Ethosuximide, sodium valproate or lamotrigine for absence seizures in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2017.Absence seizures (AS) are brief epileptic seizures which present in childhood and adolescence. Depending on clinical features and electroencephalogram (EEG) findings they are divided into typical, atypical absences, and absences with special features. Typical absences are characterised by sudden loss of awareness and an EEG typically shows generalised spike wave discharges at three cycles per second. Ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine are currently used to treat absence seizures. This review aims to determine the best choice of antiepileptic drug for children and adolescents with AS.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for the effects of ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine as treatments for children and adolescents with absence seizures (AS), when compared with placebo or each other.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 29 May 2018), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 29 May 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (29 May 2018) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 29 May 2018). Previously we searched Embase (1988 to March 2005) and SCOPUS (1823 to 31 March 2014), but this is no longer necessary because randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in Embase and SCOPUS are now included in CENTRAL. No language restrictions were imposed. In addition, we contacted Sanofi Winthrop, Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) and Parke Davis (now Pfizer), manufacturers of sodium valproate, lamotrigine and ethosuximide respectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised parallel group monotherapy or add-on trials which include a comparison of any of the following in children or adolescents with AS: ethosuximide, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcome measures were: (1) proportion of individuals seizure free at one, three, six, 12 and 18 months post randomisation; (2) people with a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (3) normalisation of EEG and/or negative hyperventilation test; and (4) adverse effects. Data were independently extracted by two review authors. Results are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We used GRADE quality assessment criteria to evaluate the certainty of evidence derived from all included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

On the basis of our selection criteria, we included no new studies in the present review. Eight small trials (total number of participants: 691) were included from the earlier review. Six of them were of poor methodological quality (unclear or high risk of bias) and seven recruited less than 50 participants. There are no placebo-controlled trials for ethosuximide or valproate, and hence, no evidence from RCTs to support a specific effect on AS for either of these two drugs. Due to the differing methodologies used in the trials comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and valproate, we thought it inappropriate to undertake a meta-analysis. One large randomised, parallel double-blind controlled trial comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and sodium valproate in 453 children with newly diagnosed childhood absence epilepsy found that at 12 months, the freedom-from-failure rates for ethosuximide and valproic acid were similar and were higher than the rate for lamotrigine. The frequency of treatment failures due to lack of seizure control (P < 0.001) and intolerable adverse events (P < 0.037) was significantly different among the treatment groups, with the largest proportion of lack of seizure control in the lamotrigine cohort, and the largest proportion of adverse events in the valproic acid group. Overall, this large study demonstrates the superior effectiveness of ethosuximide and valproic acid compared to lamotrigine as initial monotherapy aimed to control seizures without intolerable adverse effects in children with childhood absence epilepsy. The risk of bias for this study was low. We rated the overall certainty of the evidence available from the included studies to be moderate or high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review was published, we have found no new studies. Hence, the conclusions remain the same as the previous update. With regards to both efficacy and tolerability, ethosuximide represents the optimal initial empirical monotherapy for children and adolescents with AS. However, if absence and generalised tonic-clonic seizures coexist, valproate should be preferred, as ethosuximide is probably inefficacious on tonic-clonic seizures.