Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38888005›Full record

ArticleEpilepsia open2024

Efficacy and safety of add-on antiseizure medications for focal epilepsy: A network meta-analysis.

Hesheng Zhang, Zhujing Ou, Enhui Zhang, Wenyu Liu, Nanya Hao, Yujie Chen, Yutong Liu, Hui Ye, Dong Zhou, Xintong Wu

Abstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsia open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hesheng ZhangNeurology Department, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4489-2103
Zhujing OuNeurology Department, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Enhui ZhangNeurology Department, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Wenyu LiuNeurology Department, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Nanya HaoNeurology Department, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Yujie ChenNeurology Department, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1056-0840
Yutong LiuIgnis Therapeutics (Shanghai) Limited, Shanghai, China.
Hui YeIgnis Therapeutics (Shanghai) Limited, Shanghai, China.
Dong ZhouNeurology Department, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7101-4125
Xintong WuNeurology Department, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China U21A20393Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province 2023YFQ0109
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSeveral antiseizure medications (ASMs) have been approved for the treatment of focal epilepsy. However, there is a paucity of evidence on direct comparison of ASMs. We evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of all approved add-on ASMs for the treatment of focal epilepsy using network meta-analysis.

methodsData through extensive literature search was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrial.gov databases using predefined search terms from inception through March 2023. PRISMA reporting guidelines (CRD42023403450) were followed in this study. Efficacy outcomes assessed were ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% responder rates. Patient retention rate and safety outcomes such as overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and individual TEAEs were assessed. "Gemtc" 4.0.4 package was used to perform Bayesian analysis. Outcomes are reported as relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

resultsLiterature search retrieved 5807 studies of which, 75 studies were included in the analysis. All ASMs showed significantly higher ≥50% responder rate compared with placebo. Except the ≥75% seizure frequency reduction for zonisamide (2.23; 95% CI: 1.00-5.70) and 100% for rufinamide (2.03; 95% CI: 0.54-11.00), all other interventions showed significantly higher ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared with placebo. Among treatments, significantly higher 100% responder rate was observed with cenobamate compared to eslicarbazepine (10.71; 95% CI: 1.56-323.9) and zonisamide (10.63; 95% CI: 1.37-261.2). All ASMs showed a lower patient retention rate compared to placebo, with the least significant value observed for oxcarbazepine (0.77; 95% CI: 0.7-0.84). Levetiracetam showed a lower risk of incidence (1.0; 95%CI: 0.94-1.1; SUCRA: 0.885067) for overall TEAE compared with other medications. SIGNIFICANCE: All approved ASMs were effective as add-on treatment for focal epilepsy. Of the ASMs included, cenobamate had the greatest likelihood of allowing patients to attain seizure freedom. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This article compares the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs) currently available to neurologists in the treatment of epileptic patients. Several newer generation ASMs that have been developed may be as effective or better than the older medications. We included 75 studies in the analysis. In comparison, all drugs improved ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared to control, except for Zonisamide and Rufinamide in the ≥75% and 100% responder rate categories. Retention of patients undergoing treatment was lower in drugs than placebo. All drugs were tolerated, the levetiracetam showed the best tolerability. Cenobamate more likely help completely to reduce seizures.

Indexed as

AnticonvulsantsEpilepsies, PartialDrug Therapy, CombinationHumansTreatment OutcomeAnticonvulsantsadd‐on therapyantiseizure medicationfocal epilepsynetwork meta‐analysis

Identifiers

PMID38888005
PMCPMC11296132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.