SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015
Pharmacological interventions for epilepsy in people with intellectual disabilities.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive Side Effects of Antiseizure Medications in Adults with Epilepsy: An Update with a Focus on New Therapeutic Agents.CNS drugs · 2026Review
- Cenobamate significantly improves seizure control in intellectually disabled patients with drug-resistant epilepsy and allows drug load reduction.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Effectiveness and safety of adjunctive cenobamate for focal seizures in adults with developmental disability treated in clinical practice.Epilepsy & behavior reports · 2022Article
- Optimising medicines use in older adults with intellectual disability who have epilepsy: challenges and perspectives.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2021Article
- ROCK/PKA Inhibition Rescues Hippocampal Hyperexcitability and GABAergic Neuron Alterations in a Oligophrenin-1 Knock-Out Mouse Model of X-Linked Intellectual Disability.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020Article
- Medication use and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults with intellectual disabilities: a neglected area of research.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2018Review
- Recombinant Human Erythropoietin Protects Against Hippocampal Damage in Developing Rats with Seizures by Modulating Autophagy via the S6 Protein in a Time-Dependent Manner.Neurochemical research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of epilepsy among people with intellectual disabilities is much higher than in the general population. Seizures in this population are often complex and refractory to treatment and antiepileptic medication may have a profound effect upon behaviour (Kerr 1997).This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review first published in Issue 3, 2007.
objectivesTo assess the data available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of antiepileptic drug (AED) interventions in people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities. SEARCH
methodsFor the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (2 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO) (2 September 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 3 September 2014) and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 to 3 September 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and a learning disability. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed epilepsy/seizure, behavioural and cognitive outcomes, as well as quality of life and adverse effects. MAIN
resultsWe included 14 RCTs (1116 participants) in the present review. Data were heterogenous and a descriptive analysis is presented. In the majority of cases where antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were trialled in this population, we found moderate reductions in seizure frequency in that there was a significantly higher rate of responders (reduction of 50% or more) in the treatment group compared with the placebo group, with some studies reporting a higher incidence of seizure freedom in the treatment group. In general, AEDs that are proven to be effective in the general epilepsy population are also effective for refractory epilepsy in people with intellectual disability. It is not possible to comment on the relative efficacy of medications, making clinical decisions difficult.In trial settings patients continued on treatment in the majority of cases. Placebo groups often experienced fewer adverse events. Where adverse events were experienced they appeared similar to those in the general population. The methods by which adverse events were recorded and reported appeared to be inconsistent, resulting in very large variation between studies. This is problematic as clinically relevant interpretation of these findings is limited.The quality of evidence provided in the present review is low to moderate. Additionally the majority of studies lacked or used non-reliable measures of behavioural exacerbation. However, where measured, little obvious impact on behaviour was seen in terms of behaviour disorder. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThis review broadly supports the use of AEDs to reduce seizure frequency in people with refractory epilepsy and intellectual disability. The evidence suggests that adverse events are similar to those in the general population and that behavioural adverse events leading to discontinuation are rare; however, other adverse effects are under-researched.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.