Phenobarbitone versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.


Journal

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
31 07 2019
Historique:
aheadofprint: 31 07 2019
entrez: 20 8 2019
pubmed: 20 8 2019
medline: 20 8 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and last updated in 2013. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, particularly in the developing world, phenytoin and phenobarbitone are commonly used antiepileptic drugs, primarily because they are inexpensive. The aim of this review is to summarise data from existing trials comparing phenytoin and phenobarbitone. To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with phenobarbitone compared with phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 21 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either phenobarbitone or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures. This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission and time to 12-month remission. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI. Individual participant data were obtained for five studies, which recruited a total of 635 participants, representing 80% of 798 individuals from all seven identified eligible trials. For remission outcomes, an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.61, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.87, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.66, moderate-certainty evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for phenytoin compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between phenytoin and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 624 participants: 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06, moderate-certainty evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.19, moderate-certainty evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.15, moderate-certainty evidence).For individuals with focal onset seizures (73% of individuals contributing to analysis), numerical results were similar and conclusions the same as for analyses of all individuals and for individuals with generalised onset seizures (27% of individuals contributing to analysis), results were imprecise and no clear differences between the drugs were observed.Several confounding factors, most notably the differences in design of the trials with respect to blinding, were likely to have impacted on the results of the primary outcome 'time to treatment failure', and in turn, the treatment failure rates may have impacted on the secondary efficacy outcomes of time to first seizure and time to 12-month and six-month remission. Low-certainty evidence from this review suggests that phenytoin may be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate-certainty evidence from this review also indicates no differences between the drugs in terms of time to seizure recurrence and seizure remission.However, the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and methodological design differences that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001, and last updated in 2013. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, particularly in the developing world, phenytoin and phenobarbitone are commonly used antiepileptic drugs, primarily because they are inexpensive. The aim of this review is to summarise data from existing trials comparing phenytoin and phenobarbitone.
OBJECTIVES
To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with phenobarbitone compared with phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 21 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either phenobarbitone or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission and time to 12-month remission. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
Individual participant data were obtained for five studies, which recruited a total of 635 participants, representing 80% of 798 individuals from all seven identified eligible trials. For remission outcomes, an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes an HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.61, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.87, low-certainty evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 499 participants: 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.66, moderate-certainty evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for phenytoin compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between phenytoin and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 624 participants: 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06, moderate-certainty evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.19, moderate-certainty evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 588 participants: 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.15, moderate-certainty evidence).For individuals with focal onset seizures (73% of individuals contributing to analysis), numerical results were similar and conclusions the same as for analyses of all individuals and for individuals with generalised onset seizures (27% of individuals contributing to analysis), results were imprecise and no clear differences between the drugs were observed.Several confounding factors, most notably the differences in design of the trials with respect to blinding, were likely to have impacted on the results of the primary outcome 'time to treatment failure', and in turn, the treatment failure rates may have impacted on the secondary efficacy outcomes of time to first seizure and time to 12-month and six-month remission.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence from this review suggests that phenytoin may be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate-certainty evidence from this review also indicates no differences between the drugs in terms of time to seizure recurrence and seizure remission.However, the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and methodological design differences that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31425629
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002217.pub3
pmc: PMC6699655
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

CD002217

Références

Dermatol Online J. 2003 Aug;9(3):6
pubmed: 12952753
Reprod Toxicol. 1992;6(3):257-61
pubmed: 1591483
Lancet. 1998 Jan 3;351(9095):19-23
pubmed: 9433424
Epilepsia. 2010 May;51(5):883-90
pubmed: 20067507
Stat Med. 2002 Nov 30;21(22):3337-51
pubmed: 12407676
Am J Med Genet. 1997 Jan 10;68(1):18-24
pubmed: 8986270
Epilepsy Res. 2008 Sep;81(1):1-13
pubmed: 18565732
Epilepsia. 1989 Jul-Aug;30(4):389-99
pubmed: 2502382
Epilepsia. 1993 May-Jun;34(3):453-68
pubmed: 8504780
Epilepsia. 1988;29 Suppl 3:S15-9
pubmed: 3066616
BMJ. 2007 Jun 9;334(7605):1207
pubmed: 17145735
Epilepsia. 1999 Apr;40(4):502-6
pubmed: 10219279
Indian Pediatr. 1996 Jul;33(7):549-55
pubmed: 8979563
Epilepsia. 1983 Jun;24(3):297-312
pubmed: 6406213
Trials. 2007 Nov 05;8:34
pubmed: 17983480
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 15;12:CD011412
pubmed: 29243813
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996 Nov;61(5):433-43
pubmed: 8965090
J Physiol. 1996 Dec 1;497 ( Pt 2):509-22
pubmed: 8961191
Lancet Neurol. 2005 Oct;4(10):627-34
pubmed: 16168931
BMJ. 1996 Jul 6;313(7048):36-9
pubmed: 8664772
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 07;11:CD010224
pubmed: 27819746
Mol Pharmacol. 1991 Nov;40(5):756-65
pubmed: 1658608
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1962 Jan-Feb;3:23-8
pubmed: 13902356
Arch Neurol. 1966 Jan;14(1):31-5
pubmed: 5320823
Lancet. 1996 Mar 16;347(9003):709-13
pubmed: 8601999
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 27;2:CD001911
pubmed: 28240353
Epilepsia. 2004;45 Suppl 6:28-34
pubmed: 15315513
N Engl J Med. 1985 Jul 18;313(3):145-51
pubmed: 3925335
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 30;(10):CD010236
pubmed: 25354543
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(3):CD001030
pubmed: 10908558
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(4):CD002217
pubmed: 11687150
Epilepsia. 1981 Aug;22(4):489-501
pubmed: 6790275
Neurology. 2007 Jan 30;68(5):326-37
pubmed: 17261678
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1995 Jan;58(1):44-50
pubmed: 7823066
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 09;8:CD001769
pubmed: 30091458
Neurology. 1974 May;24(5):401-10
pubmed: 4207990
Epilepsia. 1998 Jul;39(7):799-803
pubmed: 9670910
Mol Pharmacol. 1985 May;27(5):549-58
pubmed: 2581124
Epilepsia. 1995;36 Suppl 2:S2-12
pubmed: 8784210
Epilepsia. 2017 Apr;58(4):512-521
pubmed: 28276062
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 23;10:CD003615
pubmed: 30350354
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1975 Dec;18(6):733-41
pubmed: 1106934
Epilepsia. 2006 Jul;47(7):1094-120
pubmed: 16886973
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;(1):CD002217
pubmed: 23440786
Mol Pharmacol. 1995 Jun;47(6):1189-96
pubmed: 7603459
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 24;10:CD001904
pubmed: 30353945
Ann Neurol. 2000 Dec;48(6):833-41
pubmed: 11117539
BMJ. 2010 Feb 15;340:c365
pubmed: 20156912
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 24;6:CD012065
pubmed: 31233229
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006 Feb;77(2):193-8
pubmed: 16157661
Stat Med. 1998 Dec 30;17(24):2815-34
pubmed: 9921604
Epilepsia. 1992 Mar-Apr;33(2):372-5
pubmed: 1547769
Neurology. 1990 Mar;40(3 Pt 1):391-4
pubmed: 2314578
Lancet. 1995 Jul 15;346(8968):140-4
pubmed: 7603228
J Eval Clin Pract. 2000 May;6(2):205-14
pubmed: 10970014
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 28;6:CD001031
pubmed: 29952431
N Engl J Med. 2000 Feb 3;342(5):314-9
pubmed: 10660394
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120

Auteurs

Sarah J Nevitt (SJ)

Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Block F, Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, UK, L69 3GL.

Classifications MeSH