Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jul 14;7(7):CD002896. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002896.pub3.
BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in 2015. Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder, characterised by recurring, unprovoked seizures. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory treatment that is used as an adjunctive therapy for treating people with drug-resistant epilepsy. VNS consists of chronic, intermittent electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, delivered by a programmable pulse generator. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS), and MEDLINE Ovid on 3 March 2022. We imposed no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered parallel or cross-over, randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of VNS as add-on treatment, which compared high- and low-level stimulation (including three different stimulation paradigms: rapid, mild, and slow duty-cycle), and VNS stimulation versus no stimulation, or a different intervention. We considered adults or children with drug-resistant focal seizures who were either not eligible for surgery, or who had failed surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods, assessing the following outcomes: 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency 2. Treatment withdrawal (any reason) 3. Adverse effects 4. Quality of life (QoL) 5. Cognition 6. Mood MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the conclusions are unchanged. We included the five randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the last update, with a total of 439 participants. The baseline phase ranged from 4 to 12 weeks, and double-blind treatment phases from 12 to 20 weeks. We rated two studies at an overall low risk of bias, and three at an overall unclear risk of bias, due to lack of reported information about study design. Effective blinding of studies of VNS is difficult, due to the frequency of stimulation-related side effects, such as voice alteration. The risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.64; 4 RCTs, 373 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that high frequency VNS was over one and a half times more effective than low frequency VNS. The RR for treatment withdrawal was 2.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 12.71; 4 RCTs, 375 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results for the top five reported adverse events were: hoarseness RR 2.17 (99% CI 1.49 to 3.17; 3 RCTs, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); cough RR 1.09 (99% CI 0.74 to 1.62; 3 RCTs, 334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); dyspnoea RR 2.45 (99% CI 1.07 to 5.60; 3 RCTs, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence); pain RR 1.01 (99% CI 0.60 to 1.68; 2 RCTs; 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); paraesthesia 0.78 (99% CI 0.39 to 1.53; 2 RCTs, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Results from two studies (312 participants) showed that a small number of favourable QOL effects were associated with VNS stimulation, but results were inconclusive between high- and low-level stimulation groups. One study (198 participants) found inconclusive results between high- and low-level stimulation for cognition on all measures used. One study (114 participants) found the majority of participants showed an improvement in mood on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale compared to baseline, but results between high- and low-level stimulation were inconclusive. We found no important heterogeneity between studies for any of the outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: VNS for focal seizures appears to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment. Results of the overall efficacy analysis show that high-level stimulation reduced the frequency of seizures better than low-level stimulation. There were very few withdrawals, which suggests that VNS is well tolerated. Adverse effects associated with implantation and stimulation were primarily hoarseness, cough, dyspnoea, pain, paraesthesia, nausea, and headache, with hoarseness and dyspnoea more likely to occur with high-level stimulation than low-level stimulation. However, the evidence for these outcomes is limited, and of moderate to low certainty. Further high-quality research is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS for drug-resistant focal seizures.
背景:这是 2015 年发表的 Cochrane 综述的更新版本。癫痫是一种慢性神经系统疾病,其特征是反复发作、无诱因的癫痫发作。迷走神经刺激(VNS)是一种神经调节治疗方法,作为治疗耐药性癫痫患者的辅助治疗。VNS 由通过可编程脉冲发生器进行的慢性、间歇性电刺激迷走神经组成。
目的:评估作为耐药性局灶性癫痫附加治疗的 VNS 的疗效和耐受性。
检索方法:本次更新,我们检索了 Cochrane 研究注册库(CRS)和 MEDLINE Ovid 数据库,检索日期为 2022 年 3 月 3 日。我们没有语言限制。CRS Web 包括来自 Cochrane 各专业组的随机或准随机对照试验,包括癫痫、CENTRAL、PubMed、Embase、ClinicalTrials.gov 和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台。
选择标准:我们考虑了作为附加治疗的 VNS 的平行或交叉、随机、双盲、对照试验,比较了高、低水平刺激(包括三种不同的刺激模式:快速、轻度和慢速占空比)和 VNS 刺激与无刺激或不同干预的比较。我们考虑了适合手术但未接受手术或手术失败的耐药性局灶性癫痫发作的成年人或儿童。
数据收集和分析:我们遵循标准的 Cochrane 方法,评估以下结果:1. 50%或更多的癫痫发作频率减少;2. 治疗退出(任何原因);3. 不良反应;4. 生活质量(QoL);5. 认知;6. 情绪。
主要结果:我们没有发现任何新的研究,因此,结论没有改变。我们纳入了上次更新的五项随机对照试验(RCT),共 439 名参与者。基线期为 4 至 12 周,双盲治疗期为 12 至 20 周。我们将两项研究评为总体低偏倚风险,三项研究评为总体不确定偏倚风险,原因是关于研究设计的报告信息缺乏。由于与刺激相关的副作用(如声音改变)的频率较高,因此对 VNS 的研究进行有效的盲法是困难的。50%或更多的癫痫发作频率减少的风险比(RR)为 1.73(95%置信区间(CI)为 1.13 至 2.64;4 项 RCT,373 名参与者;中等确定性证据),表明高频率 VNS 比低频率 VNS 有效 1.5 倍以上。治疗退出的 RR 为 2.56(95%CI 为 0.51 至 12.71;4 项 RCT,375 名参与者;低确定性证据)。对前五项报告的不良事件的结果是:声音嘶哑 RR 2.17(99%CI 为 1.49 至 3.17;3 项 RCT,330 名参与者;中等确定性证据);咳嗽 RR 1.09(99%CI 为 0.74 至 1.62;3 项 RCT,334 名参与者;中等确定性证据);呼吸困难 RR 2.45(99%CI 为 1.07 至 5.60;3 项 RCT,312 名参与者;低确定性证据);疼痛 RR 1.01(99%CI 为 0.60 至 1.68;2 项 RCT;312 名参与者;中等确定性证据);感觉异常 RR 0.78(99%CI 为 0.39 至 1.53;2 项 RCT,312 名参与者;中等确定性证据)。两项研究(312 名参与者)的结果表明,VNS 刺激与少数有利的 QoL 效应相关,但高低水平刺激组之间的结果不一致。一项研究(198 名参与者)发现,在使用的所有措施中,高低水平刺激对认知的影响结果不一致。一项研究(114 名参与者)发现,与基线相比,大多数参与者在蒙哥马利-Åsberg 抑郁评定量表上的情绪有所改善,但高低水平刺激之间的结果不一致。我们没有发现任何研究之间存在异质性。
作者结论:VNS 治疗局灶性癫痫似乎是一种有效且耐受良好的治疗方法。总体疗效分析的结果表明,高水平刺激比低水平刺激更能减少癫痫发作的频率。由于治疗效果不佳而退出治疗的患者很少,这表明 VNS 具有良好的耐受性。与植入和刺激相关的不良反应主要是声音嘶哑、咳嗽、呼吸困难、疼痛、感觉异常、恶心和头痛,与高水平刺激相比,低水平刺激更有可能发生声音嘶哑和呼吸困难。然而,这些结果的证据有限,且确定性为中到低。需要进一步进行高质量的研究,以充分评估 VNS 治疗耐药性局灶性癫痫的疗效和耐受性。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-7-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-3-29
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-9-16
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-4-25
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-3-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-12-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-21
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-8-1
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-7-13
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-4-1
CNS Drugs. 2025-2
ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci. 2024-11-1
Sensors (Basel). 2024-9-12
Int J Mol Sci. 2024-6-26
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2024-4-25
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-12-11
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-10-16
Indian J Pediatr. 2021-10
Pract Neurol. 2020-5
Brain Res. 2018-8-15