Repository logo
 
Publication

Clinical comparability of the new antiepileptic drugs in refractory partial epilepsy : a systematic review and meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorCosta, João
dc.contributor.authorFareleira, Filipa
dc.contributor.authorAscenção, Raquel
dc.contributor.authorBorges, Margarida
dc.contributor.authorSampaio, Cristina
dc.contributor.authorCarneiro, António Vaz
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-16T11:44:43Z
dc.date.available2018-03-16T11:44:43Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.description© 2011 International League Against Epilepsypt_PT
dc.description.abstractPurpose:  Evaluate the clinical comparability of new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in partial refractory epilepsy. Methods:  Systematic review of randomized trials (RCTs) comparing a new AED (add-on treatment) with placebo or another AED. Primary outcomes: responder (≥50% seizure reduction) and withdrawal (tolerability) rates. Pooled estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and number needed treat/harm (NNT/NNH) taking into account baseline risk were derived by random-effects meta-analysis. Adjusted frequentist indirect comparisons between AEDs were estimated. Key Findings:  Sixty-two placebo-controlled (12,902 patients) and eight head-to-head RCTs (1,370 patients) were included. Pooled ORs for responder and withdrawal rates (vs. placebo) were 3.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.63–3.41] and 1.48 (1.30–1.68), respectively. Indirect comparisons of responder rate based on relative measurements of treatment effect (ORs) favored topiramate (1.52; 1.06–2.20) in comparison to all other AEDs, whereas gabapentin (0.67; 0.46–0.97) and lacosamide (0.66; 0.48–0.92) were less efficacious, without significant heterogeneity. When analyses were based on absolute estimates (NNTs), topiramate and levetiracetam were more efficacious, whereas gabapentin and tiagabine were less efficacious. Withdrawal rate was higher with oxcarbazepine (OR 1.60; 1.12–2.29) and topiramate (OR 1.68; 1.07–2.63), and lower with gabapentin (OR 0.65; 0.42–1.00) and levetiracetam (OR 0.62; 0.43–0.89). Significance:  The differences found are of relatively small magnitude to allow a definitive conclusion about which new AED(s) has superior effectiveness. This uncertainty probably reflects the limitations of conclusions based on indirect evidence. The process of pharmacologic clinical decision making in partial refractory epilepsy probably depends more on other aspects, such as individual patient characteristics and pharmacoeconomics, than on available controlled randomized evidence.pt_PT
dc.description.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionpt_PT
dc.identifier.citationEpilepsia, 52(7):1280–1291, 2011pt_PT
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.03047.xpt_PT
dc.identifier.issn1528-1167
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10451/32351
dc.language.isoengpt_PT
dc.peerreviewedyespt_PT
dc.publisherWileypt_PT
dc.relation.publisherversionhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1528-1167pt_PT
dc.subjectEpilepsiespt_PT
dc.subjectPartialpt_PT
dc.subjectAnticonvulsantspt_PT
dc.subjectMeta-analysispt_PT
dc.subjectComparative effectiveness researchpt_PT
dc.titleClinical comparability of the new antiepileptic drugs in refractory partial epilepsy : a systematic review and meta-analysispt_PT
dc.typejournal article
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage1291pt_PT
oaire.citation.issue7pt_PT
oaire.citation.startPage1280pt_PT
oaire.citation.titleEpilepsiapt_PT
oaire.citation.volume52pt_PT
person.familyNameCosta
person.familyNameAscenção
person.familyNameBorges
person.familyNameSampaio
person.familyNameVaz Carneiro
person.givenNameJoão
person.givenNameRaquel
person.givenNameMargarida
person.givenNameCristina
person.givenNameAntónio
person.identifier480560
person.identifier.ciencia-idDF15-F706-709E
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5831-4921
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-9086-0973
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-8563-6846
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-7052-9079
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-2783-0544
person.identifier.ridL-8026-2013
person.identifier.scopus-author-id55499748300
person.identifier.scopus-author-id7102828573
person.identifier.scopus-author-id7006837792
rcaap.rightsrestrictedAccesspt_PT
rcaap.typearticlept_PT
relation.isAuthorOfPublication0924f405-2d3a-4914-9097-24aa639bd97f
relation.isAuthorOfPublication1e50cf4b-b956-4f45-bcbc-e7c76396e6b6
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationa414c62c-f8d0-447e-b0bc-779588853440
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationcb8e1445-bca9-4565-be74-e23dd4f191c1
relation.isAuthorOfPublication376d157f-1127-4663-9d99-038dac28f37d
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery1e50cf4b-b956-4f45-bcbc-e7c76396e6b6

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
Clinical_comparability.pdf
Size:
880.55 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.2 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: