Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35005782›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2022

Rapid versus slow withdrawal of antiepileptic drugs.

Fernando Ayuga Loro, Enrique Gisbert Tijeras, Francesco Brigo

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Achieving sustainable healthcare through deprescribing.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Fernando Ayuga LoroUniversity Hospital of Toledo, Toledo, Spain.
Enrique Gisbert TijerasUniversity Hospital of Toledo, Toledo, Spain.
Francesco BrigoDepartment of Neurology, Hospital of Merano (SABES-ASDAA), Merano, Italy.
Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Toledo · ESHospital Universitario de ToledoKrankenhaus Meran · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ideal objective of treating a person with epilepsy is to induce remission (free of seizures for some time) using antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and withdraw the AEDs without causing seizure recurrence. Prolonged usage of AEDs may have long-term adverse effects. Hence, when a person with epilepsy is in remission, it is logical to attempt to discontinue the medication. The timing of withdrawal and the mode of withdrawal arise while contemplating withdrawal of AEDs. This review examines the evidence for the rate of withdrawal of AEDs (whether rapid or slow tapering) and its effect on seizure recurrence. This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2020.

objectivesTo quantify risk of seizure recurrence after rapid (tapering period of three months or less) or slow (tapering period of more than three months) discontinuation of antiepileptic drugs in adults and children with epilepsy who are in remission, and to assess which variables modify the risk of seizure recurrence. SEARCH

methodsFor the latest update, on 8 November 2021, we searched: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid), and SCOPUS. There were no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), CENTRAL, and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that evaluated withdrawal of AEDs in a rapid or slow tapering after varying periods of seizure control in people with epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted the data. The outcomes assessed included seizure freedom after one, two, or five years of AED withdrawal; time to recurrence of seizure following withdrawal; occurrence of status epilepticus; mortality; morbidity due to seizure, such as injuries, fractures, and aspiration pneumonia; and quality of life (assessed by validated scale). MAIN

resultsThere are two included studies in this review. One study randomized 57 children with epilepsy with seizure freedom for at least two years to taper down the AED over one or six months. The study was not blinded and there were no details of randomization. Over the period of 54 months of follow-up, 20/30 participants in the one-month group remained seizure-free compared to 15/27 participants in the six-month group (no evidence of a difference). There was no information on time of seizure recurrence for each group to allow a comparison. The other study involved 149 children. There was a non-significant trend towards a lower risk of seizure recurrence after one year of AED withdrawal in participants allocated to slow tapering (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.01; P = 0.06; very low-certainty evidence). At the end of two years, 30 participants were seizure free in the rapid-tapering group and 29 participants in the slow-tapering group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.29; P = 0.48; very low-certainty evidence). At the end of five years, 10 participants were seizure free in the rapid-tapering group and six participants in the slow-tapering group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.65; P = 0.49; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data for the other outcomes. Due to the methodological heterogeneity and the difference in the duration of tapering, we did not perform a quantitative synthesis of these studies. Currently, one Italian trial is ongoing that is investigating if a slow or a rapid withdrawal schedule of AEDs influences return of seizures (relapse) in adults with focal or generalized epilepsy who have been seizure free for at least two years (no preliminary results available). AUTHORS'

conclusionsIn view of methodological deficiencies, and small sample size of the two included studies, we cannot draw any reliable conclusions regarding the optimal rate of tapering of AEDs. Using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low for outcomes for which data were available. We judged both studies to be at an overall high risk of bias. Further studies are needed in adults and children to investigate the optimal rate of withdrawal of AEDs and to study the effects of variables such as seizure types, aetiology, intellectual disability, electroencephalography abnormalities, presence of neurological deficits, and other comorbidities on the rate of tapering.

Indexed as

EpilepsyEpilepsy, GeneralizedAdultAnticonvulsantsChildHumansQuality of LifeSeizuresAnticonvulsants

Identifiers

PMID35005782
PMCPMC8744136
OpenAlexW4205460735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.