4.5 Article

Updated ILAE evidence review of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes

期刊

EPILEPSIA
卷 54, 期 3, 页码 551-563

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/epi.12074

关键词

Antiepileptic drug; Efficacy; Effectiveness; Monotherapy

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. Abbott
  3. GlaxoSmithKline
  4. Pfizer
  5. AssureRx
  6. Johnson Johnson
  7. UCB
  8. Eisai Inc.
  9. Eisai
  10. Ovation
  11. UCB Pharma
  12. Jansen-Cilag
  13. Novartis
  14. Bial
  15. Neurosearch
  16. Schwarz Pharma
  17. Sanofi-Aventis
  18. IVAX
  19. Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma, Inc.
  20. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
  21. SK Pharma Co., Ltd.
  22. Pfizer Inc
  23. NIH
  24. Epilepsy Research Foundation
  25. Sunovion
  26. SK Life Science
  27. Supernus
  28. Valeant
  29. Johnson & Johnson/Janssen
  30. ALF (Stockholm County Council)
  31. CURE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this report was to update the 2006 International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) report and identify the level of evidence for long-term efficacy or effectiveness for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) as initial monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed or untreated epilepsy. All applicable articles from July 2005 until March 2012 were identified, evaluated, and combined with the previous analysis (Glauser et al., 2006) to provide a comprehensive update. The prior analysis methodology was utilized with three modifications: (1) the detectable noninferiority boundary approach was dropped and both failed superiority studies and prespecified noninferiority studies were analyzed using a noninferiority approach, (2) the definition of an adequate comparator was clarified and now includes an absolute minimum point estimate for efficacy/effectiveness, and (3) the relationship table between clinical trial ratings, level of evidence, and conclusions no longer includes a recommendation column to reinforce that this review of efficacy/evidence for specific seizure types does not imply treatment recommendations. This evidence review contains one clarification: The commission has determined that class I superiority studies can be designed to detect up to a 20% absolute (rather than relative) difference in the point estimate of efficacy/effectiveness between study treatment and comparator using an intent-to-treat analysis. Since July, 2005, three class I randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 11 class III RCTs have been published. The combined analysis (19402012) now includes a total of 64 RCTs (7 with class I evidence, 2 with class II evidence) and 11 meta-analyses. New efficacy/effectiveness findings include the following: levetiracetam and zonisamide have level A evidence in adults with partial onset seizures and both ethosuximide and valproic acid have level A evidence in children with childhood absence epilepsy. There are no major changes in the level of evidence for any other subgroup. Levetiracetam and zonisamide join carbamazepine and phenytoin with level A efficacy/effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy for adults with partial onset seizures. Although ethosuximide and valproic acid now have level A efficacy/effectiveness evidence as initial monotherapy for children with absence seizures, there continues to be an alarming lack of well designed, properly conducted epilepsy RCTs for patients with generalized seizures/epilepsies and in children in general. These findings reinforce the need for multicenter, multinational efforts to design, conduct, and analyze future clinically relevant adequately designed RCTs. When selecting a patient's AED, all relevant variables and not just efficacy and effectiveness should be considered.

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

4.5
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