Tiagabine add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

Bresnahan, Rebecca, Martin-McGill, Kirsty J ORCID: 0000-0002-5138-2497, Hutton, Jane L and Marson, Anthony G ORCID: 0000-0002-6861-8806
(2019) Tiagabine add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 10 (10). CD001908-.

[img] Text
Bresnahan_et_al-2019-Cochrane_Database_of_Systematic_Reviews (1).pdf - Published version

Download (457kB) | Preview


<h4>Background</h4>Epilepsy is a common neurological condition that affects up to 1% of the population. Nearly 30% of people with epilepsy are resistant to currently available antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and require treatment with multiple antiepileptic drugs in combination. Tiagabine is one of the newer AEDs that can be used as an adjunct (add-on) to standard AEDs.<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of tiagabine when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal seizures.<h4>Search methods</h4>This is an updated Cochrane review, last published in 2014. For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 22 January 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to January 21, 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted the manufacturers of tiagabine and experts in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished studies.<h4>Selection criteria</h4>We included randomised placebo-controlled add-on trials conducted in people of any age with focal epilepsy. The studies could be double-, single-, or unblinded and of parallel or cross-over design. They had to have a minimum treatment period of eight weeks. We also included trials using an active drug control group.<h4>Data collection and analysis</h4>Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data according to the standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration for this review update. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, effects on cognition and quality of life. The primary analyses were performed by intention-to-treat. We calculated worst-case and best-case analyses for seizure outcomes. We evaluated dose response using regression models. Two review authors assessed risk of bias in each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool.<h4>Main results</h4>No further studies were added since the previous update in 2014. The review included six trials (four parallel-group and two cross-over group trials) consisting of 948 participants. For the main comparison, tiagabine versus placebo, all participants were aged between 12 and 77 years and the study treatment periods ranged from 12 to 22 weeks. The overall risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (tiagabine versus placebo) was 3.16 (95% CI 1.97 to 5.07; 3 trials; 769 participants; high-certainty evidence). Because of differences in response rates among trials, regression models were unable to provide reliable estimates of response to individual doses. The RR for treatment withdrawal (tiagabine versus placebo) was 1.81 (95% CI 1.25 to 2.62; 3 trials, 769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dizziness and tremor were significantly associated with tiagabine therapy. For cognitive and quality-of-life outcomes, the limited available data suggested no significant effects on cognition, mood, or adjustment. One trial comparing tiagabine with an active drug control group (tiagabine versus topiramate) found no significant differences between the two add-on drugs for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.58; 1 trial; 41 participants) or for treatment withdrawal (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.74; one trial; 41 participants). We judged two of the six included studies to have low risk of bias, three studies to have an unclear risk of bias, and one study to have a high risk of bias. Methods for randomisation sequence generation were the least reported trial design factor and generated the most concerns regarding risk of bias. We rated the overall certainty of the evidence as largely moderate to high using the GRADE approach. We rated the evidence for two of the adverse effect outcomes, nausea and tremor, as low certainty.<h4>Authors' conclusions</h4>Tiagabine reduced seizure frequency but was associated with some adverse effects when used as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The findings of the current review are mainly applicable to adults and adolescents, and may not necessarily be applicable to children as none of the trials included participants aged under 12 years. We found no significant differences between tiagabine and topiramate as add-on drugs; however, evidence was provided by a single trial and was therefore limited.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Drug Resistance, Anticonvulsants [adverse effects] ['therapeutic use], Cognition [drug effects], Epilepsies, Partial [*drug therapy], Nipecotic Acids [adverse effects] [*therapeutic use], Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Tiagabine, Humans
Depositing User: Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited: 24 Oct 2019 10:26
Last Modified: 23 Mar 2023 05:23
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001908.pub4
Related URLs:
URI: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3059301