4.4 Review

Antiepileptic Drugs and Liver Disease

期刊

PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGY
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 23-36

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2017.09.013

关键词

antiepileptic drugs; hepatotoxicity; hepatic disease; seizures; epilepsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute, symptomatic seizures or epilepsy may complicate the course of hepatic disease. Choosing the most appropriate antiepileptic drug in this setting represents a difficult challenge, as most medications are metabolized by the liver. This article focuses on the acute and chronic treatment of seizures in patients with advanced liver disease and reviews the hepatotoxic potential of specific antiepileptic drugs. Newer antiepileptic drugs without, or with minimal, hepatic metabolism, such as levetiracetam, lacosamide, topiramate, gabapentin, and pregabalin should be used as first-line therapy. Medications undergoing extensive hepatic metabolism, such as valproic acid, phenytoin, and felbamate should be used as drugs of last resort. In special circumstances, as in patients affected by acute intermittent porphyria, exposure to most antiepileptic drugs could precipitate attacks. In this clinical scenario, bromides, levetiracetam, gabapentin, and vigabatrin constitute safe choices. For the treatment of status epilepticus, levetiracetam and lacosamide, available in intravenous preparations, are good second-line therapies after benzodiazepines fail to control seizures. Hepatotoxicity is also a rare and unexpected side effect of some antiepileptic drugs. Drugs such as valproic acid, phenytoin, and felbamate, have a well-recognized association with liver toxicity. Other antiepileptic drugs, including phenobarbital, benzodiazepines, ethosuximide, and the newer generations of antiepileptic drugs, have only rarely been linked to hepatotoxicity. Thus physicians should be mindful of the pharmacokinetic profile and the hepatotoxic potential of the different antiepileptic drugs available to treat patients affected by liver disease.

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

4.4
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