Cargando…

Scoping review of rational polytherapy in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy

There is a paucity of literature regarding the optimal selection of combination antiseizure medications (ASMs) for drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). The aim of this scoping review is to evaluate current evidence related to “rational polytherapy” among adults with DRE. Using the Preferred Reporting Item...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grinalds, McKenzie S., Yoder, Caleb, Krauss, Zach, Chen, Aleda M., Rhoney, Denise H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10107532/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36484111
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/phar.2748
_version_ 1785026625558020096
author Grinalds, McKenzie S.
Yoder, Caleb
Krauss, Zach
Chen, Aleda M.
Rhoney, Denise H.
author_facet Grinalds, McKenzie S.
Yoder, Caleb
Krauss, Zach
Chen, Aleda M.
Rhoney, Denise H.
author_sort Grinalds, McKenzie S.
collection PubMed
description There is a paucity of literature regarding the optimal selection of combination antiseizure medications (ASMs) for drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). The aim of this scoping review is to evaluate current evidence related to “rational polytherapy” among adults with DRE. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐SCr) guidelines, PubMed, ProQuest, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched using DRE‐ and polytherapy‐related keywords. The exclusion criteria applied included: non‐English; non‐human studies; non‐research studies; participants less than 18 years; status epilepticus; ASM monotherapy; and certain ASMs. In Covidence, two researchers independently reviewed articles for inclusion at each phase, with a third resolving conflicts. Data were extracted, with quality appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Of the 6477 studies imported for screening, 33 studies were included. Clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes were reported by 26, 12, and one study, respectively. Common efficacy‐related clinical outcomes included ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency (n = 14), seizure freedom (n = 14), and percent reduction in seizure frequency (n = 8). Common humanistic outcomes included quality of life (n = 4), medication adherence (n = 2), sleep‐related outcomes (n = 2), and physician and patient global assessments (n = 2). The economic study reported quality‐adjusted life years. The median MMAT score was 80 (range: 60–100). Two studies referenced the standard definition of DRE, whereas five studies did not specifically define DRE. Gaps in the literature include limited generalizability, minimal reports in pregnancy, and lack of optimal ASM combinations, among others. Strengths of the evidence include addressing a variety of outcomes. Inconsistent definitions of DRE, small sample sizes, and heterogeneity among studies limit the ability to draw meaningful conclusions. Optimal combinations of ASMs for rational polytherapy for DRE is unclear.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10107532
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101075322023-04-18 Scoping review of rational polytherapy in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy Grinalds, McKenzie S. Yoder, Caleb Krauss, Zach Chen, Aleda M. Rhoney, Denise H. Pharmacotherapy Review of Therapeutics There is a paucity of literature regarding the optimal selection of combination antiseizure medications (ASMs) for drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). The aim of this scoping review is to evaluate current evidence related to “rational polytherapy” among adults with DRE. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐SCr) guidelines, PubMed, ProQuest, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched using DRE‐ and polytherapy‐related keywords. The exclusion criteria applied included: non‐English; non‐human studies; non‐research studies; participants less than 18 years; status epilepticus; ASM monotherapy; and certain ASMs. In Covidence, two researchers independently reviewed articles for inclusion at each phase, with a third resolving conflicts. Data were extracted, with quality appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Of the 6477 studies imported for screening, 33 studies were included. Clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes were reported by 26, 12, and one study, respectively. Common efficacy‐related clinical outcomes included ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency (n = 14), seizure freedom (n = 14), and percent reduction in seizure frequency (n = 8). Common humanistic outcomes included quality of life (n = 4), medication adherence (n = 2), sleep‐related outcomes (n = 2), and physician and patient global assessments (n = 2). The economic study reported quality‐adjusted life years. The median MMAT score was 80 (range: 60–100). Two studies referenced the standard definition of DRE, whereas five studies did not specifically define DRE. Gaps in the literature include limited generalizability, minimal reports in pregnancy, and lack of optimal ASM combinations, among others. Strengths of the evidence include addressing a variety of outcomes. Inconsistent definitions of DRE, small sample sizes, and heterogeneity among studies limit the ability to draw meaningful conclusions. Optimal combinations of ASMs for rational polytherapy for DRE is unclear. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-12-20 2023-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10107532/ /pubmed/36484111 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/phar.2748 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Review of Therapeutics
Grinalds, McKenzie S.
Yoder, Caleb
Krauss, Zach
Chen, Aleda M.
Rhoney, Denise H.
Scoping review of rational polytherapy in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy
title Scoping review of rational polytherapy in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy
title_full Scoping review of rational polytherapy in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy
title_fullStr Scoping review of rational polytherapy in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy
title_full_unstemmed Scoping review of rational polytherapy in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy
title_short Scoping review of rational polytherapy in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy
title_sort scoping review of rational polytherapy in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy
topic Review of Therapeutics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10107532/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36484111
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/phar.2748
work_keys_str_mv AT grinaldsmckenzies scopingreviewofrationalpolytherapyinpatientswithdrugresistantepilepsy
AT yodercaleb scopingreviewofrationalpolytherapyinpatientswithdrugresistantepilepsy
AT krausszach scopingreviewofrationalpolytherapyinpatientswithdrugresistantepilepsy
AT chenaledam scopingreviewofrationalpolytherapyinpatientswithdrugresistantepilepsy
AT rhoneydeniseh scopingreviewofrationalpolytherapyinpatientswithdrugresistantepilepsy