Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item presented as percentages across all included studies
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item presented as percentages across all included studies

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study

Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment

Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment ‐ stratified by epilepsy type
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment ‐ stratified by epilepsy type

Time to 12‐month remission
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Time to 12‐month remission

Time to 12‐month remission ‐ stratified by epilepsy type
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 7

Time to 12‐month remission ‐ stratified by epilepsy type

Time to six‐month remission
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 8

Time to six‐month remission

Time to six‐month remission ‐ stratified by epilepsy type
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 9

Time to six‐month remission ‐ stratified by epilepsy type

Time to first seizure
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 10

Time to first seizure

Time to first seizure ‐ stratified by epilepsy type
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 11

Time to first seizure ‐ stratified by epilepsy type

Time to six‐month remission ‐ Mattson 1985
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 12

Time to six‐month remission ‐ Mattson 1985

Time to first seizure ‐ de Silva 1996
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 13

Time to first seizure ‐ de Silva 1996

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 1 Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 1 Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment.

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 2 Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment ‐ stratified by epilepsy type.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 2 Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment ‐ stratified by epilepsy type.

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 3 Time to 12‐month remission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 3 Time to 12‐month remission.

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 4 Time to 12‐month remission ‐ stratified by epilepsy type.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 4 Time to 12‐month remission ‐ stratified by epilepsy type.

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 5 Time to six‐month remission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 5 Time to six‐month remission.

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 6 Time to six‐month remission ‐ stratified by epilepsy type.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 6 Time to six‐month remission ‐ stratified by epilepsy type.

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 7 Time to first seizure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 7 Time to first seizure.

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 8 Time to first seizure ‐ stratified by epilepsy type.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 8 Time to first seizure ‐ stratified by epilepsy type.

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 9 Time to first seizure ‐ sensitivity analysis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone, Outcome 9 Time to first seizure ‐ sensitivity analysis.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings ‐ Carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone for epilepsy (primary outcome)

Carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone for epilepsy

Patient or population: adults and children with newly onset partial or generalised epilepsy

Settings: outpatients

Intervention: carbamazepine

Comparison: phenobarbitone

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)¹

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Phenobarbitone

Carbamazepine

Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment ‐ all participants, stratified by epilepsy type

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 0 to 4653 days

390 per 1000

281 per 1000
(224 to 350)

HR 1.50 (1.15 to 1.95)

676

(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

HR > 1 indicates a
clinical advantage for
carbamazepine

Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment

Subgroup: generalised onset seizures

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 0 to 4653 days

286 per 1000

197 per 1000
(110 to 340)

HR 1.53 (0.81 to 2.88)

156

(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

HR > 1 indicates a
clinical advantage for
carbamazepine

Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment

Subgroup: partial onset seizures

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 0 to 4272 days

420 per 1000

307 per 1000
(239 to 385)

HR 1.49 (1.12 to 2.00)

520

(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

HR > 1 indicates a
clinical advantage for
carbamazepine

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The assumed risk is calculated as the event rate in the phenobarbitone treatment group. The corresponding risk in the carbamazepine treatment group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
The corresponding risk is calculated as the assumed risk x the relative risk of the intervention where relative risk = (1 ‐ exp(HR x ln(1 ‐ assumed risk)) )/assumed risk.
CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; HR: hazard ratio; exp: exponential.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Pooled HR for all participants adjusted for seizure type.
2There was high risk of bias for at least one element of three studies included in the analysis; de Silva 1996 and Heller 1995 were open‐label, and the lack of masking may have influenced the withdrawal rates in the study. Placencia 1993 did not adequately conceal allocation for all participants, which may have influenced the withdrawal rates in the study. There were inconsistencies in Placencia 1993 between published data and IPD, which the authors could not resolve.
3Substantial heterogeneity was present between studies; sensitivity analyses showed that Placencia 1993 contributed the largest amount of variability to analysis.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings ‐ Carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone for epilepsy (primary outcome)
Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings ‐ Carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone for epilepsy (secondary outcome)

Carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone for epilepsy

Patient or population: adults and children with newly onset partial or generalised epilepsy

Settings: outpatients

Intervention: carbamazepine

Comparison: phenobarbitone

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)¹

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Phenobarbitone

Carbamazepine

Time to achieve 12‐month remission ‐ all participants, stratified by epilepsy type

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 0 to 4222 days

367 per 1000

346 per 1000
(280 to 422)

HR 0.93

(0.72 to 1.20)

683
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

HR > 1 indicates a
clinical advantage for
phenobarbitone

Time to achieve 12‐month remission

Subgroup: generalised onset seizures

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 0 to 4163 days

500 per 1000

358 per 1000
(247 to 503)

HR 0.64

(0.41 to 1.01)

158
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

HR > 1 indicates a
clinical advantage for
phenobarbitone

Time to achieve 12‐month remission

Subgroup: partial onset seizures

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 0 to 4222 days

329 per 1000

358 per 1000
(276 to 453)

HR 1.11

(0.81 to 1.51)

525
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

HR > 1 indicates a
clinical advantage for
phenobarbitone

Time to first seizure ‐ all participants, stratified by epilepsy type

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 0 to 4108 days

487 per 1000

536 per 1000
(467 to 604)

HR 0.87

(0.72 to 1.06)

822

(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low4,5,6

HR > 1 indicates a
clinical advantage for
carbamazepine

Time to first seizure ‐ Subgroup: generalised onset seizures

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 0 to 4108 days

548 per 1000

475 per 1000
(361 to 602)

HR 1.23

(0.86 to 1.77)

238

(5 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low4,5,6

HR > 1 indicates a
clinical advantage for
carbamazepine

Time to first seizure ‐ Subgroup: partial onset seizures

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 0 to 4108 days

462 per 1000

557 per 1000
(475 to 644)

HR 0.76

(0.60 to 0.96)

584

(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low4,5,6

HR > 1 indicates a
clinical advantage for
carbamazepine

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The assumed risk is calculated as the event rate in the phenobarbitone treatment group. The corresponding risk in the carbamazepine treatment group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
The corresponding risk is calculated as the assumed risk x the relative risk of the intervention where relative risk = (1 ‐ exp(HR x ln(1 ‐ assumed risk)) )/assumed risk.
CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; HR: hazard ratio; exp: exponential.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Pooled HR for all participants adjusted for seizure type.
2There was high risk of bias for at least one element of three studies included in the analysis; de Silva 1996 and Heller 1995 were open‐label, and the lack of masking may have influenced the withdrawal rates in the study. Placencia 1993 did not adequately conceal allocation for all participants, which may have influenced the withdrawal rates in the study and therefore the remission rates in the study.
3Substantial heterogeneity was present between studies; sensitivity analyses showed that Placencia 1993 contributed the largest amount of variability to the analysis.
4There was high risk of bias for at least one element of four studies included in the analysis; de Silva 1996 and Heller 1995 were open‐label, and the lack of masking may have influenced the withdrawal rates in the study. Placencia 1993 was not adequately concealed for all participants, which may have influenced the withdrawal rates in the study and therefore the seizure recurrence rates in the trial. There were inconsistencies between published data and IPD, which the authors could not resolve in Banu 2007.
5Substantial heterogeneity was present between studies; sensitivity analyses showed that Placencia 1993 and Ogunrin 2005 contributed the largest amount of variability to the analysis.
6Misclassification of seizure type in Ogunrin 2005 for 19 individuals may have impacted on the trial result. Sensitivity analysis to adjust for misclassification reduced the amount of heterogeneity in the analysis.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings ‐ Carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone for epilepsy (secondary outcome)
Table 1. Outcomes considered and summary of results for trials with no IPD

Trial

Outcomes reported

Summary of results

Bidabadi 2009

  1. Proportion seizure‐free

  2. Response rate

  3. Rate of side‐effects

  4. Mean seizure frequency per month

  5. Mean seizure duration

  1. CBZ: 23/36 (64%), PB: 22/35 (63%)

  2. No statistically significant difference between groups

  3. No statistically significant difference between groups

  4. CBZ: 0.66, PB: 0.8

  5. CBZ: 12.63 seconds, PB: 15 seconds

Cereghino 1974

  1. Behaviour measured with rating scale modified from the Ward Behavior Rating Scale

  2. Seizure control

  3. Side‐effects

  4. Withdrawals

  1. No change or improvement in behaviour was more common on PB than CBZ (40% versus 12%); predominant improvement with some deterioration was more common on CBZ than PB (36% versus 12%)

  2. No difference between PB and CBZ in terms of seizure control

  3. Gastrointestinal and "impaired function" side‐effects were more common on CBZ than PB in the first few study days. Side‐effects of both drugs were minimal in later stages of the study

  4. PB: 26/44 (59%), CBZ: 27/45 (60%)

Chen 1996

  1. IQ scores measured with WISC‐R scale

  2. Time to complete the Bender‐Gestalt test

  3. Auditory event‐related potentials

  4. Incidence of allergic reactions

  5. Seizure control

  1. No significant difference between groups

  2. No significant difference between groups

  3. No significant difference between groups

  4. 2 children from PB group and 1 child from CBZ group withdrew from the study because of allergic reactions

  5. No significant difference between groups

Cossu 1984

Changes in memory function from baseline after 3 weeks of treatment (verbal, visual, (visual‐verbal and visual‐non‐verbal), acoustic, tactile, and spatial)

  1. Significant decrease in visual‐verbal memory for CBZ and acoustic memory for PB

  2. No significant differences for other tests

Czapinski 1997

  1. Proportion achieving 24‐month remission at 3 years

  2. Proportion excluded after randomisation due to adverse effects or no efficacy

  1. PB: 60%, CBZ: 62%

  2. PB: 33%, CBZ: 30%

Feksi 1991

  1. Adverse effects

  2. Withdrawals from allocated treatment

  3. Seizure frequency (during second 6 months of study, participants completing the study only)

PB (n = 123), CBZ (n = 126)

  1. Minor adverse effects reported in PB: 58 participants (39%) reported 86 adverse events, CBZ: 46 participants (30%) reported 68 adverse events

  2. PB: all withdrawals: PB: 27 (18%), CBZ: 26 (17%); withdrawals due to side‐effects: PB: 8 (5%), CBZ: 5 (3%)

  3. Seizure‐free: PB: 67 (54%), CBZ: 65 (52%); > 50% reduction of seizures from baseline: PB: 28 (23%), CBZ: 37 (29%); between 50% reduction to 50% increase of seizures: PB: 18 (15%), CBZ: 17 (13%); > 50% increase in seizures: PB: 10 (8%), CBZ: 7 (6%)

Mitchell 1987

  1. Cognitive/behavioural outcomes at 1, 2, 6, and 12 months

  2. Compliance, drug changes, and withdrawal rates

  3. Seizure control at 6 and 12 months (excellent/good/fair/poor)

  1. No significant differences between treatment groups (children from pilot study included for 6 and 12 months)

  2. Compliance (children from pilot study included): trend towards better compliance in CBZ group (not significant)

    • Randomised participants only: trend towards higher rate withdrawal from treatment in PB group (not significant). More mild systemic side‐effects in CBZ group (significant). 3 children switched from CBZ to PB and 1 from PB to CB following adverse reactions

  3. Seizure control at 6 months: excellent/good: PB = 15, CBZ = 13 (children from pilot study included) fair/poor PB = 5, CBZ = 3; seizure control at 12 months: excellent/good: PB = 13, CBZ = 9 (children from pilot study included) fair/poor PB = 4, CBZ = 4

CBZ: carbamazepine

IQ: intelligence quotient
PB: phenobarbitone

WISC‐R scale: the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Outcomes considered and summary of results for trials with no IPD
Table 2. Number of participants contributing to each analysis

Trial

Number randomised

Time to withdrawal of

allocated treatment

Time to 12‐month

remission

Time to six‐month

remission

Time to first seizure

CBZ

PB

Total

CBZ

PB

Total

CBZ

PB

Total

CBZ

PB

Total

CBZ

PB

Total

Banu 2007¹

54

54

108

Information not available

Information not available

Information not available

54

54

108

de Silva 1996²

54

10

64

53

10

63

54

10

64

54

10

64

54

10

64

Heller 1995³

61

58

119

60

55

115

61

58

119

61

58

119

61

58

119

Mattson 1985

155

155

310

154

155

309

154

155

309

154

155

309

151

151

302

Ogunrin 2005

19

18

37

Information not available

Information not available

Information not available

19

18

37

Placencia 1993

95

97

192

94

95

189

95

96

191

95

96

191

95

97

192

Total

438

392

830

361

315

676

364

319

683

364

319

683

434

388

822

CBZ: carbamazepine
PB: phenobarbitone
¹The date of withdrawal of allocated treatment was not recorded in all cases for Banu 2007, so we could not calculate 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment'. The date of first seizure after randomisation was recorded, but all dates of subsequent seizures were not recorded; therefore, we could calculate 'time to first seizure', but we could not calculate 'time to six‐month remission' and 'time to 12‐month remission'.
²We received IPD for 70 participants recruited in de Silva 1996; the randomised drug was not recorded in six participants. Reasons for treatment withdrawal were not available for one participant randomised to CBZ; we did not include this participant in the analysis of time to treatment withdrawal.
³Reasons for treatment withdrawal were not available for four participants (one randomised to CBZ and three to PB) in Heller 1995; we did not include these participants in the analysis of time to treatment withdrawal.
⁴No follow‐up data after randomisation were available for one participant randomised to CBZ in Mattson 1985. Dates of seizure recurrence were not available for seven participants (three randomised to CBZ and four to PB); we did not include these participants in the analysis of time to first seizure.
⁵The study duration of Ogunrin 2005 was 12 weeks; therefore, six‐ and 12‐month remission of seizures could not be achieved, so we could not calculate these outcomes. All randomised participants completed the study without withdrawing from treatment, so we could not analyse the time to treatment withdrawal.
⁶Reasons for treatment withdrawal were not available for three participants (one randomised to CBZ and two randomised to PB) in Placencia 1993. We did not include these participants in the analysis of time to treatment withdrawal. Seizure data after occurrence of first seizure were not available for one participant randomised to PB, so we did not include this participant in the analyses of time to six‐month and time to 12‐month remission.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Number of participants contributing to each analysis
Table 3. Reasons for premature discontinuation (withdrawal of allocated treatment)

Reason for early termination

Classification

de Silva 1996 ¹

Heller 1995 ¹

Mattson 1985

Placencia 1993 ²

Banu 2007 ³

Total⁴

CBZ n = 53

PB = 10

CBZ n = 60

PB = 55

CBZ n = 154

PB = 155

CBZ = 94

PB = 95

CBZ = 54

PB = 54

CBZ = 415

PB = 369

Adverse events

Event

3

2

8

12

11

5

5

5

0

0

27

24

Seizure recurrence

Event

12

2

5

7

3

7

0

0

1

2

21

18

Both seizure recurrence and adverse events

Event

6

4

4

3

30

26

0

0

0

0

40

33

Non‐compliance/participant choice

Event

0

0

0

0

11

19

13

9

6

0

30

28

Another AED added/AED changed

Event

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

7

4

7

7

Participant went into remission

Censored

18

1

6

3

0

0

0

0

0

2

24

6

Lost to follow‐up

Censored

0

0

0

0

26

26

11

5

7

15

44

46

Death⁵

Censored

0

0

0

0

4

2

2

1

0

0

6

3

Other⁶

Censored

0

0

0

0

16

13

0

0

0

0

16

13

Completed the study (did not withdraw)

Censored

14

1

37

30

53

54

63

75

33

31

200

191

AED: antiepileptic drug
CBZ: carbamazepine
n: number of individuals contributing to the outcome 'time to treatment withdrawal'
PB: phenobarbitone
¹Four participants for Heller 1995 (one on CBZ and three on PB) and one for de Silva 1996 (CBZ) had missing reasons for treatment withdrawal.
²There were inconsistencies between IPD and the publication of Placencia 1993; we performed sensitivity analysis (see Effects of interventions). There were missing reasons for treatment withdrawal for three participants (one on CBZ and two on PB); we did not include these participants in the analysis.
³Banu 2007 provided reasons for treatment withdrawal, but dates of treatment withdrawal could not be provided for all participants, so we could not calculate 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment'.
⁴All participants in Ogunrin 2005 completed the study without withdrawing; therefore, this study did not contribute to 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment'.
⁵Death was due to reasons not related to the study drug.
⁶Other reasons from Mattson 1985: participants developed other medical disorders including neurological and psychiatric disorders.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Reasons for premature discontinuation (withdrawal of allocated treatment)
Table 4. Sensitivity analyses

Analysis

Time to withdrawal of

allocated treatment

Time to 12‐month

remission

Time to six‐month

remission

Time to first seizure¹

Original analysis

Participants

676 (Analysis 1.2)

683 (Analysis 1.4)

683 (Analysis 1.6)

822 (Analysis 1.8)

Pooled HR (95% CI)

P value

1.50 (1.15 to 1.95)

P = 0.003

0.93 (0.72 to 1.20)

P = 0.57

0.99 (0.80 to 1.23)

P = 0.95

0.87 (0.72 to 1.06)

P = 0.18

Heterogeneity

I² statistic = 35%

I² statistic = 55%

I² statistic = 58%

I² statistic = 44%

Sensitivity analysis

for Placencia 1993²

Participants

487

492

492

630

Pooled HR (95% CI)

P value

1.66 (1.25 to 2.20)

P = 0.0005

0.82 (0.61 to 1.09)

P = 0.15

0.88 (0.68 to 1.14)

P = 0.34

0.87 (0.71 to 1.08)

P = 0.22

Heterogeneity

I² statistic = 35%

I² statistic = 0%

I² statistic = 0%

I² statistic = 34%

Sensitivity analysis

for de Silva 1996³

Participants

633

640

640

779

Pooled HR (95% CI)

P value

1.42 (1.08 to 1.86)

P = 0.01

0.90 (0.69 to 1.17)

P = 0.42

0.97 (0.78 to 1.21)

P = 0.79

0.87 (0.71 to 1.06)

P = 0.17

Heterogeneity

I² statistic = 0%

I² statistic = 57%

I² statistic = 60%

I² statistic = 39%

CI: confidence interval
HR: hazard ratio
¹We performed sensitivity analyses for potential misclassification of seizure type (see Analysis 1.9) and because of inconsistencies between published data and IPD for Banu 2007 (see Sensitivity analysis and Effects of interventions for full details).
²We performed sensitivity analysis excluding all randomised participants in Placencia 1993 because of inadequate allocation concealment in the study. We performed further sensitivity analysis for the outcome 'time to withdrawal of allocation concealment' because of inconsistencies between published data and IPD for Placencia 1993 (see Sensitivity analysis and Effects of interventions for full details).
³We performed sensitivity analysis including only the participants in de Silva 1996, which were randomised before the phenobarbitone arm was withdrawn (see Sensitivity analysis and Effects of interventions for full details).

Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Sensitivity analyses
Table 5. Adverse event data (narrative report)

Trial

Adverse event data¹

Summary of reported results

Carbamazepine (CBZ)

Phenobarbitone (PB)

Banu 2007²

Reported list of 'problems' at the last visit (provided as IPD)

CBZ (n = 54): speech/learning delay (n = 6), headaches (n = 3), restlessness/hyperactivity/poor attention/irritability (n = 6), psychomotor deterioration/delay (n = 2), sleep disturbances (n = 2), fatigue (n = 1), hydrocephalus (build up of fluid on the brain) (n = 1), CBZ hypersensitivity (n = 1), aggression (n = 1), temper tantrums (n = 1), other behavioural problems (n = 5), poor cognition (n = 1), mild stroke (n = 1), mild right‐sided weakness (n = 1), intolerable behavioural problems (n = 6)

PB (n = 54): speech/learning delay (n = 7), restlessness/hyperactivity/poor attention/irritability (n = 8), sleep disturbances (n = 1), fatigue (n = 1), poor cognition (n = 2), aggression (n = 1), temper tantrums (n = 3), breath‐holding attacks (n = 1), other behavioural problems (n = 3), facial twitching (n = 1), left‐sided weakness (n = 1), leg pain (n = 1), vomiting (n = 1), intolerable behavioural problems (n = 4)

Bidabadi 2009³

Rate of drug side‐effects

No statistical significant difference was seen after treatment between 2 groups in the rate of drug side‐effects

No statistical significant difference was seen after treatment between 2 groups in the rate of drug side‐effects

Cereghino 1974²,

Most frequently observed side‐effects

Gastrointestinal side‐effects and "impaired function" (general malaise). Frequency not clearly stated

Gastrointestinal side‐effects and "impaired function" (general malaise). Frequency not clearly stated

Chen 1996

Withdrawal from the study due to 'allergic reactions'

CBZ (n = 24): 1 participant withdrew due to an allergic reaction

PB (n = 23): 2 participants withdrew due to allergic reactions

Cossu 1984

No adverse events reported

Not reported

Not reported

Czapinski 1997³

"Exclusions due to adverse events or no efficacy"

Proportion "excluded": 30% (out of 30 randomised to CBZ)

Proportion "excluded": 33.3% (out of 30 randomised to PB)

de Silva 1996,

"Unacceptable" adverse events leading to drug withdrawal

CBZ (n = 54): drowsiness (n = 1), blood dyscrasia (n = 1)

PB (n = 10): drowsiness (n = 1), behavioural (n = 5)

Feksi 1991

Reports of minor adverse events and side‐effects leading to drug withdrawal

CBZ (n = 150): withdrawals due to side‐effects: skin rash (n = 4), psychosis (n = 1), aggressive behaviour (n = 1).

Minor adverse events: CBZ: 46 participants reported 68 adverse events

PB (n = 152): withdrawals due to side‐effects: skin rash (n = 1), psychosis (n = 1), hyperactivity (n = 3).

Minor adverse events: 58 participants reported 86 adverse events

Heller 1995

"Unacceptable" adverse events

leading to drug withdrawal

CBZ (n = 61): drowsiness (n = 3), rash (n = 2), headache (n = 1), depression (n = 1)

PB (n = 58): drowsiness (n = 4), lethargy (n = 4), rash (n = 1), dizziness (n = 2), headaches (n = 1), nausea and vomiting (n = 1)

Mattson 1985²

Narrative report of 'adverse effects' and 'serious side‐effects'

CBZ (n = 155): motor disturbance (ataxia, incoordination, nystagmus, tremor ‐ 33%), dysmorphic and idiosyncratic side‐effects (gum hypertrophy, hirsutism, acne, and rash ‐ 14%), gastrointestinal problems (27%), decreased libido or impotence (13%). No serious side‐effects

PB (n = 155): motor disturbance (ataxia, incoordination, nystagmus, tremor ‐ 24%), dysmorphic and idiosyncratic side‐effects (gum hypertrophy, hirsutism, acne, and rash ‐11 %), gastrointestinal problems (13%), decreased libido or impotence (16%). No serious side‐effects

Mitchell 1987

Systemic side‐effects and side‐effects leading to drug change

CBZ (n = 15): 4 participants switched from CBZ to PB; 3 due to systemic side‐effects (1 with persistent rashes and 1 with marked granulocytopenia (decrease of granulocytes (white blood cells)) and 1 due to behavioural changes

PB (n = 18): 1 participant switched from PB to CBZ due to substantial behavioural side‐effects

Ogunrin 2005²

Participant‐reported symptomatic complaints (provided as IPD)

CBZ (n = 19), memory impairment (n = 9), psychomotor retardation (n = 1), inattention (n = 1), transient rash (n = 1), CBZ‐induced cough (n = 1)

PB (n = 18), memory impairment (n = 13), psychomotor retardation (n = 8), inattention (n = 9)

Placencia 1993

Number of participants reporting side‐effects

CBZ (n = 95): 53 participants reported at least 1 side‐effect

PB (n = 97): 50 participants reported at least 1 side‐effect

CBZ: carbamazepine; PB: phenobarbitone
¹We recorded adverse event data as reported narratively in the publications; therefore, exact definition of a symptom may vary. Adverse event data were supplied as IPD for Banu 2007 and Ogunrin 2005. Adverse event data were not requested in original IPD requests (de Silva 1996; Heller 1995; Mattson 1985; Placencia 1993), but will be for all future IPD requests. For numbers of withdrawals due to adverse events in studies for which we received IPD (Banu 2007; de Silva 1996; Heller 1995; Mattson 1985; Placencia 1993), see Table 3.
²Bidabadi 2009 and Czapinski 1997 are abstracts only so very little information was reported.
³Participants may report more than one adverse event.
⁴Note that the recruited participants in this study were institutionalised; therefore, the "precise nature of side‐effects was not always determinable". The two most frequently occurring side‐effects were reported as the frequency of participants reporting the side‐effect on each day of the treatment period; however, overall totals of participants reporting each side‐effect were not reported.
⁵Participants may have withdrawn due to adverse event alone or a combination of adverse events and poor efficacy (seizures).
⁶The phenobarbitone arm of de Silva 1996 was stopped prematurely after 10 children were randomised to this arm because of concerns over behavioural adverse events (see the 'Characteristics of included studies' tables).

Figuras y tablas -
Table 5. Adverse event data (narrative report)
Comparison 1. Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment Show forest plot

4

676

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.49 [1.15, 1.94]

2 Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment ‐ stratified by epilepsy type Show forest plot

4

676

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.50 [1.15, 1.95]

2.1 Generalised onset

3

156

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.53 [0.81, 2.88]

2.2 Partial onset

4

520

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.49 [1.12, 2.00]

3 Time to 12‐month remission Show forest plot

4

683

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.72, 1.19]

4 Time to 12‐month remission ‐ stratified by epilepsy type Show forest plot

4

683

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.72, 1.20]

4.1 Generalised onset

3

158

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.41, 1.01]

4.2 Partial onset

4

525

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.81, 1.51]

5 Time to six‐month remission Show forest plot

4

683

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.83, 1.26]

6 Time to six‐month remission ‐ stratified by epilepsy type Show forest plot

4

683

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.80, 1.23]

6.1 Generalised onset

3

158

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.47, 1.01]

6.2 Partial onset

4

525

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.17 [0.90, 1.50]

7 Time to first seizure Show forest plot

6

822

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.71, 1.04]

8 Time to first seizure ‐ stratified by epilepsy type Show forest plot

6

822

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.72, 1.06]

8.1 Generalised onset

5

238

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.23 [0.86, 1.77]

8.2 Partial onset

6

584

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.60, 0.96]

9 Time to first seizure ‐ sensitivity analysis Show forest plot

6

822

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.73, 1.09]

9.1 Generalised onset

5

173

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.39 [0.90, 2.13]

9.2 Partial onset

6

584

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.60, 0.96]

9.3 Uncertain seizure type

3

65

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.59, 2.51]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone