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 6 month remission
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 8

Time to 6 month remission

Time to 6 month remission, stratified by epilepsy type
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 9

Time to 6 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 12 month remission, deSilva 1996
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 12

Time to 12 month remission, deSilva 1996

Time to 6 month remission, deSilva 1996
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 13

Time to 6 month remission, deSilva 1996

Time to first seizure, Ogunrin 2005
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 14

Time to first seizure, Ogunrin 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenytoin, Outcome 7 Time to first seizure post‐randomisation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Carbamazepine versus phenytoin, Outcome 7 Time to first seizure post‐randomisation.

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

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

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings ‐ Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment

Carbamazepine compared with phenytoin for epilepsy

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

Settings: outpatients

Intervention: carbamazepine

Comparison: phenytoin

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

Phenytoin

Carbamazepine

Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment
‐ stratified by epilepsy type

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 1 day to 4403 days

37 per 100

35 per 100 (28 to 44)

HR 1.04

(0.78 to 1.39)

546

(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderate2,3

HR > 1 indicates a clinical advantage for carbamazepine

Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment
‐ partial epilepsy

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 1 day to 4064 days

42 per 100

37 per 100 (29 to 47)

HR 1.18

(0.87 to 1.60)

428

(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderate2,3

HR > 1 indicates a clinical
advantage for carbamazepine

Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment
‐ generalised epilepsy

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 1 day to 4403 days

14 per 100

30 per 100 (15 to 57)

HR 0.42

(0.18 to 0.96)

118

(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderate2,3

HR > 1 indicates a clinical
advantage for carbamazepine

Proportion of withdrawals due to adverse effects

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 1 day to 4403 days

4 per 100

6 per 100 (5 to 7)

RR 1.42

(1.13 to 1.80)

546

(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderate2

RR < 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 phenytoin 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 (RR) of the intervention where RR = (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.
2Risk of bias unclear for one element of all of the three studies included in the analysis. De Silva 1996 and Heller 1995 are open‐label and it is unclear whether the lack of masking impacted upon the results; and we do not know how allocation was concealed in Mattson 1985.
329 adult participants in Heller 1995 may have had their seizure type wrongly classified as generalised onset; sensitivity analyses show misclassification may have had an impact on results and conclusions regarding an association between treatment and seizure type.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings ‐ Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment
Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings ‐ Time to 12‐ and 6‐month remission of seizures

Carbamazepine compared with phenytoin for epilepsy

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

Settings: outpatients

Intervention: carbamazepine

Comparison: phenytoin

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

Phenytoin

Carbamazepine

Time to 12‐month remission
‐ stratified by epilepsy type

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

55 per 100

55 per 100 (46 to 65)

HR 1.01

(0.78 to 1.31)

551 (3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderate2,3

HR > 1 indicates a clinical
advantage for phenytoin

Time to 12‐month remission
‐ partial epilepsy

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

47 per 100

45 per 100 (36 to 55)

HR 0.94

(0.71 to 1.25)

430 (3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderate2,3

HR > 1 indicates a clinical
advantage for phenytoin

Time to 12‐month remission
‐ generalised epilepsy

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 7 days to 4163 days

85 per 100

88 per 100 (63 to 99)

HR 1.174

(0.53 to 2.57)

121 (2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

low2,3,4

HR > 1 indicates a clinical
advantage for phenytoin

Time to 6‐month remission
‐ stratified by epilepsy type

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

63 per 100

67 per 100 (59 to 75)

HR 1.11

(0.89 to 1.37)

551 (3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderate2,3

HR >1 indicates a clinical
advantage for phenytoin

Time to 6‐month remission
‐ partial epilepsy

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

56 per 100

56 per 100 (47 to 66)

HR 1.02

(0.79 to 1.33)

430 (3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderate2,3

HR > 1 indicates a clinical
advantage for phenytoin

Time to 6‐month remission
‐ generalised epilepsy

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 7 days to 4163 days

93 per 100

97 per 100 (91 to 99)

HR 1.30

(0.89 to 1.92)

121 (2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderate2,3

HR > 1 indicates a clinical
advantage for phenytoin

*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 Phenytoin 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 (RR) of the intervention where RR = (1 ‐ exp(HR x ln(1 ‐ assumed risk)) ) / assumed risk
CI: Confidence interval; 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.
2Risk of bias unclear for one element of all of the three studies included in the analysis. De Silva 1996 and Heller 1995 are open‐label and it is unclear whether the lack of masking impacted upon the results; and we do not know how allocation was concealed in Mattson 1985.
329 adult participants in Heller 1995 may have had their seizure type wrongly classified as generalised onset; sensitivity analyses show misclassification may have had an impact on results and conclusions regarding an association between treatment and seizure type.
4Time to 12‐month remission for 121 individuals with generalised seizures calculated with random‐effects model due to heterogeneity between participants. This heterogeneity is likely to be due to misclassification of seizure type (see footnote 3).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings ‐ Time to 12‐ and 6‐month remission of seizures
Summary of findings 3. Summary of findings ‐ Time to first seizure after randomisation

Carbamazepine compared with phenytoin for epilepsy

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

Settings: outpatients

Intervention: carbamazepine

Comparison: phenytoin

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

Phenytoin

Carbamazepine

Time to first seizure
‐ stratified by epilepsy type

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 0 days to 4589 days

65 per 100

71 per 100 (63 to 77)

HR 0.85

(0.70 to 1.04)

582

(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

low2,3,4

HR > 1 indicates a clinical
advantage for carbamazepine

Time to first seizure
‐ partial epilepsy

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 0 days to 4589 days

63 per 100

68 per 100 (60 to 77)

HR 0.86

(0.68 to 1.08)

432

(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

low2,3,4

HR > 1 indicates a clinical
advantage for carbamazepine

Time to first seizure
‐ generalised epilepsy

Range of follow‐up (all participants): 2 days to 4070 days

69 per 100

75 per 100 (61 to 87)

HR 0.84

(0.57 to 1.24)

150

(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

low2,3,4

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 Phenytoin 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 (RR) of the intervention where RR = (1 ‐ exp(HR x ln(1 ‐ assumed risk)) ) / assumed risk
CI: Confidence interval; 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.

2Risk of bias unclear for one element of all of the three studies included in the analysis. De Silva 1996 and Heller 1995 are open‐label and it is unclear whether the lack of masking impacted upon the results; and we do not know how allocation was concealed in Mattson 1985.

348 adult participants in Heller 1995 and Ogunrin 2005 may have had their seizure type wrongly classified as generalised onset; sensitivity analyses show misclassification is unlikely to have had an impact on results and conclusions.

4Ogunrin 2005 is a short study (12 weeks) and has a small sample size of 37 compared to the other three studies of duration 3 ‐ 10 years and sample sizes of around 100 to 300 participants (De Silva 1996; Heller 1995; Mattson 1985). Ogunrin 2005 is less precise with wide CIs, and there is evidence that the treatment effect in this study changes over time.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Summary of findings ‐ Time to first seizure after randomisation
Table 1. Outcomes considered and summary of results for trials with no IPD

Trial

Outcomes reported

Summary of results

Callaghan 1985

1. Seizure control:

excellent (seizure‐free)
good (> 50% reduction)
poor (< 50% reduction)

2. Side effects

1. PHT (n = 58); CBZ (n = 59)

PHT: 39 (67%); CBZ: 22 (37%)
PHT: 7 (12%); CBZ: 22 (37%)
PHT: 12 (21%); CBZ: 15 (25%)

PHT: 6 (10%); CBZ: 5 (8%)

Cereghino 1974

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

2. Seizure control

3. Side effects

4. Withdrawals

1. Behavioural scores were similar on both drugs

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

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

4. PHT: 21 withdrawals out of 45 participants (47%); CBZ: 27 withdrawals out of 45 participants (60%)

Czapinski 1997

1. Proportion achieving 24‐month remission at 3 years

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

1. PHT: 59%; CBZ: 62%

2. PHT: 23%; CBZ: 30%

Forsythe 1991

1. Cognitive assessments

2. Withdrawals from randomised drug

1. No significant differences between the two treatment groups on any cognitive tests
2. PHT: 6 withdrawals out of 20 participants (30%); CBZ: 9 withdrawals out of 23 participants (39%)

Miura 1993

1. Proportion of all randomised participants with seizure recurrence (by seizure type)

2. Proportion of participants with optimum plasma levels with seizure recurrence (by seizure type)

PHT (n = 51); CBZ (n = 66)

1. PHT (partial): 10/31 (32%); PHT (generalised): 7/20 (35%);
CBZ (partial): 21/53 (40%); CBZ (generalised): 2/13 (15%)

2. PHT (partial): 4/17 (24%); PHT (generalised): 1/8 (13%);
CBZ (partial): 4/17 (24%); CBZ (generalised): 0/7 (0%)

Pulliainen 1994

1. Cognitive assessments (visual motor speed, co‐ordination, attention and concentration, verbal and visuospatial learning, visual and recognition memory, reasoning, mood, handedness)

2. Harmful side effects

1. Compared to CBZ, participants on PHT became slower (motor speed of the hand) and their visual memory decreased. There was an equal decrease in negative mood (helplessness, irritability, depression) on PHT and CBZ

2. Three participants taking PHT complained of tiredness, and 1 participant taking CBZ complained of facial skin problems, another tiredness and memory problems

Ramsay 1983

1. Side effects (major and minor)

2. Treatment failure/seizure control

3. Laboratory results

1. Incidence of:

  • major side effects (among analysed participants): PHT 8/35 participants (23%); CBZ 8/35 participants (23%)

  • minor side effects: cognitive impairment and sedation twice as likely on CBZ as PHT

  • other minor side effects similar between groups

2. Treatment failures among analysed participants:
PHT 4/35 (11%); CBZ: 5/35 (14%)

Seizure control (among analysed participants with no major side effects): PHT: 23/27 participants (86%); CBZ: 22/27 participants (82%)

3. Significantly lower mean LDH level at 24 weeks in CBZ participants than PHT participants (P < 0.01). Other laboratory results similar across treatment groups

Ravi Sudhir 1995

1. Cognitive measures (verbal, performance, memory, visuomotor, perceptomotor organisation, visual organisation, dysfunction)

1. No significant differences between any tests of cognitive function taken before treatment and after 10 ‐ 12 weeks for both treatment groups

CBZ = carbamazepine, LDH = lactate dehydrogenase, PHT= phenytoin

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 6‐month remission

Time to first seizure

PHT

CBZ

Total

PHT

CBZ

Total

PHT

CBZ

Total

PHT

CBZ

Total

PHT

CBZ

Total

De Silva 19961

54

54

108

53

53

106

54

54

108

54

54

108

54

54

108

Heller 19952

63

61

124

61

60

121

63

61

124

63

61

124

63

61

124

Mattson 19853

165

155

320

165

154

319

165

154

319

165

154

319

162

151

313

Forsythe 19914

20

23

43

20

23

43

Information not available

Information not

available

Information not available

Ogunrin 20055

18

19

37

Information not available

Information not available

Information not

available

18

19

37

Total

320

312

632

299

290

589

282

269

551

282

269

551

297

285

582

CBZ = carbamazepine, PHT= phenytoin

1Individual participant data (IPD) supplied for 114 participants recruited in De Silva 1996; randomised drug not recorded in six participants. Reasons for treatment withdrawal not available for two participants (one randomised to CBZ and one to PHT); these participants are not included in analysis of Time to treatment withdrawal.
2Reasons for treatment withdrawal not available for three participants (one randomised to CBZ and two to PHT) in Heller 1995; these participants are not included in analysis of Time to treatment withdrawal.
3No follow‐up data after randomisation available for one participant randomised to CBZ in Mattson 1985. Data on seizure recurrence not available for six additional participants (three randomised to CBZ and three to PHT); these participants are not included in the analysis of Time to first seizure.
4IPD for Time to treatment withdrawal available in the study publication of Forsythe 1991. Data for other outcomes not available.
5Study duration of Ogunrin 2005 is 12 weeks, so six‐ and 12‐month remission of seizures could not be achieved and cannot therefore be calculated. All randomised participants completed the study without withdrawing from treatment, so time to treatment withdrawal cannot be analysed.

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 19962

Forsythe 1991

Heller 19952,3

Mattson 1985

Total1

CBZ

n = 53

PHT

n = 53

CBZ

n = 23

PHT

n = 20

CBZ

n = 60

PHT

n = 63

CBZ

n = 154

PHT

n = 165

CBZ

n = 290

PHT

n = 299

Adverse events

Event

3

2

4

1

8

1

11

8

26

12

Seizure recurrence

Event

12

10

2

1

5

8

3

6

22

25

Both seizure recurrence and adverse events

Event

6

5

0

0

4

2

31

33

31

40

Non‐compliance/participant choice

Event

0

0

3

4

0

0

11

26

14

30

Participant went into remission

Censored

18

24

0

0

6

14

0

0

24

38

Lost to follow‐up

Censored

0

0

0

0

0

0

26

19

26

19

Death4

Censored

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

5

4

5

Other5

Censored

0

0

0

0

0

0

16

11

16

11

Completed the study (did not withdraw)

Censored

14

12

14

14

37

38

53

57

118

121

n = number of individuals contributing to the outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment’

1All participants in Ogunrin 2005 completed the study without withdrawing, so this study did not contribute to 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment'.
2One participant for Heller 1995 (CBZ) and two for De Silva 1996 (one PHT and one CBZ) have missing reasons for treatment withdrawal.
3Two participants from Heller 1995 (both PHT) had missing withdrawal times and did not contribute to analysis, but reasons for withdrawal are given.
4Death due to reasons not related to the study drug.
5Other 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 analysis ‐ Epilepsy type misclassification, fixed‐effect analysis

 Analysis

Time to withdrawal

Time to six‐month

remission

Time to 12‐month

remission*

Time to first seizure

Original analysis

P: 1.18 (0.87, 1.60)

G: 0.42 (0.18, 0.96)

O: 1.04 (0.78, 1.39)

P: 1.02 (0.79, 1.33)

G: 1.30 (0.89, 1.92)

O: 1.11 (0.89, 1.37)

P: 0.94 (0.71, 1.25)

G: 1.17 (0.53, 2.57)

O: 1.01 (0.78, 1.31)

P: 0.86 (0.68, 1.08)

G: 0.84 (0.57, 1.24)

O: 0.85 (0.70, 1.04)

Test for interaction

Chi2 = 5.18; df = 1

P = 0.02; I2 = 80.7%

Chi2 = 1.03; df = 1

P = 0.31; I2 = 3.4%

Chi2 = 0.25; df = 1

P = 0.62; I2 = 0%

Chi2 = 0.01; df = 1

P = 0.93; I2 = 0%

Generalised and age at onset > 30

(classified as uncertain epilepsy type)

P: 1.18 (0.87, 1.60)

G: 0.51 (0.21, 1.24)

U: 0.19 (0.02, 2.14)

O: 1.05 (0.79, 1.40)

P: 1.02 (0.79, 1.33)

G: 1.69 (1.07, 2.27)

U: 0.84 (0.35, 1.98)

O: 1.13 (0.91, 1.41)

P: 0.94 (0.71, 1.25)

G: 1.44 (0.90, 2.31)

U: 0.52 (0.20, 1.34)

O: 1.01 (0.80, 1.28)

P: 0.86 (0.68, 1.08)

G: 0.91 (0.57, 1.46)

U: 0.97 (0.43, 2.18)

O: 0.88 (0.72, 1.07)

Test for interaction

 Chi2 = 4.99; df = 2

P = 0.08; I2 = 59.9%

Chi2 = 4.01; df = 2

P = 0.13; I2 = 50.2%

 Chi2 = 4.32; df = 2

P = 0.12; I2 = 53.7%

 Chi2 = 0.12; df = 2

P = 0.94; I2 = 0%

Generalised and age at onset > 30

(reclassified as partial epilepsy)

P: 1.11 (0.82, 1.50)

G: 0.51 (0.21, 1.24)

O: 1.02 (0.77, 1.36)

P: 1.02 (0.80, 1.31)

G: 1.69 (1.07, 2.27)

O: 1.15 (0.92, 1.42)

P: 0.91 (0.69, 1.19)

G: 1.44 (0.90, 2.31)

O: 1.02 (0.81, 1.29)

P: 0.86 (0.69, 1.08)

G: 0.91 (0.57, 1.46)

O: 0.87 (0.71, 1.07)

Test for interaction

Chi2 = 2.65; df = 1

P = 0.10; I2 = 62.3%

Chi2 = 3.63; df = 1

P = 0.06; I2 = 72.5%

Chi2 = 2.79; df = 1

P = 0.09; I2 = 64.2%

Chi2 = 0.04; df = 1

P = 0.83; I2 = 0%

df = degrees of freedom of Chi² distribution, G = generalised epilepsy, O = overall (all participants), P = partial epilepsy, U = uncertain seizure type

Results are presented as pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) with fixed‐effect.
P < 0.05 is classified as statistically significant.
29 participants from Heller 1995 reclassified to partial epilepsy or uncertain epilepsy type for outcomes 'Time to treatment withdrawal', 'Time to 12‐month remission' and 'Time to 6‐month remission.'
48 participants from Heller 1995 and Ogunrin 2005 reclassified to partial epilepsy or uncertain epilepsy type for outcome 'Time to first seizure.'

See Analysis 1.2; Analysis 1.4; Analysis 1.6; and Analysis 1.8 for original analyses of 'Time to treatment withdrawal', 'Time to 12‐month remission', 'Time to 6‐month remission' and 'Time to first seizure', all stratified by epilepsy respectively.

* Original analysis calculated with random‐effects model due to substantial heterogeneity (see Analysis 1.4). Sensitivity analyses calculated with fixed‐effect model as no heterogeneity is present following reclassification of 29 participants in Heller 1995.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Sensitivity analysis ‐ Epilepsy type misclassification, fixed‐effect analysis
Table 5. Adverse event data (narrative report)

Trial

Adverse event data1

Summary of reported results

Carbamazepine (CBZ)

Phenytoin (PHT)

Callaghan 19852

All adverse events according to drug (note: no participants withdrew due to adverse events)

CBZ (n = 59):

drowsiness (n = 2), rash (n = 3)

PHT (n = 58):

gum hypertrophy (n = 2), rash (n = 2), ataxia (n = 2)

Cereghino 19742,3

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

Czapinski 19974

“Exclusions” due to adverse events or no efficacy”

Proportion “excluded”:

CBZ: 30% (out of 30 randomised to CBZ)

Proportion “excluded”:

PHT: 23.3% (out of 30 randomised to PHT)

De Silva 1996

“Unacceptable” adverse events

leading to drug withdrawal5

CBZ (n = 54):

drowsiness (n = 1), blood dyscrasia (n = 1)

PHT (n = 54):

drowsiness (n = 2), skin rash (n = 1), blood dyscrasia (n = 1), hirsutism (n = 1)

Forsythe 1991

Withdrawal due to adverse events (no other adverse event data reported)

4 participants out of 23 randomised to CBZ withdrew for the following reasons (some withdrew for more than adverse event):

slowing of mental function, headache, anorexia, nausea, abdominal pain, fatigue and drowsiness2

1 participant out of 20 randomised to PHT withdrew from the study due to depression and anorexia

Heller 1995

“Unacceptable” adverse events

leading to drug withdrawal5

CBZ (n = 61):

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

PHT (n = 63):

myalgia (n = 1), irritability (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

PHT (n = 165);

motor disturbance (ataxia, incoordination, nystagmus, tremor: 28%);

dysmorphic and idiosyncratic side effects (gum hypertrophy, hirsutism, acne and rash: 22 %);

gastrointestinal problems (24%);

decreased libido or impotence (11%)

1 serious side effect – 1 participant has confirmed lymphoma, rash improved rapidly following discontinuation of PHT

Miura 1993

No adverse events reported

N/A

N/A

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)

PHT (n = 18):

memory impairment (n = 7)

psychomotor retardation (n = 1)

inattention (n = 2)

transient rash (n = 1)

Pulliainen 1994

Participant‐reported adverse events

1 participant on CBZ complained of facial skin problems;

1 participant on CBZ complained of tiredness and memory problems

3 participants on PHT complained of tiredness

Ramsay 19832

Major and minor side effects

CBZ (n = 35):

Major side effects:

rash (n = 1), pruritus (n = 1), impotence (n = 2), dizziness (n = 1), headaches (n = 1), impaired cognition (n = 1), elevated liver enzymes (n = 1)

Mild side effects:

nausea (33%), headaches (24%), cognitive impairment (33%), nystagmus (52%), sedation (33%), fine tremor (20%)

PHT (n = 35):

Major side effects:

rash (n = 4), exfoliative dermatitis (n = 1), impotence (n = 1), dizziness (n = 1), nausea/vomiting (n = 1)

Mild side effects:

nausea (38%), gingival hyperplasia (12%), headaches (32%), cognitive impairment (15%), nystagmus (40%), sedation (15%), fine tremor (28%)

Ravi Sudhir 1995

No adverse events reported

N/A

N/A

CBZ = carbamazepine, N/A = not available, PHT= phenytoin

1Adverse event data are recorded as reported narratively in the publications, so exact definition of a symptom may vary. Adverse event data supplied as IPD for Ogunrin 2005. Adverse event data were not requested in original IPD requests (De Silva 1996; Heller 1995; Mattson 1985) but will be for all future IPD requests. For numbers of withdrawals due to adverse events in studies for which IPD were provided (De Silva 1996; Heller 1995; Mattson 1985) see Table 3.
2Participants may report more than one adverse event.
3Note that the recruited participants in Cereghino 1974 were institutionalised, so “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, but overall totals of participants reporting each side effect was not reported.
4Czapinski 1997 is an abstract only, so very little information is reported.
5Participants may have withdrawn due to adverse event alone or a combination of adverse events and poor efficacy (seizures).

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

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

589

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.75, 1.30]

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

3

546

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.78, 1.39]

2.1 Partial onset

3

428

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.87, 1.60]

2.2 Generalised seizures

2

118

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.18, 0.96]

3 Time to achieve 12‐month remission Show forest plot

3

551

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.79, 1.25]

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

3

551

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.78, 1.31]

4.1 Partial onset

3

430

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.71, 1.25]

4.2 Generalised seizures

2

121

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

1.17 [0.53, 2.57]

5 Time to achieve six‐month remission Show forest plot

3

551

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.87, 1.34]

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

3

551

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.89, 1.37]

6.1 Partial onset

3

430

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.79, 1.33]

6.2 Generalised seizures

2

121

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [0.89, 1.92]

7 Time to first seizure post‐randomisation Show forest plot

4

582

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.72, 1.08]

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

4

582

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.70, 1.04]

8.1 Partial onset

4

432

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.68, 1.08]

8.2 Generalised onset

3

150

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.57, 1.24]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Carbamazepine versus phenytoin