行了叙述性总结。

主要结果:对于来自 89 项合格试验中的 39 项试验(占总试验的 43%)的至少一个结局,我们提供了至少 14789 名参与者(占总参与者的 67%)的 IPD。由于各种原因,我们无法将来自其余 50 项试验的 IPD 纳入分析,如无法联系作者或赞助商请求数据、数据丢失或不再可用、准备数据所需的成本和资源过高、或地方当局或国家特定限制。由于缺少单药艾司利卡西平的 IPD,因此该 AED 无法纳入 NMA。网络荟萃分析显示,有高质量证据表明,对于局灶性发作的个体,“治疗失败时间”这一主要结局,在任何原因的治疗失败和由于不良反应(包括其他一线治疗药物卡马西平)方面,拉莫三嗪的表现优于其他大多数治疗方法;对于任何原因的治疗失败,拉莫三嗪与:左乙拉西坦(HR 1.01,95%CI 0.88 至 1.10)、唑尼沙胺(HR 1.18,95%CI 0.96 至 1.44)、拉科酰胺(HR 1.19,95%CI 0.90 至 1.58)、卡马西平(HR 1.26,95%CI 1.10 至 1.44)、奥卡西平(HR 1.30,95%CI 1.02 至 1.66)、丙戊酸钠(HR 1.35,95%CI 1.09 至 1.69)、苯妥英钠(HR 1.44,95%CI 1.11 至 1.85)、托吡酯(HR 1.50,95%CI 1.23 至 1.81)、加巴喷丁(HR 1.53,95%CI 1.26 至 1.85)、苯巴比妥(HR 1.97,95%CI 1.45 至 2.67)的 HR 值没有显著差异。对于任何治疗失败结局,拉莫三嗪与左乙拉西坦之间没有显示出显著差异,并且这两种 AED 似乎都比其他所有 AED 表现更好。对于全身性强直阵挛性发作的患者,证据更为有限,且为中质量证据;没有其他治疗方法比一线治疗丙戊酸钠更有效,但在丙戊酸钠、拉莫三嗪或左乙拉西坦之间没有治疗失败的差异;对于任何原因的治疗失败,丙戊酸钠与:拉莫三嗪(HR 1.06,95%CI 0.81 至 1.37)、左乙拉西坦(HR 1.13,95%CI 0.89 至 1.42)、加巴喷丁(HR 1.13,95%CI 0.61 至 2.11)、苯妥英钠(HR 1.17,95%CI 0.80 至 1.73)、奥卡西平(HR 1.24,95%CI 0.72 至 2.14)、托吡酯(HR 1.37,95%CI 1.06 至 1.77)、卡马西平(HR 1.52,95%CI 1.18 至 1.96)、苯巴比妥(HR 2.13,95%CI 1.20 至 3.79)、拉科酰胺(HR 2.64,95%CI 1.14 至 6.09)的 HR 值没有显著差异。网络荟萃分析还显示,对于次要缓解结局,局灶性发作的个体中,卡马西平的疗效优于加巴喷丁(12 个月缓解)和丙戊酸钠(6 个月缓解)。对于局灶性发作的个体,拉莫三嗪与任何 AED 之间或全身性强直阵挛性发作的个体中,丙戊酸钠与其他 AED 之间没有显示出差异。网络荟萃分析还显示,对于“首次发作时间”,一般来说,最早批准的治疗药物(苯妥英钠和苯巴比妥)比其他治疗药物在局灶性发作的个体中表现更好;苯巴比妥的疗效优于两种一线治疗药物卡马西平和拉莫三嗪。对于新型药物(奥卡西平、托吡酯、加巴喷丁、左乙拉西坦、唑尼沙胺和拉科酰胺),在局灶性或全身性强直阵挛性发作的个体中,疗效没有显著差异。一般来说,直接证据(如有)和网络荟萃分析估计结果相似,置信区间大小重叠。直接证据和网络荟萃分析结果之间没有重要的不一致迹象。所有药物中最常见的不良反应是嗜睡/疲劳、头痛或偏头痛、胃肠道紊乱、头晕/昏厥和皮疹或皮肤疾病;然而,AED 之间和各研究之间的不良反应报告高度不一致。

结论:高质量证据表明,对于局灶性发作的患者,目前的一线治疗选择卡马西平和拉莫三嗪,以及新型药物左乙拉西坦,在治疗失败和控制癫痫发作方面具有最佳的疗效。对于全身性强直阵挛性发作(伴或不伴其他发作类型)的患者,目前的一线治疗药物丙戊酸钠与所有其他治疗药物相比,具有最佳的疗效概况,但拉莫三嗪和左乙拉西坦可能是更合适的一线替代治疗药物,尤其是对于不适合丙戊酸钠治疗的患者。需要进一步进行随机对照试验,招募患有全身性强直阵挛性发作(伴或不伴其他发作类型)的患者。

相似文献

[1]
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-4-1

[2]
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-6-29

[3]
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-12-15

[4]
Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-6-28

[5]
Carbamazepine versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-2-27

[6]
Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-12-15

[7]
Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-11-14

[8]
Topiramate versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-12-6

[9]
Carbamazepine versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-8-14

[10]
Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-7-23

引用本文的文献

[1]
Comparative study on efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and lacoxamide in the treatment of epilepsy.

Medicine (Baltimore). 2025-8-22

[2]
Integrated Transcriptomic Analysis Provided Diagnostic and Pathophysiological Insights for Epilepsy.

J Immunol Res. 2025-7-15

[3]
Paroxysmal cortical slowing linked to drug-resistant epilepsy.

EBioMedicine. 2025-6

[4]
Complex networks interactions between bioactive compounds and adipose tissue vis-à-vis insulin resistance.

Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2025-5-13

[5]
Antiepileptic Drug Combinations for Epilepsy: Mechanisms, Clinical Strategies, and Future Prospects.

Int J Mol Sci. 2025-4-24

[6]
Physical health trajectories of young people with neurodevelopmental conditions: a protocol for a systematic review of longitudinal studies.

BMJ Open. 2025-4-27

[7]
The potential of dibenzazepine carboxamides in cancer therapy.

Front Pharmacol. 2025-3-28

[8]
Advancements in the application of nanotechnology for the management of epileptic seizures.

Acta Epileptol. 2024-7-23

[9]
Examining the role of physical activity in older adults with epilepsy.

Epilepsy Behav Rep. 2025-2-17

[10]
A meta-analytic evaluation of the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam for treating myoclonic seizures.

Heliyon. 2025-1-23

本文引用的文献

[1]
The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

Lancet. 2021-4-10

[2]
The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

Lancet. 2021-4-10

[3]
Effects of levetiracetam and oxcarbazepine monotherapy on intellectual and cognitive development in children with benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes.

Acta Neurol Belg. 2021-10

[4]
The effect of levetiracetam and oxcarbazepine monotherapy on thyroid hormones and bone metabolism in children with epilepsy: A prospective study.

Epilepsy Behav. 2020-12

[5]
Effects of lacosamide and carbamazepine on lipids in a randomized trial.

Epilepsia. 2020-12

[6]
A Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Levetiracetam and Carbamazepine in the Treatment of Rolandic Seizures in Children: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial.

J Res Pharm Pract. 2020-6-26

[7]
Long-term efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: An open-label extension study.

Epilepsia. 2020-10

[8]
Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide versus standard treatments for epilepsy: a comparison of standard and new antiepileptic drugs (SANAD-II).

BMJ Open. 2020-8-26

[9]
Levetiracetam (levebel) Versus Carbamazepine Monotherapy for Focal Epilepsy in Children: A randomized clinical trial.

Iran J Child Neurol. 2020

[10]
CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis.

PLoS Med. 2020-4-3

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

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索