OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), namely, Eslicarbazepine (ESL), Retigabine/Ezogabine (RTG), Carisbamate (CAR), Lacosamide (LAC), Brivaracetam (BRI) or Perampanel (PER) as adjunctive therapy for adults with partial-onset seizures (POS). METHODS: A systematic review of Randomized placebo-controlled Trials (RCTs) of newer AEDs was conducted. Electronic databases and identified bibliographies were searched to retrieve RCTs. The primary outcomes were responder rates and withdrawal rates, adverse effects. Pooled effects of odds ratio (OR), risk ratio (RR) and risk differences (RD) were derived from meta-analysis implemented in Revmen 5.1. RESULTS: In total, 15 RCTs were included. All the studies contained a baseline and treatment phase. The pooled OR of all newer AEDs vs placebo was 2.16 (95% CI: 1.82, 2.57) for responder rates, 1.54 (1.12, 2.10) for withdrawal rates, 1.67 (1.34, 2.08) for adverse effects. The indirect comparisons between individual newer AED and all other newer AEDs suggested the similar results in responder rates (ORs, BRI 1.79 [-1.50, 5.08], RTG 1.41 [0.49, 2.33]). CONCLUSIONS: The pooled ORs suggested newer AEDs might be more effective than placebo while with higher incidence of adverse effects. The indirect comparisons suggested BRI, followed by RTG, might be more effective than all other newer AEDs, which could be confirmed by future clinical studies.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), namely, Eslicarbazepine (ESL), Retigabine/Ezogabine (RTG), Carisbamate (CAR), Lacosamide (LAC), Brivaracetam (BRI) or Perampanel (PER) as adjunctive therapy for adults with partial-onset seizures (POS). METHODS: A systematic review of Randomized placebo-controlled Trials (RCTs) of newer AEDs was conducted. Electronic databases and identified bibliographies were searched to retrieve RCTs. The primary outcomes were responder rates and withdrawal rates, adverse effects. Pooled effects of odds ratio (OR), risk ratio (RR) and risk differences (RD) were derived from meta-analysis implemented in Revmen 5.1. RESULTS: In total, 15 RCTs were included. All the studies contained a baseline and treatment phase. The pooled OR of all newer AEDs vs placebo was 2.16 (95% CI: 1.82, 2.57) for responder rates, 1.54 (1.12, 2.10) for withdrawal rates, 1.67 (1.34, 2.08) for adverse effects. The indirect comparisons between individual newer AED and all other newer AEDs suggested the similar results in responder rates (ORs, BRI 1.79 [-1.50, 5.08], RTG 1.41 [0.49, 2.33]). CONCLUSIONS: The pooled ORs suggested newer AEDs might be more effective than placebo while with higher incidence of adverse effects. The indirect comparisons suggested BRI, followed by RTG, might be more effective than all other newer AEDs, which could be confirmed by future clinical studies.
Authors: Adriana Monserrath Orellana-Paucar; Tatiana Afrikanova; Joice Thomas; Yelaman K Aibuldinov; Wim Dehaen; Peter A M de Witte; Camila V Esguerra Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Midhun Mohan; Simon Keller; Andrew Nicolson; Shubhabrata Biswas; David Smith; Jibril Osman Farah; Paul Eldridge; Udo Wieshmann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.240