Effect of Levetiracetam on Cognition: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Double-Blind Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

IF 7.4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Chia-Yen Lin, Meng-Chia Chang, Hong-Jie Jhou
{"title":"Effect of Levetiracetam on Cognition: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Double-Blind Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials","authors":"Chia-Yen Lin, Meng-Chia Chang, Hong-Jie Jhou","doi":"10.1007/s40263-023-01058-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Studies have suggested that levetiracetam may help improve cognitive function in patients with epilepsy. Recently, its efficacy in improving cognitive function was reported in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s disease. However, the specific cognitive domains affected and the degree of evidence supporting these effects remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the effects of levetiracetam on different cognitive domains.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. We defined our inclusion criteria for the systematic review as: (1) randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) involving human subjects, (2) double-blinded RCTs, and (3) RCTs evaluating the quantitative differences in cognitive function between levetiracetam and placebo. We excluded: (1) non-RCT studies, (2) open-label studies, and (3) RCTs lacking cognitive assessments for either intervention. Two authors independently searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception until 2 July 2023. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analytic techniques were applied to examine the impact of levetiracetam on cognitive domain tests, with Hedges’ <i>g</i> facilitating the comparison with placebo. The domains analyzed comprised multi-domain, executive function, processing speed, working memory, verbal memory/learning (verbal ML), visuospatial memory/learning (visuospatial ML), and language. We used odds ratios to compare the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events between the groups, including somnolence, fatigue, dizziness, headache, irritability, and cognitive adverse events.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>A random-effects model was utilized to perform a meta-analysis of 16 RCTs including 545 participants. Compared with a placebo, levetiracetam was associated with improved executive function [Hedges’<i>g</i> = − 0.390, 95% confidence interval (CI) = − 0.609 to − 0.172, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 24.0%]. Subgroup analysis showed that levetiracetam outperformed placebo in patients without epilepsy (Hedges’ <i>g</i> = − 0.419, 95% CI = − 0.647 to − 0.191, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 26.2%). Meanwhile, low-dose levetiracetam showed a moderate favorable effect over placebo (Hedges’ <i>g</i> = −0.544, 95% CI = − 1.085 to − 0.003, <i>p</i> = 0.049, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 65.3%). In patients without epilepsy, low-dose levetiracetam was associated with improved executive function (Hedges’<i>g</i> = − 0.544, 95% CI = − 1.085 to − 0.003, <i>p</i> = 0.049, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 65.3%). Concurrently, levetiracetam was associated with more frequent somnolence than a placebo (odds ratio = 4.654, 95% CI = 1.533 to 14.124, <i>p</i> = 0.007, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 32.9%). Potential publication bias was observed in the executive function domain.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>This exploratory study suggests that levetiracetam might improve executive function in specific populations. However, the diversity in study populations and potential publication bias warrant caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":10508,"journal":{"name":"CNS drugs","volume":"244 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CNS drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-023-01058-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Studies have suggested that levetiracetam may help improve cognitive function in patients with epilepsy. Recently, its efficacy in improving cognitive function was reported in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s disease. However, the specific cognitive domains affected and the degree of evidence supporting these effects remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the effects of levetiracetam on different cognitive domains.

Methods

This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. We defined our inclusion criteria for the systematic review as: (1) randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) involving human subjects, (2) double-blinded RCTs, and (3) RCTs evaluating the quantitative differences in cognitive function between levetiracetam and placebo. We excluded: (1) non-RCT studies, (2) open-label studies, and (3) RCTs lacking cognitive assessments for either intervention. Two authors independently searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception until 2 July 2023. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analytic techniques were applied to examine the impact of levetiracetam on cognitive domain tests, with Hedges’ g facilitating the comparison with placebo. The domains analyzed comprised multi-domain, executive function, processing speed, working memory, verbal memory/learning (verbal ML), visuospatial memory/learning (visuospatial ML), and language. We used odds ratios to compare the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events between the groups, including somnolence, fatigue, dizziness, headache, irritability, and cognitive adverse events.

Results

A random-effects model was utilized to perform a meta-analysis of 16 RCTs including 545 participants. Compared with a placebo, levetiracetam was associated with improved executive function [Hedges’g = − 0.390, 95% confidence interval (CI) = − 0.609 to − 0.172, p < 0.001, I2 = 24.0%]. Subgroup analysis showed that levetiracetam outperformed placebo in patients without epilepsy (Hedges’ g = − 0.419, 95% CI = − 0.647 to − 0.191, p < 0.001, I2 = 26.2%). Meanwhile, low-dose levetiracetam showed a moderate favorable effect over placebo (Hedges’ g = −0.544, 95% CI = − 1.085 to − 0.003, p = 0.049, I2 = 65.3%). In patients without epilepsy, low-dose levetiracetam was associated with improved executive function (Hedges’g = − 0.544, 95% CI = − 1.085 to − 0.003, p = 0.049, I2 = 65.3%). Concurrently, levetiracetam was associated with more frequent somnolence than a placebo (odds ratio = 4.654, 95% CI = 1.533 to 14.124, p = 0.007, I2 = 32.9%). Potential publication bias was observed in the executive function domain.

Conclusions

This exploratory study suggests that levetiracetam might improve executive function in specific populations. However, the diversity in study populations and potential publication bias warrant caution.

Abstract Image

左乙拉西坦对认知能力的影响:双盲随机安慰剂对照试验的系统回顾和元分析
背景研究表明,左乙拉西坦可能有助于改善癫痫患者的认知功能。最近,又有报道称左乙拉西坦对失忆性轻度认知障碍、精神分裂症和阿尔茨海默病患者具有改善认知功能的功效。然而,受影响的特定认知领域以及支持这些效果的证据程度仍不清楚。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在探讨左乙拉西坦对不同认知领域的影响。方法本荟萃分析按照《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》(PRISMA)2020 指南进行。我们将系统综述的纳入标准定义为(1) 以人为对象的随机安慰剂对照试验 (RCT);(2) 双盲 RCT;(3) 评估左乙拉西坦和安慰剂在认知功能方面定量差异的 RCT。我们排除了(1) 非 RCT 研究;(2) 开放标签研究;(3) 缺乏对任一干预措施进行认知评估的 RCT 研究。两位作者独立检索了从开始到 2023 年 7 月 2 日的电子数据库,包括 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane CENTRAL 和 ClinicalTrials.gov。采用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具对纳入研究的方法学质量进行了评估。应用元分析技术研究了左乙拉西坦对认知领域测试的影响,并将其与安慰剂进行了Hedges'g比较。分析的领域包括多领域、执行功能、处理速度、工作记忆、言语记忆/学习(言语 ML)、视觉空间记忆/学习(视觉空间 ML)和语言。我们使用几率比来比较各组间治疗突发不良事件的发生率,包括嗜睡、疲劳、头晕、头痛、易激惹和认知不良事件。与安慰剂相比,左乙拉西坦与执行功能的改善有关[Hedges'g = - 0.390,95% 置信区间 (CI) = - 0.609 to - 0.172,p < 0.001,I2 = 24.0%]。亚组分析显示,在无癫痫患者中,左乙拉西坦的疗效优于安慰剂(Hedges' g = - 0.419, 95% CI = - 0.647 to - 0.191, p < 0.001, I2 = 26.2%)。同时,小剂量左乙拉西坦比安慰剂显示出中等程度的有利效应(Hedges' g = -0.544,95% CI = - 1.085 to - 0.003,p = 0.049,I2 = 65.3%)。在无癫痫患者中,低剂量左乙拉西坦与执行功能改善相关(Hedges'g = - 0.544,95% CI = - 1.085 to - 0.003,p = 0.049,I2 = 65.3%)。同时,与安慰剂相比,左乙拉西坦会导致更频繁的嗜睡(几率比=4.654,95% CI = 1.533至14.124,p = 0.007,I2 = 32.9%)。结论这项探索性研究表明,左乙拉西坦可能会改善特定人群的执行功能。然而,研究人群的多样性和潜在的发表偏倚值得警惕。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CNS drugs
CNS drugs 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
3.30%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: CNS Drugs promotes rational pharmacotherapy within the disciplines of clinical psychiatry and neurology. The Journal includes: - Overviews of contentious or emerging issues. - Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on pharmacological approaches to managing neurological and psychiatric illnesses. - Systematic reviews that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by the PRISMA statement. - Adis Drug Reviews of the properties and place in therapy of both newer and established drugs in neurology and psychiatry. - Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies with a strong link to clinical practice, such as clinical pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies, clinical trials, meta-analyses, outcomes research, and pharmacoeconomic and pharmacoepidemiological studies. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in CNS Drugs may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信