4.2 Article

Clobazam and clonazepam use in epilepsy: Results from a UK database incident user cohort study

期刊

EPILEPSY RESEARCH
卷 123, 期 -, 页码 68-74

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2016.04.003

关键词

Cohort studies; All epilepsy/seizures; Antiepileptic drugs; Outcome research; Clobazam; Clonazepam

资金

  1. Lundbeck LLC, Deerfield, IL
  2. Lundbeck LLC (Deerfield, IL, US)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare patient characteristics and treatment patterns among clobazam (CLB) and donazepam (CZP)-treated patients with epilepsy in a longitudinal primary care database. Methods: In this pharmacoepidemiological study, real-life usage data from the Clinical Practice Research Database (CPRD) were evaluated. The CPRD collects data from approximately 690 primary care practices throughout the UK. Data included were from patients with >= 1 incident CLB or CZP prescription from 1995 to 2011 and were present in the database for >= 182 days prior to the index date (date patient was first prescribed CLB or CZP within the study period). Results: Of 21,099 patients who met inclusion criteria, 18.4% were receiving CLB and 81.6% were receiving CZP. More patients used CLB for epilepsy than CZP (76.1% vs 8.7%). CLB-treated adults (<= 18 years) were younger than those treated with CZP (41.0 vs 48.2 years; p < 0.001), while CLB-treated children (<= 18 years) were older than those treated with CZP (8.8 vs 7.3 years, p < 0.001). The median CLB dosage did not change from baseline to last follow-up, while median CZP dosage increased 25% in adults and 50% in children. Median treatment duration, as well as retention rate up to 10 years, was similar between CLB and CZP in each age group. Conclusions: Among adult and pediatric patients in the UK, CLB is more often prescribed for epilepsy than CZP. The median CLB dosage used by both adults and children remained stable over the 16-year study period, while the median CZP dosage increased in both adults and children. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.2
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