4.3 Review

The effects of antiepileptic drugs on vascular risk factors: A narrative review

期刊

SEIZURE-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPILEPSY
卷 23, 期 9, 页码 677-684

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2014.05.011

关键词

Vascular disease; Epilepsy treatment; Cholesterol; Homocysteine; Risk

资金

  1. MSD
  2. Solvay (Abbott)
  3. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Epilepsy is associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. The exact causes of this link are not clearly defined. The role of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in influencing CVD risk in patients with epilepsy remains controversial. A link between epilepsy, AEDs and cardiac arrhythmias has been proposed and may be responsible for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Methods: We searched MEDLINE up to December 1, 2013 for relevant publications using combinations of keywords. We also examined the reference list of articles identified by this search and selected those we judged relevant. These were included in this narrative review. Results: AEDs may exert both beneficial and adverse cardiovascular effects. This narrative review considers the influence of AEDs on some predictors of vascular risk [i.e. weight, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, lipids, lipoprotein (a), C-reactive protein, homocysteine, vitamins, coagulation factors, uric acid, carotid intima media thickness, markers of oxidative status and matrix metalloproteinase-9]. Certain AEDs can also have pro-arrhythmic properties. Conclusions: AEDs may exert different effects on various established and emerging predictors of vascular risk. Furthermore, pharmacokinetic interactions between AEDs and drugs used to reduce vascular risk (e.g. statins) need to be better documented. Whether this knowledge, in terms of individualizing antiepileptic and CVD prevention treatment, will prove to be relevant in clinical practice remains to be established. (c) 2014 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据