Suppr超能文献

慢性抗癫痫药物治疗的认知副作用:25年研究综述

Cognitive side-effects of chronic antiepileptic drug treatment: a review of 25 years of research.

作者信息

Vermeulen J, Aldenkamp A P

机构信息

Dept. of Neuropsychology, Meer & Bosch Epilepsy Centre, Heemstede, Netherlands.

出版信息

Epilepsy Res. 1995 Oct;22(2):65-95. doi: 10.1016/0920-1211(95)00047-x.

Abstract

Over 90 investigations have been conducted over the past 25 years to determine what effect AEDs have on cognition. No satisfactory answer to this problem can be given, however, chiefly because there is a paucity of studies that pass fairly basic standards of methodology, design and analysis that apply to the evaluation of any clinical research. This severely limits the precision of statements regarding cognitive AED effects. More particularly, there is little reason to recommend any of the first-line AEDs as the AED of choice from the standpoint of cognitive side-effects. On the basis of the present review we are not in a position to provide a straightforward answer to the most pertinent question, i.e., whether AEDs in therapeutic doses have any cognitive effects at all, good or bad. If we reduce the available database to monotherapy studies in epilepsy that use control group data for comparison, employ an appropriate form of repeated measures analysis, and provide sufficient information, very few studies remain that are directly relevant to this issue. This in itself precludes definitive conclusions. As can be seen from Table 9, absolute effects of CBZ and VPA have been examined in epilepsy patients three times each (in four studies), PB has been examined two times, PHT only once. In addition to the paucity of relevant data, there are miscellaneous validity concerns in all of these studies, one recurring theme being that of inconclusive 'no effect' findings with small samples. Without firm knowledge about absolute effects, relative effects, and particularly their absence, are difficult to interpret. Employing the above criteria (except that concerning controls), ten epilepsy studies that address this issue remain (Table 10). It is instructive to look at the number of times particular AEDs have been compared against each other (Table 11). CBZ has been compared to PHT five times, other comparisons occur only once or twice. Again, this is hardly a basis for definitive statements, particularly because validity concerns occur here as well. Recurring concerns here are scattered significant findings that tend to disappear if adjustment of the significance level for multiple comparisons is done, and inconclusive 'no difference' findings with small samples. Even if there were no conclusion validity concerns in individual studies, comparison between studies would be complicated by considerable variation in the subjects studied. Five of the studies summarized in Tables 8 and 9 use children as subject, nine use adults; results obtained in one group may not be generalizable to the other. Also, subjects may be newly diagnosed cases, or patients already on chronic treatment. The latter choice of subjects may be a factor working against detecting cognitive side-effects, as the damage (if any) may already have been done before the beginning of the trial. In addition, a wide variety of assessment tools have been used to search for cognitive effects of AEDs, ranging from measurements of reaction time and motor speed to intelligence tests. Some of these may be more sensitive to drug induced changes in cognition than others. Still, the tentative overall picture emerging from the creme de la creme of research on cognitive AED effects is that differences in cognitive profiles may not be very large. An important point here, of course, is the magnitude of the difference one considers worth detecting. Very few studies have attempted to answer this question. In the majority of studies we examined, a large treatment effect was anticipated implicitly, judging from the generally limited sample sizes. The choice of a study design based on a large treatment effect size may not always be appropriate, though. Of course, one could argue that it is only large effects that may be of practical or clinical significance anyways [30] and that effects of lesser magnitude are of no consequence. However, there are many examples where even a small benefit of one treatme

摘要

在过去25年里,已经进行了90多项调查,以确定抗癫痫药物(AEDs)对认知功能有何影响。然而,这个问题尚无令人满意的答案,主要是因为符合适用于任何临床研究评估的相当基本的方法学、设计和分析标准的研究很少。这严重限制了关于AEDs对认知影响的陈述的准确性。更具体地说,从认知副作用的角度来看,几乎没有理由推荐任何一种一线AEDs作为首选药物。基于目前的综述,我们无法直接回答最相关的问题,即治疗剂量的AEDs是否有任何认知影响,无论是好是坏。如果我们将可用数据库缩小到癫痫单药治疗研究,这些研究使用对照组数据进行比较,采用适当形式的重复测量分析,并提供足够的信息,那么与这个问题直接相关的研究就很少了。这本身就排除了得出明确结论的可能性。从表9可以看出,卡马西平(CBZ)和丙戊酸(VPA)在癫痫患者中的绝对效应各被研究了三次(四项研究),苯巴比妥(PB)被研究了两次,苯妥英(PHT)只被研究了一次。除了相关数据匮乏之外,所有这些研究都存在各种有效性问题,一个反复出现的主题是小样本得出的不确定的“无效应”结果。在没有关于绝对效应的确切知识的情况下,相对效应,尤其是它们不存在的情况,很难解释。采用上述标准(除了关于对照组的标准),仍有十项解决这个问题的癫痫研究(表10)。看看特定AEDs相互比较的次数很有启发性(表11)。CBZ与PHT比较了五次,其他比较只出现一两次。同样,这很难成为得出明确陈述的依据,特别是因为这里也存在有效性问题。这里反复出现的问题是分散的显著结果,如果对多重比较的显著性水平进行调整,这些结果往往会消失,以及小样本得出的不确定的“无差异”结果。即使个别研究不存在结论有效性问题,研究之间的比较也会因所研究的受试者存在相当大的差异而变得复杂。表8和表9总结的研究中有五项以儿童为受试者,九项以成人为受试者;一组获得的结果可能不适用于另一组。此外,受试者可能是新诊断的病例,也可能是已经接受长期治疗的患者。选择后一种受试者可能是不利于检测认知副作用的一个因素,因为损害(如果有的话)可能在试验开始前就已经造成了。此外,已经使用了各种各样的评估工具来寻找AEDs的认知影响,从反应时间和运动速度的测量到智力测试。其中一些可能比其他工具对药物引起的认知变化更敏感。尽管如此,关于AEDs认知影响的顶级研究初步呈现的总体情况是,认知特征的差异可能不是很大。当然这里的一个要点是人们认为值得检测的差异程度。很少有研究试图回答这个问题。在我们审查的大多数研究中,从普遍有限的样本量判断,隐含地预期有很大的治疗效果。然而,基于大的治疗效果大小选择研究设计可能并不总是合适的。当然,有人可能会争辩说,无论如何只有大的效果可能具有实际或临床意义[30],较小程度的效果无关紧要。然而,有许多例子表明,即使一种治疗有很小的益处……

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