苯巴比妥治疗儿童癫痫:系统评价。

Deb K Pal
{"title":"苯巴比妥治疗儿童癫痫:系统评价。","authors":"Deb K Pal","doi":"10.1185/146300905X75361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>INTRODUCTION: Against a background of concern about the safety of new pharmaceutical products, there has been renewed interest in one of the oldest antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), phenobarbital. Although still in widespread use in developing countries, its popularity has slipped in Western countries over the past century, partly because of controversy about its adverse effect profile. This critical review examines the evidence supporting its effectiveness and its associated behavioural adverse effects for febrile convulsions and childhood epilepsy. METHODS: Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of phenobarbital vs other antiepileptic drugs or placebo between 1970-2005 were identified through a comprehensive manual and computer database search of the world biomedical literature. Eleven RCTs of febrile convulsions and nine RCTs of childhood epilepsy were systematically reviewed against a conventional set of quality criteria. RESULTS: With a few exceptions, the overall quality of clinical trial methodology, especially in the early studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, was poor. There is no evidence for a difference in antiepileptic efficacy between phenobarbital and any other compared AED, yet no evidence for absolute efficacy. No convincing evidence exists for an excess of behavioural adverse effects, over other AEDs, attributable to phenobarbital. Masked studies of phenobarbital in childhood epilepsy have shown no significant differences in behavioural or cognitive adverse effects compared to other AEDs. This is in contrast to the excess of such adverse effects reported in studies open to observer bias. However, the one finding of reduction in cognitive ability associated with phenobarbital treatment for febrile convulsions remains a concern. Future areas of clinical and genetic epidemiological research are outlined.</p>","PeriodicalId":87451,"journal":{"name":"Paediatric and perinatal drug therapy","volume":"7 1","pages":"31-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1185/146300905X75361","citationCount":"29","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Phenobarbital for childhood epilepsy: systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Deb K Pal\",\"doi\":\"10.1185/146300905X75361\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>INTRODUCTION: Against a background of concern about the safety of new pharmaceutical products, there has been renewed interest in one of the oldest antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), phenobarbital. Although still in widespread use in developing countries, its popularity has slipped in Western countries over the past century, partly because of controversy about its adverse effect profile. This critical review examines the evidence supporting its effectiveness and its associated behavioural adverse effects for febrile convulsions and childhood epilepsy. METHODS: Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of phenobarbital vs other antiepileptic drugs or placebo between 1970-2005 were identified through a comprehensive manual and computer database search of the world biomedical literature. Eleven RCTs of febrile convulsions and nine RCTs of childhood epilepsy were systematically reviewed against a conventional set of quality criteria. RESULTS: With a few exceptions, the overall quality of clinical trial methodology, especially in the early studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, was poor. There is no evidence for a difference in antiepileptic efficacy between phenobarbital and any other compared AED, yet no evidence for absolute efficacy. No convincing evidence exists for an excess of behavioural adverse effects, over other AEDs, attributable to phenobarbital. Masked studies of phenobarbital in childhood epilepsy have shown no significant differences in behavioural or cognitive adverse effects compared to other AEDs. This is in contrast to the excess of such adverse effects reported in studies open to observer bias. However, the one finding of reduction in cognitive ability associated with phenobarbital treatment for febrile convulsions remains a concern. Future areas of clinical and genetic epidemiological research are outlined.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Paediatric and perinatal drug therapy\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"31-42\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1185/146300905X75361\",\"citationCount\":\"29\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Paediatric and perinatal drug therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1185/146300905X75361\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paediatric and perinatal drug therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1185/146300905X75361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

摘要

导论:在关注新药安全性的背景下,人们对最古老的抗癫痫药物之一——苯巴比妥重新产生了兴趣。尽管在发展中国家仍在广泛使用,但在过去的一个世纪里,它在西方国家的受欢迎程度有所下降,部分原因是对其副作用的争议。这篇重要的综述审查了支持其对热性惊厥和儿童癫痫的有效性及其相关行为不良影响的证据。方法:通过对世界生物医学文献的全面手册和计算机数据库检索,确定1970-2005年间苯巴比妥与其他抗癫痫药物或安慰剂的相关随机对照试验(rct)。11项热性惊厥随机对照试验和9项儿童癫痫随机对照试验采用常规质量标准进行系统评价。结果:除了少数例外,临床试验方法学的整体质量较差,特别是在20世纪70年代和80年代进行的早期研究。没有证据表明苯巴比妥与任何其他AED相比在抗癫痫疗效上有差异,但也没有证据表明绝对疗效。没有令人信服的证据表明,与其他抗癫痫药相比,苯巴比妥会产生过多的行为不良反应。与其他抗癫痫药相比,苯巴比妥治疗儿童癫痫的隐瞒性研究显示,在行为或认知不良反应方面,苯巴比妥没有显著差异。这与存在观察者偏倚的研究中报告的过多此类不良反应形成对比。然而,与苯巴比妥治疗发热性惊厥相关的认知能力降低的一项发现仍然值得关注。概述了临床和遗传流行病学研究的未来领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Phenobarbital for childhood epilepsy: systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Against a background of concern about the safety of new pharmaceutical products, there has been renewed interest in one of the oldest antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), phenobarbital. Although still in widespread use in developing countries, its popularity has slipped in Western countries over the past century, partly because of controversy about its adverse effect profile. This critical review examines the evidence supporting its effectiveness and its associated behavioural adverse effects for febrile convulsions and childhood epilepsy. METHODS: Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of phenobarbital vs other antiepileptic drugs or placebo between 1970-2005 were identified through a comprehensive manual and computer database search of the world biomedical literature. Eleven RCTs of febrile convulsions and nine RCTs of childhood epilepsy were systematically reviewed against a conventional set of quality criteria. RESULTS: With a few exceptions, the overall quality of clinical trial methodology, especially in the early studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, was poor. There is no evidence for a difference in antiepileptic efficacy between phenobarbital and any other compared AED, yet no evidence for absolute efficacy. No convincing evidence exists for an excess of behavioural adverse effects, over other AEDs, attributable to phenobarbital. Masked studies of phenobarbital in childhood epilepsy have shown no significant differences in behavioural or cognitive adverse effects compared to other AEDs. This is in contrast to the excess of such adverse effects reported in studies open to observer bias. However, the one finding of reduction in cognitive ability associated with phenobarbital treatment for febrile convulsions remains a concern. Future areas of clinical and genetic epidemiological research are outlined.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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