Vagus nerve stimulation for focal seizures.


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:
14 07 2022
Historique:
entrez: 14 7 2022
pubmed: 15 7 2022
medline: 19 7 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in 2015. Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder, characterised by recurring, unprovoked seizures. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory treatment that is used as an adjunctive therapy for treating people with drug-resistant epilepsy. VNS consists of chronic, intermittent electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, delivered by a programmable pulse generator. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS), and MEDLINE Ovid on 3 March 2022. We imposed no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We considered parallel or cross-over, randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of VNS as add-on treatment, which compared high- and low-level stimulation (including three different stimulation paradigms: rapid, mild, and slow duty-cycle), and VNS stimulation versus no stimulation, or a different intervention. We considered adults or children with drug-resistant focal seizures who were either not eligible for surgery, or who had failed surgery. We followed standard Cochrane methods, assessing the following outcomes: 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency 2. Treatment withdrawal (any reason) 3. Adverse effects 4. Quality of life (QoL) 5. Cognition 6. Mood We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the conclusions are unchanged. We included the five randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the last update, with a total of 439 participants. The baseline phase ranged from 4 to 12 weeks, and double-blind treatment phases from 12 to 20 weeks. We rated two studies at an overall low risk of bias, and three at an overall unclear risk of bias, due to lack of reported information about study design. Effective blinding of studies of VNS is difficult, due to the frequency of stimulation-related side effects, such as voice alteration. The risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.64; 4 RCTs, 373 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that high frequency VNS was over one and a half times more effective than low frequency VNS. The RR for treatment withdrawal was 2.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 12.71; 4 RCTs, 375 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results for the top five reported adverse events were: hoarseness RR 2.17 (99% CI 1.49 to 3.17; 3 RCTs, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); cough RR 1.09 (99% CI 0.74 to 1.62; 3 RCTs, 334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); dyspnoea RR 2.45 (99% CI 1.07 to 5.60; 3 RCTs, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence); pain RR 1.01 (99% CI 0.60 to 1.68; 2 RCTs; 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); paraesthesia 0.78 (99% CI 0.39 to 1.53; 2 RCTs, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Results from two studies (312 participants) showed that a small number of favourable QOL effects were associated with VNS stimulation, but results were inconclusive between high- and low-level stimulation groups. One study (198 participants) found inconclusive results between high- and low-level stimulation for cognition on all measures used. One study (114 participants) found the majority of participants showed an improvement in mood on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale compared to baseline, but results between high- and low-level stimulation were inconclusive. We found no important heterogeneity between studies for any of the outcomes. VNS for focal seizures appears to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment. Results of the overall efficacy analysis show that high-level stimulation reduced the frequency of seizures better than low-level stimulation. There were very few withdrawals, which suggests that VNS is well tolerated. Adverse effects associated with implantation and stimulation were primarily hoarseness, cough, dyspnoea, pain, paraesthesia, nausea, and headache, with hoarseness and dyspnoea more likely to occur with high-level stimulation than low-level stimulation. However, the evidence for these outcomes is limited, and of moderate to low certainty. Further high-quality research is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS for drug-resistant focal seizures.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in 2015. Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder, characterised by recurring, unprovoked seizures. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory treatment that is used as an adjunctive therapy for treating people with drug-resistant epilepsy. VNS consists of chronic, intermittent electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, delivered by a programmable pulse generator.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS), and MEDLINE Ovid on 3 March 2022. We imposed no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered parallel or cross-over, randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of VNS as add-on treatment, which compared high- and low-level stimulation (including three different stimulation paradigms: rapid, mild, and slow duty-cycle), and VNS stimulation versus no stimulation, or a different intervention. We considered adults or children with drug-resistant focal seizures who were either not eligible for surgery, or who had failed surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods, assessing the following outcomes: 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency 2. Treatment withdrawal (any reason) 3. Adverse effects 4. Quality of life (QoL) 5. Cognition 6. Mood
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the conclusions are unchanged. We included the five randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the last update, with a total of 439 participants. The baseline phase ranged from 4 to 12 weeks, and double-blind treatment phases from 12 to 20 weeks. We rated two studies at an overall low risk of bias, and three at an overall unclear risk of bias, due to lack of reported information about study design. Effective blinding of studies of VNS is difficult, due to the frequency of stimulation-related side effects, such as voice alteration. The risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.64; 4 RCTs, 373 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that high frequency VNS was over one and a half times more effective than low frequency VNS. The RR for treatment withdrawal was 2.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 12.71; 4 RCTs, 375 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results for the top five reported adverse events were: hoarseness RR 2.17 (99% CI 1.49 to 3.17; 3 RCTs, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); cough RR 1.09 (99% CI 0.74 to 1.62; 3 RCTs, 334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); dyspnoea RR 2.45 (99% CI 1.07 to 5.60; 3 RCTs, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence); pain RR 1.01 (99% CI 0.60 to 1.68; 2 RCTs; 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); paraesthesia 0.78 (99% CI 0.39 to 1.53; 2 RCTs, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Results from two studies (312 participants) showed that a small number of favourable QOL effects were associated with VNS stimulation, but results were inconclusive between high- and low-level stimulation groups. One study (198 participants) found inconclusive results between high- and low-level stimulation for cognition on all measures used. One study (114 participants) found the majority of participants showed an improvement in mood on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale compared to baseline, but results between high- and low-level stimulation were inconclusive. We found no important heterogeneity between studies for any of the outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
VNS for focal seizures appears to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment. Results of the overall efficacy analysis show that high-level stimulation reduced the frequency of seizures better than low-level stimulation. There were very few withdrawals, which suggests that VNS is well tolerated. Adverse effects associated with implantation and stimulation were primarily hoarseness, cough, dyspnoea, pain, paraesthesia, nausea, and headache, with hoarseness and dyspnoea more likely to occur with high-level stimulation than low-level stimulation. However, the evidence for these outcomes is limited, and of moderate to low certainty. Further high-quality research is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS for drug-resistant focal seizures.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35833911
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002896.pub3
pmc: PMC9281624
doi:

Substances chimiques

Anticonvulsants 0

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03062514']

Types de publication

Journal Article Review Systematic Review Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

CD002896

Commentaires et corrections

Type : UpdateOf

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Références

Trials. 2019 Jan 14;20(1):44
pubmed: 30642370
Trials. 2015 Aug 21;16:371
pubmed: 26292720
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 Sep;45:63-71
pubmed: 24858008
South Med J. 1997 May;90(5):484-8
pubmed: 9160063
Epilepsia. 2000 Sep;41(9):1195-200
pubmed: 10999559
Acta Neurol Belg. 2016 Sep;116(3):241-8
pubmed: 26908034
Seizure. 2019 Nov;72:28-32
pubmed: 31563121
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013 Feb;55(2):195
pubmed: 23121254
Pract Neurol. 2020 May;20(3):189-198
pubmed: 31892545
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(1):CD002896
pubmed: 11869641
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012 Sep;54(9):855-61
pubmed: 22540141
Seizure. 2009 Jan;18(1):34-7
pubmed: 18657451
Arch Neurol. 1996 Nov;53(11):1176-80
pubmed: 8912492
Epilepsy Res. 1995 Mar;20(3):221-7
pubmed: 7796794
Clin Neurophysiol. 2005 Sep;116(9):2026-36
pubmed: 16055378
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015 Oct;137:89-93
pubmed: 26164349
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1992 Oct;15(10 Pt 2):1557-71
pubmed: 1383970
Epilepsia. 2017 Jun;58(6):1015-1022
pubmed: 28440954
J Clin Neurophysiol. 2019 May;36(3):242-245
pubmed: 30531428
J Clin Neurophysiol. 2001 Sep;18(5):408-14
pubmed: 11709645
Epilepsia. 1975 Mar;16(1):1-66
pubmed: 804401
Epilepsia. 2017 Jun;58(6):1005-1014
pubmed: 28387951
Brain Res. 2018 Aug 15;1693(Pt B):180-187
pubmed: 29425906
Neuroimmunomodulation. 2012;19(6):352-8
pubmed: 23038102
J Neurol Sci. 2009 Sep 15;284(1-2):96-102
pubmed: 19427651
Epilepsy Res. 1994 Jun;18(2):149-54
pubmed: 7957037
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1995 Jun;49(3):S254-5
pubmed: 8612162
Childs Nerv Syst. 2010 Jun;26(6):811-9
pubmed: 20091042
Prog Neurol Surg. 2015;29:39-52
pubmed: 26393531
J Neurosci Nurs. 1993 Dec;25(6):362-6
pubmed: 8106830
Neurology. 2005 Jul 26;65(2):317-9
pubmed: 16043810
Seizure. 2015 Nov;32:52-61
pubmed: 26552564
Neuromodulation. 2016 Feb;19(2):188-95
pubmed: 26663671
Neuromodulation. 2013 Nov-Dec;16(6):551-6; discussion 556
pubmed: 23738578
Seizure. 2013 Jan;22(1):9-13
pubmed: 23041031
Epilepsia. 2016 Jan;57(1):e24-7
pubmed: 26589721
Epilepsia. 1994 May-Jun;35(3):637-43
pubmed: 8026410
Epilepsy Res. 2000 Dec;42(2-3):203-10
pubmed: 11074193
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001 Nov;25(5):713-28
pubmed: 11682255
Epilepsia. 2021 Jun;62(6):1306-1317
pubmed: 33830503
Neurology. 1995 Feb;45(2):224-30
pubmed: 7854516
Epilepsia. 2017 Apr;58(4):512-521
pubmed: 28276062
Epilepsy Behav. 2014 Aug;37:133-8
pubmed: 25022821
Neurology. 1993 Jul;43(7):1338-45
pubmed: 8327135
Neurology. 2000 Mar 14;54(5):1179-82
pubmed: 10720294
Neurology. 2013 Oct 15;81(16):1453-9
pubmed: 23986299
Epilepsy Behav. 2001 Feb;2(1):46-53
pubmed: 12609181
Childs Nerv Syst. 2015 Dec;31(12):2291-304
pubmed: 26493055
Epilepsia. 2017 Jun;58(6):994-1004
pubmed: 28398014
Epilepsia. 1994 May-Jun;35(3):616-26
pubmed: 8026408
Epilepsia. 1998 Jul;39(7):677-86
pubmed: 9670894
Epilepsy Behav. 2001 Oct;2(5):460-465
pubmed: 12609284
Indian J Pediatr. 2021 Oct;88(10):1000-1006
pubmed: 33740232
Neurology. 1998 Jul;51(1):48-55
pubmed: 9674777
Neurology. 1999 Nov 10;53(8):1731-5
pubmed: 10563620
BMJ. 2010 Feb 15;340:c365
pubmed: 20156912
Epilepsy Behav. 2013 Sep;28(3):374-8
pubmed: 23835092
Neurosurgery. 1998 Dec;43(6):1265-76; discussion 1276-80
pubmed: 9848840
Brain Stimul. 2019 Sep - Oct;12(5):1101-1110
pubmed: 31126871
Epilepsia. 2010 Jul;51 Suppl 3:98-101
pubmed: 20618411
Eur J Neurol. 2005 Apr;12(4):245-53
pubmed: 15804240
Can J Neurol Sci. 1997 Aug;24(3):222-5
pubmed: 9276107
Brain Stimul. 2016 May-Jun;9(3):356-363
pubmed: 27033012
Epilepsy Res. 2003 Jun-Jul;55(1-2):59-70
pubmed: 12948617
Lancet. 1995 Jul 15;346(8968):140-4
pubmed: 7603228
Epilepsia. 2006 Mar;47(3):556-62
pubmed: 16529621
Epilepsia. 1994 May-Jun;35(3):627-36
pubmed: 8026409
Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(Suppl 4):S255-9
pubmed: 23230530
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 03;(4):CD002896
pubmed: 25835947
N Engl J Med. 2000 Feb 3;342(5):314-9
pubmed: 10660394

Auteurs

Mariangela Panebianco (M)

Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Alexandra Rigby (A)

Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Anthony G Marson (AG)

Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH