4.3 Review

Current role of carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine in the management of epilepsy

期刊

SEIZURE-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPILEPSY
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 251-263

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2020.10.018

关键词

Carbamazepine; Oxcarbazepine; Epilepsy guidelines; Real-world effectiveness; Focal onset seizures; Therapeutic strategy

资金

  1. Novartis Pharma AG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders, affecting approximately 50 million people worldwide. Despite a dramatic increase in treatment options over the past 30 years, it still ranks fourth in the world's disease burden. There are now close to 30 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), with more than two thirds introduced to the market after carbamazepine (CBZ) and one third after its derivative, oxcarbazepine (OXC). Following the introduction of these newer AEDs, the role of CBZ and OXC in the therapeutic armamentarium for seizure control and effective epilepsy management needs to be reviewed. The main guidelines list both CBZ and OXC as first-line options or second-line alternatives for the treatment of focal-onset epilepsy and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures. While evidence suggests that overall AEDs have similar efficacy, some newer AEDs may be better tolerated than CBZ. In line with this, there have been changes in treatment patterns, with many variations across different countries. However, CBZ remains among the two or three most prescribed drugs for focal epilepsy in many countries, and is widely used across Europe, Africa, South America, and Asia, where it represents a good compromise between cost, availability, and effectiveness. OXC is among the first-choice options for the initial treatment of focal-onset seizures in several countries, including the US and China, where the oral suspension is commonly prescribed. This review provides guidance on the optimal use of these two drugs in clinical practice, including in children, the elderly, and in pregnancy.

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