Dataset Information

Levetiracetam for epilepsy: an evidence map of efficacy, safety and economic profiles.

ABSTRACT: Objective:To evaluate the efficacy, safety and economics of levetiracetam (LEV) for epilepsy. Materials and methods:PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, OpenGrey.eu and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case reports and economic studies published from January 2007 to April 2018. We used a bubble plot to graphically display information of included studies and conducted meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesize the evidence. Results:A total of 14,803 records were obtained. We included 30 SRs/meta-analyses, 34 RCTs, 18 observational studies, 58 case reports and 2 economic studies after the screening process. The included SRs enrolled patients with pediatric epilepsy, epilepsy in pregnancy, focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy and refractory focal epilepsy. Meta-analysis of the included RCTs indicated that LEV was as effective as carbamazepine (CBZ; treatment for 6 months: 58.9% vs 64.8%, OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.50-1.16; 12 months: 54.9% vs 55.5%, OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.79-1.93), oxcarbazepine (57.7% vs 59.8%, OR=1.34, 95% CI: 0.34-5.23), phenobarbital (50.0% vs 50.9%, OR=1.20, 95% CI: 0.51-2.82) and lamotrigine (LTG; 61.5% vs 57.7%, OR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.90-1.66). SRs and observational studies indicated a low malformation rate and intrauterine death rate for pregnant women, as well as low risk of cognitive side effects. But psychiatric and behavioral side effects could not be ruled out. LEV decreased discontinuation due to adverse events compared with CBZ (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.65), while no difference was found when LEV was compared with placebo and LTG. Two cost-effectiveness evaluations for refractory epilepsy with decision-tree model showed US$ 76.18 per seizure-free day gained in Canada and US$ 44 per seizure-free day gained in Korea. Conclusion:LEV is as effective as CBZ, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital and LTG and has an advantage for pregnant women and in cognitive functions. Limited evidence supports its cost-effectiveness. Registered number:PROSPERO (No CRD 42017069367).

SUBMITTER: Yi ZM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6301299 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Levetiracetam for epilepsy: an evidence map of efficacy, safety and economic profiles.

Yi Zhan-Miao ZM - Wen Cheng C Cai Ting T Xu Lu L Zhong Xu-Li XL Zhan Si-Yan SY Zhai Suo-Di SD

Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment 20181217

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the efficacy, safety and economics of levetiracetam (LEV) for epilepsy.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, OpenGrey.eu and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case reports and economic studies published from January 2007 to April 2018. We used a bubble plot to graphically display information of included studies and conducted meta-anal ...[more]

PMID: 30587993

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEpilepsy causes serious suffering in children and is associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It impairs children's quality of life and places a heavy burden on healthcare resources. Levetiracetam has been used to prevent and treat paediatric epilepsy for years. To date, a number of systematic reviews have been performed to assess the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in a variety of clinical settings. Conflicting outcomes have been reported for the same clinical issues. Our objective is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature for clinicians and policymakers via an umbrella review that assesses the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in children with epilepsy.Methods and analysisWe will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute's guidelines for umbrella reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The following seven databases will be searched from 1990 to February 2019: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, JBISRIR, EPPI, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. We will provide evidence from existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials regarding the use of levetiracetam in children with epilepsy. The intervention of interest is levetiracetam monotherapy and add-on therapies for prevention or treatment purposes. Studies will be individually selected and assessed by two reviewers. The primary outcomes of interest are epilepsy control, the efficacy of prophylaxis for provoked seizures and the mortality rate of children with epilepsy who received levetiracetam treatment. The secondary outcomes are adverse events and withdrawal rates due to adverse effects. The methodological quality of all reviews will be individually assessed by two reviewers using the 'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews' instrument. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment will be applied to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. A narrative description of an analysis of the systematic reviews will be tabulated to address objective and specific questions. Information from each review will be detailed in a table including the population, number of studies, total number of participants, year range of the trials, study designs of the primary trials, countries and settings of the trials, heterogeneity of results and assessment tools. Recommendations regarding each outcome of levetiracetam will be categorised based on a protocol.Ethics and disseminationThis umbrella review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam for preventing and treating paediatric epilepsy. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. Ethical approval is not required for this study.

Project description:BackgroundThere are 3 main epileptic conditions in hospital settings that may require intravenous antiepileptic treatment: status epilepticus, acute repetitive convulsive seizures, and postoperative seizures. Generic intravenous levetiracetam (IV LEV) (Focale; Great Eastern Drug Co, Bangkok, Thailand), has been reported to have comparable efficacy to original IV LEV for treating status epilepticus and acute repetitive convulsive seizures in a randomized controlled trial. At present, there are limited data on the efficacy and tolerability of generic intravenous LEV in real-world situations.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of generic IV LEV in a real-world setting.MethodsA retrospective study and analyses were conducted. All adult patients who used IV LEV at University Hospital, Khon Kaen University, Thailand from June 1, 2019, until February 15, 2020, were included. Data were analyzed and reported in terms of the efficacy and tolerability of generic IV LEV.ResultsNinety-three patients received IV LEV by 3 indications: status epilepticus, acute repetitive convulsive seizures, and postoperative seizures. The proportions of these 3 indications were 41.94% (39 patients), 9.67% (9 patients), and 48.39% (45 patients), respectively. The average seizure control rate at 24 hours was 89.25%. The seizure control rate was significantly higher in the acute repetitive convulsive seizures and postoperative seizure groups than in the status epilepticus group when generic IV LEV was given as the first-line treatment (75.00%; 88.37% vs 50.00%; P 0.035). The average length of hospital stay was 18.24 (25.40) days. There was no significant discharge status among the 3 groups (P = 0.348). Moreover, the average mortality rate was 5.38%. Side effects were reported in 14 patients (15.05%). The 2 most common side effects were vomiting and bronchospasm (3 patients; 3.22%). There were 10 patients with uncontrolled seizures at 24 hours (10.75%). The only factor associated with uncontrolled seizures at 24 hours was a history of epilepsy. The uncontrolled seizure group had a higher proportion of epilepsy patients than the seizure-controlled group (70.00% vs 33.73%; P = 0.037). Poor discharge status (not improved/death) was 18.28% (17 patients). There was no significant factor between those with an improved or poor discharge status.ConclusionsGeneric IV LEV was effective and relatively well tolerated in the 3 clinical settings (ie, status epilepticus, acute repetitive convulsive seizures, and postoperative seizures). Further clinical data are still required to confirm the results of this study.(Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2022; 83:XXX-XXX).

Project description:Importance:More than half of infants with new-onset epilepsy have electroencephalographic and clinical features that do not conform to known electroclinical syndromes (ie, nonsyndromic epilepsy). Levetiracetam and phenobarbital are the most commonly prescribed medications for epilepsy in infants, but their comparative effectiveness is unknown. Objective:To compare the effectiveness of levetiracetam vs phenobarbital for nonsyndromic infantile epilepsy. Design, Setting, and Participants:The Early Life Epilepsy Study-a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study conducted from March 1, 2012, to April 30, 2015, in 17 US medical centers-enrolled infants with nonsyndromic epilepsy and a first afebrile seizure between 1 month and 1 year of age. Exposures:Use of levetiracetam or phenobarbital as initial monotherapy within 1 year of the first seizure. Main Outcomes and Measures:The binary outcome was freedom from monotherapy failure at 6 months, defined as no second prescribed antiepileptic medication and freedom from seizures beginning within 3 months of initiation of treatment. Outcomes were adjusted for demographics, epilepsy characteristics, and neurologic history, as well as for observable selection bias using propensity score weighting and for within-center correlation using generalized estimating equations. Results:Of the 155 infants in the study (81 girls and 74 boys; median age, 4.7 months [interquartile range, 3.0-7.1 months]), those treated with levetiracetam (n?=?117) were older at the time of the first seizure than those treated with phenobarbital (n?=?38) (median age, 5.2 months [interquartile range, 3.5-8.2 months] vs 3.0 months [interquartile range, 2.0-4.4 months]; P?<?.001). There were no other significant bivariate differences. Infants treated with levetiracetam were free from monotherapy failure more often than those treated with phenobarbital (47 [40.2%] vs 6 [15.8%]; P?=?.01). The superiority of levetiracetam over phenobarbital persisted after adjusting for covariates, observable selection bias, and within-center correlation (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.1-16; number needed to treat, 3.5 [95% CI, 1.7-60]). Conclusions and Relevance:Levetiracetam may have superior effectiveness compared with phenobarbital for initial monotherapy of nonsyndromic epilepsy in infants. If 100 infants who received phenobarbital were instead treated with levetiracetam, 44 would be free from monotherapy failure instead of 16 by the estimates in this study. Randomized clinical trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

Project description:Background: Neonatal seizures are a common neurological emergency in newborns. Phenobarbital (PB) is the first-line antiepileptic drug (AED). However, PB has some side effects, such as hypotension and respiratory depression, and it can accelerate neuronal apoptosis in the immature brain. Levetiracetam (LEV), a new antiepileptic drug, has been used as a second-line drug for the treatment of neonatal seizures. Compared with PB, LEV has many advantages, including a low incidence of side effects and better neurodevelopmental outcomes. However, there are only a few systematic reviews of LEV for the treatment of neonatal seizures. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LEV for neonatal seizures and to compare the efficacy, side effects, and neurological outcomes between LEV and PB in the treatment of neonatal seizures. Methods: The keywords LEV, PB, and neonatal seizure were searched in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) databases with a last update in July 2021 to collect high-quality studies. We collected studies studying the efficacy or safety of LEV and PB in the treatment of neonatal seizures applying strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were extracted and outcome measures, including efficacy, side effect rate, neurological score, and mortality rate, were analyzed with RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Ten articles were finally included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in efficacy between LEV and PB in the treatment of neonatal seizures. Compared with PB, the incidence of side effects of LEV was lower. The incidence of hypotension and respiratory depression in the LEV group was significantly lower than that in the PB group. In terms of long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, there was no significant difference in the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) scores between LEV and PB. Conclusion: PB is still the first-line AED recommended by the WHO for the treatment of neonatal seizures. The new AEDs LEV may not have better efficacy than PB. At the same time, LEV is associated with better neurodevelopment outcomes and a lower risk of adverse effects. In addition, continuous EEG monitoring should be used to diagnose neonatal seizures to evaluate the severity of the seizures, remission, and drug efficacy. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021279029.

Project description:BackgroundBiofeedback is increasingly used to treat clinical conditions in a wide range of settings; however, evidence supporting its use remains unclear. The purpose of this evidence map is to illustrate the conditions supported by controlled trials, those that are not, and those in need of more research.MethodsWe searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, and EBM Reviews through September 2018) for good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback for clinical conditions. We included the highest quality, most recent review representing each condition and included only controlled trials from those reviews. We relied on quality ratings reported in included reviews. Outcomes of interest were condition-specific, secondary, and global health outcomes, and harms. For each review, we computed confidence ratings and categorized reported findings as no effect, unclear, or insufficient; evidence of a potential positive effect; or evidence of a positive effect. We present our findings in the form of evidence maps.ResultsWe included 16 good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback alone or as an adjunctive intervention. We found clear, consistent evidence across a large number of trials that biofeedback can reduce headache pain and can provide benefit as adjunctive therapy to men experiencing urinary incontinence after a prostatectomy. Consistent evidence across fewer trials suggests biofeedback may improve fecal incontinence and stroke recovery. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about effects for most conditions including bruxism, labor pain, and Raynaud's. Biofeedback was not beneficial for urinary incontinence in women, nor for hypertension management, but these conclusions are limited by small sample sizes and methodologic limitations of these studies.DiscussionAvailable evidence suggests that biofeedback is effective for improving urinary incontinence after prostatectomy and headache, and may provide benefit for fecal incontinence and balance and stroke recovery. Further controlled trials across a wide range of conditions are indicated.

Dataset Information

Levetiracetam for epilepsy: an evidence map of efficacy, safety and economic profiles.

Publications

Levetiracetam for epilepsy: an evidence map of efficacy, safety and economic profiles.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets