拉考沙胺
吡仑帕奈
耐受性
癫痫
医学
辅助治疗
荟萃分析
药理学
内科学
不利影响
精神科
作者
Francesco Brigo,Nicola Luigi Bragazzi,Raffaele Nardone,Eugen Trinka
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.seizure.2016.08.007
摘要
BackgroundBrivaracetam (BRV), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) have been recently marketed as adjunctive treatments for focal onset seizures. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has directly compared BRV with ESL, LCM, or PER.PurposeTo compare BRV with the other add-on AEDs in patients with uncontrolled focal epilepsy, estimating their efficacy and tolerability through an adjusted, common-reference based indirect comparison meta-analysis.MethodsWe systematically searched RCTs in which add-on treatment with ESL or LCM in patients with focal onset seizures have been compared with placebo. Efficacy and tolerability outcomes were considered. Random-effects Mantel–Haenszel meta-analyses were performed to obtain odds ratios (ORs) for the efficacy of BRV, LCM, ESL, or PER versus placebo. Adjusted indirect comparisons were then made between BRV and the other three AEDs using the obtained results, comparing the minimum and the highest effective recommended daily dose of each drug.ResultsSeventeen RCTs, with a total of 4971 patients were included. After adjusting for dose-effects, indirect comparisons showed no difference between BRV and LCM, ESL, or PER for responder rate and seizure freedom. Lower adverse events were observed with high dose BRV compared to high dose ESL or PER, but no difference was found in withdrawing because of adverse events.ConclusionsIndirect comparisons do not demonstrate a significant difference in efficacy between add-on BRV and LCM, ESL, or PER in focal epilepsy, and might suggest a better tolerability of BRV than ESL, and possibly also PER, at the highest effective recommended dose.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI