左乙拉西坦添加治疗儿童难治性部分性癫痫疗效的Meta分析

目的系统评价左乙拉西坦添加治疗儿童难治性部分性癫痫的疗效和耐受性。方法计算机检索1998年1月-2017年1月Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、EMbase、中国知网中国期刊全文数据库和万方及中国生物医学文献数据库,并手工检索相关杂志,RevMan 5.3统计软件进行Meta分析。结果根据Cochrane 5.0.2版随机对照临床试验质量评价标准,纳入4项随机对照临床试验共498例受试者(左乙拉西坦组268例、安慰剂对照组230例)。Meta分析结果显示,左乙拉西坦组部分性癫痫发作频率减少≥50%的病例数高于对照组[OR=2.940,95%CI(1.99,4.34),P0.000 01];完全不发作病例明显高于对照组[OR=5.310,95%CI(2.49,11.32),P0.000 01]。左乙拉西坦组失访率与安慰剂对照组之间差异无统计学意义[OR=0.760,95%CI(0.32,1.82),P=0.54]。药物不良反应中嗜睡[OR=2.57,95%CI(1.36,4.86)]及精神行为改变[OR=2.54,95%CI(1.56,4.14)]与左乙拉西坦组显著相关(P0.05),其他不良反应与左乙拉西坦组无显著相关。结论现有Meta分析显示,左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性部分性癫痫的疗效与安慰剂组相比效果显著。左乙拉西坦添加治疗儿童难治性癫痫部分性发作有确切的疗效,且长期治疗效果稳定,有良好的安全性,保留率较高,可在临床进一步推广使用。     

复方氨基丁酸维E胶囊联合左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的临床疗效观察

目的分析复方氨基丁酸维E胶囊联合左乙拉西坦对小儿癫痫的治疗效果及安全性,为临床治疗小儿癫痫提供参考。方法选择2010-08—2014-08我院收治的小儿癫痫68例为研究对象,随机分为2组。对照组使用左乙拉西坦治疗,实验组在对照组基础上联合使用复方氨基丁酸维E胶囊治疗,对比观察2组疗效。结果实验组总有效率明显高于对照组,发作频率低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论复方氨基丁酸维E联合左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的效果更好,安全性高,值得应用。     

左乙拉西坦联合穴位埋线治疗小儿癫痫的疗效对比

目的观察左乙拉西坦联合穴位埋线法治疗小儿癫痫的临床疗效。方法将我院2014-01-2016-01收治100例癫痫患儿随机分为治疗组和对照组,其中治疗组50例采取左乙拉西坦片联合穴位埋线法治疗,对照组50例采取单药左乙拉西坦片治疗,连续观察3个月,检测2组治疗前后血清中NSE及IGF-1变化,对比2组临床疗效。结果治疗3个月后治疗组NSE及IGF-1水平分别为(11.91±2.13)μg/L、(7.45±2.54)μmol/L,均显著低于对照组(19.64±3.05)μg/L、(10.21±3.17)μmol/L,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05),治疗组总有效率为92.0%,对照组为74.0%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),且治疗过程中2组患儿均未出现明显的不良反应发生。结论左乙拉西坦联合穴位埋线治疗小儿癫痫疗效优于单纯左乙拉西坦治疗,且无明显不良反应,值得临术推广应用。     

维生素B_6联合左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的有效性及安全性评价

目的探讨维生素B_6联合左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的有效性及安全性。方法选取本院收治的110例癫痫患儿作为研究对象,其中60例应用维生素B_6和左乙拉西坦(观察组),50例单用左乙拉西坦(对照组),比较两组患儿的临床疗效及行为异常改善情况。结果与治疗前相比,两组患儿治疗后的癫痫发作频率显著降低,发作持续时间明显缩短(P0.05),并且观察组治疗后的发作频率显著低于对照组,发作持续时间显著短于对照组,(P0.05)。观察组患儿用药期间的行为相关不良反应发生率为6.67%,对照组为32.00%,组间比较有显著性差异(P0.05)。观察组患儿的治疗总有效率为83.33%,显著高于对照组的70.00%(P0.05)。结论大剂量维生素B_6与左乙拉西坦联用能够有效提高小儿癫痫治疗效果,同时减少左乙拉西坦引起的行为异常。     

丙戊酸钠联合左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的疗效

目的探讨丙戊酸钠联合左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的临床疗效。方法将92例小儿癫痫患者随机分为对照组和实验组,在丙戊酸钠治疗基础上,对照组联合托吡酯治疗;实验组联合左乙拉西坦治疗。结果实验组总有效率93.5%高于对照组78.3%,治疗前,2组患者血钙和血磷水平无显著差异(P0.05);但治疗后实验组血钙水平(2.39±0.36)mmol/L、血磷水平(1.45±0.36)mmol/L均低于对照组(2.07±0.18)mmol/L、(1.21±0.15)mmol/L(均P0.05)。结论丙戊酸钠、左乙拉西坦联合用药治疗小儿癫痫疗效显著,且对钙、磷代谢影响较小,安全性高,临床值得应用。     

丙戊酸钠与左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的临床疗效分析

目的分析丙戊酸钠与左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的效果。方法选取我院治疗的小儿癫痫患者80例为研究对象,采用数字随机表将患儿分为对照组和观察组,对照组取丙戊酸治疗,观察组取左乙拉西坦治疗,观察2组血清神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、S100β及癫痫发作频率变化情况,观察临床疗效和不良反应发生情况。结果观察组治疗后NSE、S100β水平分别为(12.10±2.07)μg/L、(0.48±0.16)μg/L均显著低于对照组(20.31±3.11)μg/L、(0.68±0.23)μg/L,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组治疗后简单部分发作、肌阵挛发作、强直阵挛发作、复杂部分性发作频率分别为(8.64±2.58)次、(9.21±1.05)次、(5.31±1.06)次、(5.98±0.87)次显著低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论丙戊酸钠和左乙拉西坦可取得同等的抗癫痫效果,但左乙拉西坦具有神经保护的作用。     

丙戊酸钠联合左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫临床分析

目的 研究丙戊酸钠结合左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的有效性及安全性.方法 将2015-06—12我院儿科收治的120例小儿癫痫患儿为研究对象,按照数字随机分组法分成3组,给予不同药物进行治疗,分别为丙戊酸钠组(40例)、左乙拉西坦组(40例)与联合治疗组(40例).观察3组疗效、相关实验室指标与安全性.结果 丙戊酸钠组治疗总有效率77.5%,左乙拉西坦组为72.5%,联合治疗组为92.5%,联合治疗组优于其他2组,差异有统计学意义(χ2=2.37、3.92,P均<0.05);3组治疗前后血钙与血磷水平比较,治疗后联合治疗组血钙与血磷水平均优于其他2组,差异有统计学意义(血钙t=1.14、2.51,血磷t=1.35、1.73,P均<0.05).联合治疗组不良反应率5.0%,优于丙戊酸钠组的12.5%与左乙拉西坦组的15.0%,差异有统计学意义(χ2=1.524、1.473,P<0.05).结论 丙戊酸钠联合左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的疗效更好,安全性更高,值得临床推广.     

左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性部分性发作癫痫疗效的Meta分析

目的系统评价左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性部分性发作癫癎的疗效和药物安全性。方法计算机检索1998年1月-2010年12月Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE、EMbase、社会科学引文索引、维普中文科技期刊、中国知网中国期刊全文数据库和中国生物医学文献数据库,并手工检索相关杂志,由两名研究者独立进行质量评价及数据分析,RevMan 5.0统计软件进行Meta分析。结果根据Cochrane5.0.2版随机对照临床试验质量评价标准,纳入11项随机对照临床试验共1981例受试者(左乙拉西坦组1192例、安慰剂对照组789例)。Meta分析结果显示,左乙拉西坦组每周部分性癫癎发作频率减少≥50%的病例数高于对照组(1000 mg/d:OR=2.990,P=0.000;2000 mg/d:OR=3.870,P=0.000;3000 mg/d:OR=3.440,P=0.000);每周发作频率减少≥75%的病例明显高于对照组(1000 mg/d:OR=3.130,P=0.000;2000 mg/d:OR=5.060,P=0.000;3000 mg/d:OR=4.730,P=0.000);完全不发作病例明显高于对照组(1000 mg/d:OR=5.080,P=0.001;2000 mg/d:OR=4.420,P=0.050;3000 mg/d:OR=4.150,P=0.000)。左乙拉西坦组失访率与安慰剂对照组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗期间常见药物不良反应包括嗜睡、头晕、乏力、鼻咽炎、精神行为异常等,两组精神行为不良反应方面存在异质性(P=0.360,I~2=8.000%)。结论现有证据显示,左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性部分性发作癫癎的疗效与安慰剂组相比效果显著,保留率高;药物安全性应注意其所引起的精神行为异常。     

左乙拉西坦治疗成人癫痫的疗效及安全性分析

目的分析左乙拉西坦在成人癫痫患者中的疗效、耐受性及安全性。方法选取我院2013-02—2014-06收治的98例癫痫患者为研究对象,随机分为试验组(LEV治疗)和对照组(常规用药)各49例,疗程40d,观察疗效及不良反应。结果观察组有效率81.6%,对照组为61.2%,2组疗效比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。2组指标异常、厌食、嗜睡等不良反应差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。个别患者出现皮疹、白细胞下降症状并不是应用左乙拉西坦造成的。结论左乙拉西坦(LEV)作为一种新型药物,安全性较高,在癫痫治疗的初、中期患者耐受性好,单独使用其治疗效果也十分显著。     

左乙拉西坦和丙戊酸钠对青少年肌阵挛癫痫单药治疗的疗效比较

目的比较左乙拉西坦(levetiracitam,LEV)和丙戊酸钠(sodium valproate,VPA)对青少年肌阵挛癫痫(Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy,JME)单药治疗的疗效。方法选取60例青少年肌阵挛癫痫患者,随机分为2组,每组30例,分别给予左乙拉西坦和丙戊酸钠单药治疗,比较治疗后2组肌阵挛发作(myoclonic seizure,MS)、全面性强直阵挛发作(generalized tonic-clonic seizure,GTCS)和脑电图(electroencephalogram,EEG)改善情况。结果 (1)肌阵挛发作改善情况:左乙拉西坦组总有效率为79.31%,丙戊酸钠组总有效率为85.71%(χ2=0.049,P0.05);(2)全面性强直阵挛发作改善情况:左乙拉西坦组总有效率为89.65%,丙戊酸钠组有效率为82.14%(χ2=0.669,P0.05);(3)脑电图改善情况:左乙拉西坦组总有效率为72.41%,丙戊酸钠组总有效率为75.00%(χ2=0.049,P0.05);(4)不良反应:左乙拉西坦组不良反应发生率为6.90%,丙戊酸钠组为25.00%(χ2=6.02,P0.05)。结论青少年肌阵挛癫痫是一种需要长期治疗甚至终生治疗的疾病,故选择治疗药物时不仅需要考虑疗效,长期服用药物的毒副作用也不容忽视。左乙拉西坦和丙戊酸钠对青少年肌阵挛癫痫单药治疗有相同的疗效,且左乙拉西坦不良反应发生率较丙戊酸钠小(P0.05),故左乙拉西坦可作为治疗青少年肌阵挛癫痫的首选一线药物。     

Levetiracetam for benign epilepsy of childhood with centrotemporal spikes-three cases.

Benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (BECTS), also known as benign rolandic epilepsy (BRE) of childhood represents 15% of all childhood epilepsies [Handbook of Epilepsy Treatment (2000)]. A majority of these patients do no require treatment; however, in those cases where treatment is justified, the most efficacious medication with a benign safety profile should be selected. We present three clinical cases of otherwise healthy children with BECTS who were treated only with levetiracetam. All three of these children remain seizure-free and are experiencing no reported side effects.     

Book Reviews

Book reviewed in this article:
The Treatment of Epilepsy. Simon Shorvon, Fritz Dreifuss, David Fish, and David Thomas (eds.).
Neuroimaging in Epilepsy: Principles and Practice. George D. Cascino and Jack Clifford , (eds.)
Epilepsy: 199 Answers: A Doctor Answers His Patients'Questions. Andrew Wilner .
Epilepsy in Children. Sheila Wallace (ed.).
Epilepsy in Children. Sheila Wallace , (ed.).
Recent Advances in Epilepsy, Volume 6. Timothy A. Pedley and Brian S. Meldrum (eds.).     

Book Reviews

Books reviewed in this article:
Understanding Epilepsy–What it is and how it can affect your life . Neil Buchanan .
Epilepsy and Quality of Life . M. R. Trimble and W. E. Dodson, eds .
NOTEWORTHY BOOKS FROM 1992 NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED
The Medical Treatment of Epilepsy . Stanley R. Resor, ed.
Epileptic Syndromes in Infancy, Childhood and Adolescence, 2nd edition . J. Roger, M. Bureau, C. Dravet, F. E. Dreifuss, A. Perret, P. War, eds.
Epilepsy: A Behavior Medicine Approach to Assessment and Treatment in Children . JoAnne Dahl .
The Surgical Treatment of Epilepsies. Hans Otto Luders, ed.     

The impact of side effects on long-term retention in three new antiepileptic drugs

ObjectiveTo determine long-term retention, percentage of patients withdrawing because of adverse events, percentage of patients achieving seizure freedom, safety profile of the new anti-epileptic drugs lamotrigine, levetiracetam and topiramate.MethodsAll patients treated with lamotrigine, levetiracetam or topiramate in the Epilepsy Centre were identified. Each drug was analyzed from introduction of the drug in the Netherlands up to a final assessment point 2 years later.ResultsData from 1066 patients were included: 336 for lamotrigine, 301 for levetiracetam, 429 for topiramate. Two-year retention rates were 69.2% (lamotrigine), 45.8% (levetiracetam), 38.3% (topiramate); (LTG vs. LEV at p < 0.001; LTG vs. TPM at p < 0.001; LEV vs. TPM at p = 0.005). Seizure freedom rates were lowest for lamotrigine and highest for levetiracetam. Adverse events played a role in drug discontinuation in 154/429 patients (35.9%) on topiramate, 52/336 patients (15.5%) on lamotrigine (p < 0.001), 68/301 patients (22.5%) on levetiracetam (p < 0.001). Mood and general CNS-effects are common in patients on lamotrigine and levetiracetam, and neurocognitive side effects are most prevalent in patients on topiramate. A positive effect on cognition is frequently noted in patients on lamotrigine.ConclusionA drug that is only modestly efficacious but has a favourable safety profile may look better than a drug that is more efficacious but produces clinically meaningful adverse events. Therefore, a drug's retention rate is mainly determined by its side effect profile. As a consequence, retention rate was highest for lamotrigine and lowest for topiramate. Intermediate retention rates were seen with levetiracetam use.     

Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam: an add-on trial in children with refractory epilepsy.

The aim of this multicentric, prospective and uncontrolled study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in 110 children with refractory epilepsy, of whom 21 were less than 4 years old. After a median follow-up period of 7 months, levetiracetam administration was effective (responders with >50% decrease in seizure frequency) in 39% of children, of whom 10 (9%) became seizure-free. The efficacy was higher in patients with localization-related epilepsy (58% of responders) than in those with generalized epilepsy (37% of responders). Levetiracetam was well tolerated. The main side effects of somnolence and irritability occurred in 14% of patients. In one patient acute choreoathetosis occurred after few doses of levetiracetam. Overall, the adverse effects were not severe. Children younger than 4 years were particularly tolerant. In conclusion, the present study confirms that levetiracetam is effective and well tolerated as an add-on treatment in children with refractory epilepsy. Our preliminary data also indicate that levetiracetam may be a valid therapeutic option for epilepsy in infants and young children.     

肌阵挛-站立不能性癫痫的临床特征及其电压门控性钠通道α1亚基基因突变检测

目的 探讨肌阵挛-站立不能性癫痫(MAE)的临床特点、药物疗效及可能的分子遗传学机制.方法 根据2001年国际抗癫痫联盟癫痫综合征分类标准对自2006年至2008年在广州医学院第二附属医院神经内科就诊的MAE患者进行诊断,收集患者的临床资料及外周血DNA,采用高效液相色谱分析和直接测序法对电压门控性钠通道α1亚基(5CN1A)基因突变进行筛查,并对其临床治疗情况随访1年以上.结果 共收集10例MAE患者,其中散发8例,有热性惊厥或癫痫家族史者2例;起病年龄介于5～39个月间;有多种全面性发作形式;2例曾出现癫痫持续状态;起病后精神发育迟滞者7例.对其中8例患者进行SCN1A基因突变筛查,均未发现突变.丙戊酸、氯硝安定和左乙拉西坦疗效最好,部分患者托吡酯和拉莫三嗪治疗亦有效.结论 MAE是少见的癫痫综合征,分子遗传学机制不明,丙戊酸、氯硝安定和左乙拉西坦治疗有效,但预后较差.     

Effects of levetiracetam on spike and wave discharges in WAG/Rij rats

Effects of the novel anti-epileptic drug levetiracetam (50 and 100 mg/kg) on spike and wave discharges (SWDs) of WAG/Rij rats were studied. Levetiracetam decreased the incidence, average duration, total duration and peak frequency of the SWDs. There was no difference between the two doses. These results agree with results obtained in Genetic Absence Epilepsy Rat from Strasbourg (GAERS). Furthermore, the decrease of the SWD peak frequency might support the suggestions that levetiracetam might have a GABAergic mechanism of action.     

Neurocognitive effects of adjunctive levetiracetam in children with partial-onset seizures: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, noninferiority trial

Purpose : Evaluate potential neurocognitive effects of adjunctive levetiracetam in children with inadequately controlled partial‐onset seizures (POS). Methods : Randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, noninferiority safety study. Children (4–16 years; IQ ≥65) with ≥1 POS during 4 weeks before screening despite taking 1–2 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were randomized (2:1) to levetiracetam (20–60 mg/kg/day) or placebo for 12 weeks. Results : Ninety‐nine patients were randomized with 98 (levetiracetam 64, placebo 34) in intent‐to‐treat (ITT) and 73 (levetiracetam 46, placebo 27) in per protocol (PP) populations. Primary cognitive assessment was the Leiter International Performance Scale–Revised Attention and Memory Battery with the memory screen composite score change from baseline as the primary endpoint. PP Least Square Mean [LSM (standard error)] were 5.36 (1.78) for levetiracetam; 5.17 (2.33) for placebo; difference [two‐sided 90% confidence interval (CI)] 0.19 (?4.69, 5.08). Levetiracetam was noninferior to placebo because the 90% CI lower bound was greater than the defined noninferiority margin (?9.0). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning‐2 indexes and Leiter‐R Examiner’s Rating Scale scores. Median reductions from baseline in weekly POS frequency were 91.5% versus 26.5% for levetiracetam versus placebo; ≥50% responder rates: 62.5% versus 41.2%; seizure freedom rates: 46.9% versus 8.8% (ITT). Adverse events were reported by 89.1% levetiracetam‐treated and 85.3% placebo‐treated patients; those reported by ≥10% levetiracetam patients and more often with levetiracetam were headache, nasopharyngitis, fatigue, vomiting, somnolence, and aggression. Discussion : Neurocognitive effects were no different in pediatric patients with POS treated with adjunctive levetiracetam or placebo. Levetiracetam was effective and well tolerated.     

Levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, remacemide and zonisamide for drug resistant localization-related epilepsy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo controlled add-on trials of levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, remacemide and zonisamide for patients with drug resistant localization related epilepsy. METHODS: We searched Medline, The Cochrane Library and contacted the relevant pharmaceutical companies. Outcomes were 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and treatment withdrawal for any reason. Data were synthesised in a meta-analysis. The effect of dose was explored in regression models for levetiracetam and remacemide. RESULTS: We found four trials (1023 patients) of levetiracetam, two (961) of oxcarbazepine, two (388) of remacemide and three (499) of zonisamide. Ignoring dose, the relative risks (95% CI) for a 50% response were 3.78 (2.62-5.44), 2.51 (1.88-3.33), 1.59 (0.91-2.97) and 2.46 (1.61-3.79), respectively. There was evidence for increasing effect with increasing dose for levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine and remacemide. The relative risks for treatment withdrawal were 1.21 (0.88-1.66), 1.72 (1.35-2.18), 1.90 (1.00-3.60) and 1.64 (1.02-2.62), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest a useful effect for levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine and zonisamide. Levetiracetam has the more favourable 'responder-withdrawal ratio' followed by zonisamide and oxcarbazepine.     

Levetiracetam: preliminary efficacy in generalized seizures

Levetiracetam is a novel antiepileptic drug (AED) with proven efficacy against partial seizures, but there is limited information about its effectiveness against generalized seizures. In animal models, levetiracetam protects against seizures in audiogenic susceptible rodents, and it is effective in the Genetic Absence Epilepsy Rat from Strasbourg, a model of absence seizures. In these models, levetiracetam has a therapeutic index that is higher than those of other AEDs. A number of small open-label studies suggest that levetiracetam reduces seizure frequency in patients with generalized seizures, including primarily generalized seizures and myoclonic seizures. Case reports provide additional information regarding the potential efficacy of levetiracetam in postanoxic, post-encephalitic and progressive myoclonus. Although random-ized controlled studies of patients with generalized seizures have not yet been conducted, on the basis of available information, levetiracetam may be prom-ising in the treatment of generalized seizures.