Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Clobazam monotherapy for focal or generalized seizures

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009258.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 11 julio 2018see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Epilepsia

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Ravindra Arya

    Correspondencia a: Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Division of Neurology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, USA

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Nisha Giridharan

    University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, USA

  • Vidhu Anand

    Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

  • Sushil K Garg

    Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, USA

Contributions of authors

The review was conceived by RA and SKG. Data were extracted by VA, SKG, NG, and analyzed by SKG, RA and VA. RA and VA wrote the manuscript, which was reviewed by SKG and NG. All review authors have reviewed and approved the final version.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, USA.

    Library, Biostatistics

External sources

  • National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.

    This review update was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the Epilepsy Group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Declarations of interest

Ravindra Arya receives research support (total 5% effort) from Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation, which is unrelated to the present work
Vidhu Anand: none known
Nisha Giridharan: none known
Sushil K Garg: none known

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Cochrane Epilepsy for their support. Also, thanks to Ms. Rachael Kelly for assistance, Mr. Graham Chan and Ms. Alison Beamond for providing the search results, Dr. Yasuko Yamatogi for completing the data extraction form for their study in Japanese, and to Drs. Carol and Peter Camfield for offering their help to find the original participant data. Dr. Benedict Michael was a co‐author for the previous version of this systematic review and we acknowledge his input.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2018 Jul 11

Clobazam monotherapy for focal or generalized seizures

Review

Ravindra Arya, Nisha Giridharan, Vidhu Anand, Sushil K Garg

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009258.pub3

2014 Oct 04

Clobazam monotherapy for partial‐onset or generalized‐onset seizures

Review

Ravindra Arya, Vidhu Anand, Sushil K Garg, Benedict D Michael

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009258.pub2

2011 Aug 10

Clobazam monotherapy for partial onset or generalized onset seizures

Protocol

Ravindra Arya, Sushil Kumar, Benedict Michael, Vidhu Anand

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009258

Differences between protocol and review

In 'Types of interventions', we decided to include studies with clobazam monotherapy given continuously for at least three months.

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram (results from updated searches)
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram (results from updated searches)

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

Forest plot of comparison: 2 clobazam vs carbamazepine, outcome: 2.1 retention at 12 months
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 2 clobazam vs carbamazepine, outcome: 2.1 retention at 12 months

Forest plot of comparison: 1 clobazam versus phenytoin, outcome: 1.1 retention at 6 months
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 1 clobazam versus phenytoin, outcome: 1.1 retention at 6 months

Forest plot of comparison: 1 clobazam versus carbamazepine, outcome: 1.4 terminal remission at 9 months (seizure free for last 9 months)
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison: 1 clobazam versus carbamazepine, outcome: 1.4 terminal remission at 9 months (seizure free for last 9 months)

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 1 Retention at 12 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 1 Retention at 12 months.

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 2 Seizure freedom at 4 weeks.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 2 Seizure freedom at 4 weeks.

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 3 Seizure freedom between weeks 4 and 40.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 3 Seizure freedom between weeks 4 and 40.

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 4 Terminal remission at 9 months (seizure free for last 9 months).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 4 Terminal remission at 9 months (seizure free for last 9 months).

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 5 50% responder rate at 4 weeks.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 5 50% responder rate at 4 weeks.

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 6 Reported adverse effects (number of participants).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 6 Reported adverse effects (number of participants).

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 7 Discontinued study medication due to adverse effects (number of participants).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Clobazam versus carbamazepine, Outcome 7 Discontinued study medication due to adverse effects (number of participants).

Comparison 2 Clobazam versus phenytoin, Outcome 1 Retention at 6 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Clobazam versus phenytoin, Outcome 1 Retention at 6 months.

Comparison 2 Clobazam versus phenytoin, Outcome 2 Breakthrough seizure(s) during study period.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Clobazam versus phenytoin, Outcome 2 Breakthrough seizure(s) during study period.

Comparison 2 Clobazam versus phenytoin, Outcome 3 Discontinued study medication due to adverse effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Clobazam versus phenytoin, Outcome 3 Discontinued study medication due to adverse effects.

Comparison 2 Clobazam versus phenytoin, Outcome 4 Reported adverse effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Clobazam versus phenytoin, Outcome 4 Reported adverse effects.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Clobazam versus carbamazepine for focal or generalized seizures

Clobazam versus carbamazepine for focal or generalized seizures

Patient or population: people with focal or generalized seizures
Settings: 15 Canadian pediatric epilepsy centers (Canadian Study Group 1998); single center, outpatient clinic from Cuba (Andrade 2009)
Intervention: clobazam versus carbamazepine

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Carbamazepine

Clobazam

Time on allocated treatment (retention time)

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Retention at 12 months
Follow‐up: mean 12 months

Study population

RR 0.83 (0.61 to 1.12)

115
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2,3

654 per 1000

543 per 1000 (399 to 732)

Seizure freedom at 4 weeks

720 per 1000

611 per 1000 (396 to 950)

RR 0.85 (0.55 to 1.32)

43

(1 study)

low2,3,4

Seizure freedom 4‐40 weeks

760 per 1000

722 per 1000 (502 to 1034)

RR 0.95 (0.66 to 1.36)

43

(1 study)

low2,3,4

50% responder rate

800 per 1000

944 per 1000 (752 to 1184)

RR 1.18 (0.94 to 1.48)

43

(1 study)

low2,3,4

Adverse effects requiring withdrawal/discontinuation of study medication

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Blinding of participants and personnel was not done in this open‐label study. This can potentially affect assessment of this outcome. Downgraded by 1.
2Only 1 study, hence no 'inconsistency' and no 'publication bias'.
3Wide CI, downgraded by 1.

4Allocation concealment not stated, which could potentially introduce selection bias. Blinding of participants and personnel was not done in this open‐label study.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Clobazam versus carbamazepine for focal or generalized seizures
Summary of findings 2. Clobazam versus phenytoin for focal or generalized seizures

Clobazam versus phenytoin for focal or generalized seizures

Patient or population: drug‐naïve people with focal or generalized seizures with solitary cysticercus granuloma

Settings: single Indian teaching hospital

Intervention: clobazam

Comparison: phenytoin

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Clobazam versus phenytoin

Time on allocated treatment (retention time)

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Retention at 6 months (measured by the number of treatment failures in each group, which was defined as either breakthrough seizure or adverse effects requiring discontinuation or dose modification of study medication)
Follow‐up: mean 6 months

Study population

RR 1.43
(1.08 to 1.9)

48
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2,3

667 per 1000

953 per 1000 (720 to 1267)

Seizure freedom at 4 weeks

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Seizure freedom 4‐40 weeks

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

50% responder rate

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Outcome not reported

Adverse effects requiring withdrawal/discontinuation of study medication

Study population

RR 0.10
(0.01 to 1.65)

48
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2,3

222 per 1000

22 per 1000
(2 to 367)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Allocation concealment not stated, which could potentially introduce selection bias. Blinding of participants and personnel was not done in this open‐label study. This can potentially affect assessment of 'adverse effects requiring withdrawal' and hence 'retention time'. Downgraded by 1.
2Only 1 study, thus no 'inconsistency' and no 'publication bias'.
3Wide confidence interval and small sample size. Downgraded by 1.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Clobazam versus phenytoin for focal or generalized seizures
Comparison 1. Clobazam versus carbamazepine

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Retention at 12 months Show forest plot

1

115

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.61, 1.12]

2 Seizure freedom at 4 weeks Show forest plot

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.55, 1.32]

3 Seizure freedom between weeks 4 and 40 Show forest plot

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.66, 1.36]

4 Terminal remission at 9 months (seizure free for last 9 months) Show forest plot

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.23 [0.87, 1.72]

5 50% responder rate at 4 weeks Show forest plot

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.94, 1.48]

6 Reported adverse effects (number of participants) Show forest plot

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.16, 1.70]

7 Discontinued study medication due to adverse effects (number of participants) Show forest plot

1

43

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.02, 10.60]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Clobazam versus carbamazepine
Comparison 2. Clobazam versus phenytoin

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Retention at 6 months Show forest plot

1

48

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.43 [1.08, 1.90]

2 Breakthrough seizure(s) during study period Show forest plot

1

48

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.05, 3.83]

3 Discontinued study medication due to adverse effects Show forest plot

1

48

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [0.01, 1.65]

4 Reported adverse effects Show forest plot

1

288

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.32, 2.14]

4.1 Sedation

1

48

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.40, 2.35]

4.2 Skin problems including allergic rash

1

48

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.02, 1.38]

4.3 Tiredness

1

48

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.10, 1.91]

4.4 Oral or gingival problems

1

48

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.03, 1.65]

4.5 Headache

1

48

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.57 [0.73, 9.09]

4.6 Weight gain

1

48

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

11.45 [0.65, 201.60]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Clobazam versus phenytoin