Gabapentin monotherapy for epilepsy: A review.

Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.3233/JRS-235001
Liliya Eugenevna Ziganshina, Tatyana Abakumova, Charles H V Hoyle
{"title":"Gabapentin monotherapy for epilepsy: A review.","authors":"Liliya Eugenevna Ziganshina,&nbsp;Tatyana Abakumova,&nbsp;Charles H V Hoyle","doi":"10.3233/JRS-235001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders, affecting more than 50 million people globally. In this review we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials of gabapentin used as monotherapy for the treatment of focal epilepsy, both newly diagnosed and drug-resistant, with or without secondary generalisation.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the effects of gabapentin monotherapy for people with epileptic focal seizures with and without secondary generalisation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 24 February 2020) on 25 February 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRA), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We also searched several Russian databases, reference lists of relevant studies, ongoing trials registers, conference proceedings, and we contacted trial authors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found five randomised controlled trials (3167 participants) comparing gabapentin to other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and differing doses of gabapentin as monotherapy for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and drug- resistant focal epilepsy with or without secondary generalisation. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence and present seven patient-important outcomes in the \"Summary of findings\" tables. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate due to poor reporting quality, poor trial design, and other risks of bias, such as selective presentation of findings and potential heavy industry input. Better quality research may change our certainty in the effect estimates. None of the included trials reported on the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizures and time to withdrawal (retention time) in an extractable way. Gabapentin-treated participants were more likely to withdraw from treatment for any cause (285/539) than those treated with lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate pooled together (695/1317) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25; 3 studies, 1856 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not carbamazepine. Fewer people treated with gabapentin withdrew from treatment owing to adverse events (190/525) than those treated with carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate (479/1238), (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.91; 1763 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), but not lamotrigine.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Gabapentin as monotherapy probably controlled seizures no better and no worse than comparator AEDs (lamotrigine, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate). Compared to carbamazepine, gabapentin was probably better in retaining people in studies and preventing withdrawals due to adverse events. The most common side effects associated with gabapentin were ataxia (poor co-ordination and unsteady gait), dizziness, fatigue, and drowsiness.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/JRS-235001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders, affecting more than 50 million people globally. In this review we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials of gabapentin used as monotherapy for the treatment of focal epilepsy, both newly diagnosed and drug-resistant, with or without secondary generalisation.

Objective: To assess the effects of gabapentin monotherapy for people with epileptic focal seizures with and without secondary generalisation.

Methods: We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 24 February 2020) on 25 February 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRA), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We also searched several Russian databases, reference lists of relevant studies, ongoing trials registers, conference proceedings, and we contacted trial authors.

Results: We found five randomised controlled trials (3167 participants) comparing gabapentin to other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and differing doses of gabapentin as monotherapy for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and drug- resistant focal epilepsy with or without secondary generalisation. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence and present seven patient-important outcomes in the "Summary of findings" tables. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate due to poor reporting quality, poor trial design, and other risks of bias, such as selective presentation of findings and potential heavy industry input. Better quality research may change our certainty in the effect estimates. None of the included trials reported on the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizures and time to withdrawal (retention time) in an extractable way. Gabapentin-treated participants were more likely to withdraw from treatment for any cause (285/539) than those treated with lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate pooled together (695/1317) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25; 3 studies, 1856 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not carbamazepine. Fewer people treated with gabapentin withdrew from treatment owing to adverse events (190/525) than those treated with carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate (479/1238), (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.91; 1763 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), but not lamotrigine.

Conclusion: Gabapentin as monotherapy probably controlled seizures no better and no worse than comparator AEDs (lamotrigine, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate). Compared to carbamazepine, gabapentin was probably better in retaining people in studies and preventing withdrawals due to adverse events. The most common side effects associated with gabapentin were ataxia (poor co-ordination and unsteady gait), dizziness, fatigue, and drowsiness.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
加巴喷丁单药治疗癫痫:综述。
背景:癫痫是最常见的慢性神经系统疾病之一,影响着全球5000多万人。在这篇综述中,我们总结了加巴喷丁作为单药治疗局灶性癫痫的随机对照试验的证据,包括新诊断的和耐药的,有或没有继发性癫痫。目的:评价加巴喷丁单药治疗伴有和不伴有继发全身性癫痫局灶性发作的疗效。方法:我们于2020年2月25日检索了Cochrane研究登记册(CRS Web)和MEDLINE(Ovid,1946年至2020年2月份24日)。CRS Web包括来自PubMed、Embase、ClinicalTrials.gov、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台、Cochrane对照试验中央注册中心(CENTRA)和包括Cochrane癫痫组在内的Cochrane审查组专门注册中心的随机或准随机对照试验。我们还搜索了几个俄罗斯数据库、相关研究的参考文献列表、正在进行的试验登记册、会议记录,并联系了试验作者。结果:我们发现了五项随机对照试验(3167名参与者),将加巴喷丁与其他抗癫痫药物(AED)进行了比较,并将不同剂量的加巴喷汀作为新诊断的局灶性癫痫和耐药性局灶性痫性癫痫的单药治疗,无论是否有继发性癫痫。两位综述作者独立应用了纳入标准,评估了试验质量、偏倚风险和提取的数据。我们使用GRADE方法来评估证据的确定性,并在“结果摘要”表中列出了七个患者的重要结果。由于报告质量差、试验设计差以及其他偏见风险,如选择性陈述研究结果和潜在的重工业投入,证据质量非常低至中等。更高质量的研究可能会改变我们对效果估计的确定性。没有一项纳入的试验报告了癫痫发作和戒断时间(保留时间)以可提取的方式减少50%或更多的人数。加巴喷丁治疗的参与者比拉莫三嗪、奥卡西平或托吡酯联合治疗的参与者(695/1317)更有可能因任何原因退出治疗(285/539)(RR 1.13,95%CI 1.02-1.25;3项研究,1856名参与者;中等确定性证据),但卡马西平除外。因不良事件而退出治疗的加巴喷丁患者(190/525)少于卡马西平、奥卡西平或托吡酯患者(479/1238)(RR 0.79,95%CI 0.69至0.91;1763名参与者,3项研究;中等确定性证据),但拉莫三嗪除外。结论:加巴喷丁单药治疗癫痫发作的效果可能不比对照AED(拉莫三嗪、卡马西平、奥卡西平和托吡酯)好也不差。与卡马西平相比,加巴喷丁在保留研究对象和防止因不良事件而停药方面可能更好。加巴喷丁最常见的副作用是共济失调(协调性差和步态不稳)、头晕、疲劳和嗜睡。
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 去求助
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1