Mariangela Panebianco, Sarah Al-Bachari, Jane L Hutton, Anthony G Marson
{"title":"加巴喷丁治疗耐药局灶性癫痫。","authors":"Mariangela Panebianco, Sarah Al-Bachari, Jane L Hutton, Anthony G Marson","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD001415.pub4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially people with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 11 August 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We identified no new studies for this update, therefore, the results and conclusions are unchanged. In the previous update of this review, we combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall risk ratio (RR) for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (95% CI 19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (95% CI 8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-certainty evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, the studies were at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide CIs.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and seems to be fairly well-tolerated. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of gabapentin, and to compare gabapentin with other add-on drugs.</p>","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":" ","pages":"CD001415"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8094401/pdf/CD001415.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gabapentin add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.\",\"authors\":\"Mariangela Panebianco, Sarah Al-Bachari, Jane L Hutton, Anthony G Marson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD001415.pub4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially people with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 11 August 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We identified no new studies for this update, therefore, the results and conclusions are unchanged. In the previous update of this review, we combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall risk ratio (RR) for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (95% CI 19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (95% CI 8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-certainty evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, the studies were at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide CIs.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and seems to be fairly well-tolerated. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of gabapentin, and to compare gabapentin with other add-on drugs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":515753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"CD001415\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8094401/pdf/CD001415.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001415.pub4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001415.pub4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:这是2018年发表的Cochrane Review的更新版本。癫痫是一种常见的神经系统疾病,其特征是反复发作。大多数癫痫患者预后良好,他们的癫痫发作可由单一抗癫痫药物很好地控制,但高达30%的人会发生耐药性癫痫,特别是局灶性癫痫患者。在这篇综述中,我们总结了加巴喷丁作为耐药局灶性癫痫附加治疗的随机对照试验(RCTs)的证据。目的:评价加巴喷丁作为耐药局灶性癫痫患者附加治疗的疗效和耐受性。检索方法:我们于2020年8月11日检索了Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web)和MEDLINE (Ovid)。CRS网包括随机或准随机对照试验,来自PubMed、Embase、ClinicalTrials.gov、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(Central)和包括癫痫在内的Cochrane综述组专门注册库。我们没有施加语言限制。选择标准:加巴喷丁在耐药局灶性癫痫患者中的随机、安慰剂对照、双盲附加试验。我们还纳入了使用活性药物对照组或比较不同剂量加巴喷丁的试验。资料收集和分析:两位综述作者独立选择试验纳入并提取相关数据。我们评估了以下结果:癫痫发作频率、癫痫发作自由度、治疗停药(任何原因)和不良反应。主要分析是意向治疗。我们还进行了敏感性最佳情况和最坏情况分析。我们估计了每个结果的总风险比(RR),并在回归模型中评估了剂量-反应。主要结果:我们在本次更新中没有发现新的研究,因此,结果和结论不变。在本综述的先前更新中,我们合并了来自1206名随机受试者的荟萃分析的6项试验的数据。与安慰剂相比,癫痫发作频率减少50%或更多的总风险比(RR)为1.89(95%可信区间(CI) 1.40至2.55;6项研究,1206名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。剂量回归分析(针对成人试验)显示,疗效随着剂量的增加而增加,对加巴喷丁1800毫克有反应的人为25.3% (95% CI 19.3至32.3),而安慰剂组为9.7%,反应率增加15.5% (95% CI 8.5至22.5)。与安慰剂相比,治疗停药的RR为1.05 (95% CI 0.74 ~ 1.49;6项试验,1206名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。与安慰剂相比,加巴喷丁的不良反应显著相关。相对危险度如下:共济失调2.01 (99% CI 0.98 ~ 4.11;3项研究,787名参与者;低确定性证据),头晕2.43 (99% CI 1.44 - 4.12;6项研究,1206名受试者;中度确定性证据),疲劳度1.95 (99% CI 0.99 ~ 3.82;5项研究,1161名受试者;低确定性证据)和嗜睡1.93(99%可信区间1.22至3.06;6项研究,1206名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。没有证据表明头痛的不良反应有差异(RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 ~ 1.35;6项研究,1206名受试者;中度确定性证据)或恶心(RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 ~ 1.73;4项试验,1034名受试者;moderate-certainty证据)。总体而言,由于无法获得每个偏倚风险域的信息,这些研究的偏倚风险为低至不明确。我们判断证据的总体确定性(使用GRADE方法)为低至中等,这是由于缺少结局数据和广泛ci的不精确结果导致的潜在损耗偏倚。作者的结论:加巴喷丁作为抗药局灶性癫痫患者的附加治疗有效,并且似乎耐受性相当好。然而,回顾的试验持续时间相对较短,没有证据表明加巴喷丁的长期疗效超过三个月。结果不能外推到单一疗法或其他癫痫类型的人。需要进一步的试验来评估加巴喷丁的长期效果,并将加巴喷丁与其他附加药物进行比较。
Gabapentin add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
Background: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially people with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
Search methods: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 11 August 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions.
Selection criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin.
Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models.
Main results: We identified no new studies for this update, therefore, the results and conclusions are unchanged. In the previous update of this review, we combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall risk ratio (RR) for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (95% CI 19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (95% CI 8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-certainty evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, the studies were at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide CIs.
Authors' conclusions: Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and seems to be fairly well-tolerated. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of gabapentin, and to compare gabapentin with other add-on drugs.