Anticonvulsants ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Child ; Epilepsy ; drug therapy ; Humans

OBJECTIVETo investigate the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine monotherapy in children with epilepsy via a systematic review.

METHODSPubMed, Cochrane, CNKI, VIP, CBM, Wanfang Data were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lamotrigine monotherapy in children with epilepsy. Literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed according to the method recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. RevMan 5.2 software was used to conduct the Meta analysis.

RESULTSA total of 9 RCTs involving 1 016 participants were included. Lamotrigine yielded a significantly lower complete control rate of seizure than ethosuximide, but the complete control rate of seizure showed no significant differences between lamotrigine and carbamazepine/sodium valproate. Patients treated with lamotrigine had a significantly lower incidence rate of adverse events than those treated with carbamazepine, but the incidence rate of adverse events showed no significant differences between patients treated with lamotrigine and sodium valproate/carbamazepine. The drop-out rate showed no significant differences between the three treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONSLamotrigine is an ideal alternative drug for children who do not respond to traditional antiepileptic medication or experience significant adverse reactions; however, more high-quality RCTs with a large sample size and a long follow-up time are needed to confirm these conclusions.

Anticonvulsants ; therapeutic use ; Epilepsy ; drug therapy ; Humans ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Triazines ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use

OBJECTIVETo compare the efficacy of valproic acid (VPA) and lamotrigine as a monotherapy for absence epilepsy in children.

METHODSA randomized, open-label design was used. Childhood absence epilepsy was diagnosed based on the presence of typical seizures and video-EEG findings. Eligible patients were randomly treated with VPA or lamotrigine. All patients were followed up for 12 months.

RESULTSForty-five out of 48 eligible children completed the study. There were 23 children in the VPA group and 22 children in the lamotrigine group. Seventeen children were seizure-free in the VPA group 12 months after treatment. Fifteen out of the 17 children showed normal EEG (no epileptic-formed discharge). Twelve children were seizure-free in the lamotrigine group 12 months after treatment. The proportion showing normal EEG in the lamotrigine group (6/22, 27.3%) was significantly lower than that in the VPA group (15/23, 65.2%) (P<0.05). Severe adverse effects were not found in both groups.

CONCLUSIONSBoth VPA and lamotrigine are safe and efficacious for treatment of absence seizures in children. VPA appears to be better than lamotrigine in tapering epileptic-formed discharge.

Anticonvulsants ; therapeutic use ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Electroencephalography ; Epilepsy, Absence ; drug therapy ; physiopathology ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Triazines ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Valproic Acid ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use

OBJECTIVETo compare the efficacy of midazolam and diazepam for treatment of acute seizures in children.

METHODSOne hundred and twenty children with acute seizures were randomly divided into two groups: midazolam (0.1-0.3 mg/kg) and diazepam treatment (0.3-0.5 mg/kg) (n=60 each). In cases with seizure recurrence or statural convulsivus, a maintenance dose of midazolam (1-8 mg/kg per hour) and a maintenance dose of diazepam (0.5-1 mg/kg per hour) or along with phenobarbital sodium were given in the midazolam and diazepam treatment groups, respectively. The therapeutic effects were compared between the two groups.

RESULTSThe seizures were relieved in all cases from the two groups 10 minutes after administration of midazolam or diazepam. There were no significant differences in the average time of seizure control between the two groups. Five children in the midazolam group had seizure recurrence or statural convulsivus after 10 minutes compared with 13 children in the diazepan group (P<0.05). The time of seizure control averaged 40+/-32 minutes in the midazolam group compared with 69+/-24 minutes in the diazepam group after maintenance treatment (P<0.05). No midazolam and diazepam treatment related adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONSMidazolam is safe and effective in the treatment of acute seizures in children. Midazolam appears to be a better option in the treatment of recurrent seizures or statural convulsivus than diazepam.

Acute Disease ; Anticonvulsants ; therapeutic use ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Diazepam ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Midazolam ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Seizures ; drug therapy

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV) versus phenytoin (PHT) as second-line drugs for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in children. METHODS: English and Chinese electronic databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of LEV and PHT as second-line drugs for the treatment of childhood CSE. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Seven studies with 1 434 children were included. The Meta analysis showed that compared with the PHT group, the LEV group achieved a significantly higher control rate of CSE ( CONCLUSIONS LEV has a better clinical effect than PHT in the treatment of children with CSE and does not increase the incidence rate of adverse events.
Anticonvulsants/adverse effects* ; Child ; Humans ; Levetiracetam/therapeutic use* ; Pharmaceutical Preparations ; Phenytoin/adverse effects* ; Status Epilepticus/drug therapy*

OBJECTIVETo evaluate of the efficacy and safety of adjunctive levetiracetam (LEV) in children younger than 4 years with refractory epilepsy.

METHODSOne hundred and twelve children at age of 4 months to 4 years with refractory epilepsy received LEV as adjunctive therapy. LEV was administered in two equal daily doses of 10 mg/kg. The dose was increased by 10 mg/kg every week up to the target dose (20-40 mg/kg). The efficacy and tolerability were evaluated.

RESULTSAt an average follow-up period of 13 months (6-22 months), LEV administration was found to be effective in 43 children (38.4%) (responders showing more than a 50% decrease in seizure frequency) and 14 children (12.5%) became seizure-free. Fifty-three children (47.3%) did not respond to the treatment and 2 children (1.8%) worsened. The therapy-related adverse events were mild, including restlessness, reduction in sleep time, night terrors, debility, somnolence, nausea and vomiting. The adverse events were either tolerable or resolved in time with dosage reduction in most of children, and only 3 cases required discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONSLEV as adjunctive therapy is effective and well-tolerated in children younger than 4 years with refractory epilepsy, suggesting that it represents a valid option for the treatment of refractory epilepsy in this age group.

Anticonvulsants ; therapeutic use ; Child, Preschool ; Epilepsy ; drug therapy ; Female ; Humans ; Infant ; Male ; Piracetam ; adverse effects ; analogs & derivatives ; therapeutic use

OBJECTIVELevetiracetam has been widely used for childhood epilepsy, but there is no high quality evidence to support its use. This study performed a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of levetiracetam therapy for childhood epilepsy.

METHODSThe papers related to levetiracetam therapy for childhood epilepsy published up to March, 2009 were retrieved electronically from the PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Database, Wanfang and Weipu Chinese Journals Full-text Database. The relevant papers on randomized control trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs were studied by meta analysis.

RESULTSTwo papers that met the inclusion criteria were included. The first paper involved 198 patients, including 108 cases in the levetiracetam therapy group and 97 cases in the placebo group. Seven cases (6.9%) were seizure free in the levetiracetam therapy group compared with 1 case (1%) in the placebo group (p<0.01) 14 weeks after treatment. Levetiracetam therapy decreased significantly the frequency of seizures compared with the placebo treatment. The second paper involved 39 patients, including 21 cases in the levetiracetam therapy group and 18 cases in the oxcarbazepine therapy group. Nineteen cases (90.5%) were seizure-free in the levetiracetam therapy group compared with 13 cases (72.2%) in the oxcarbazepine therapy group (P=0.410) during a follow-up of 12-24 months. The adverse effects in the levetiracetam therapy group were not significantly different from the placebo and the oxcarbazepine therapy groups.

CONCLUSIONSThe current evidence shows that levetiracetam therapy is effective for childhood epilepsy. However, it needs to be proved by the multi-centre, large sample RCTs.

Anticonvulsants ; therapeutic use ; Child ; Epilepsy ; drug therapy ; Humans ; Piracetam ; adverse effects ; analogs & derivatives ; therapeutic use ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

The use of antiepileptic drugs in pregnancy always presents challenges to doctors and their patients as it may have deleterious effects on the developing embryo. Lamotrigine is most commonly-prescribed drug among the newer antiepileptic drugs; hence, it has been selected for the present review. A number of studies pertaining to the safety of lamotrigine use during pregnancy have been reported, with differing results. Contradictory results have been reported in animals regarding lamotrigine teratogenicity, and human studies have also proven inconclusive. In many countries, human pregnancy registries are maintained to establish the safety of antiepileptic drugs during pregnancy, as all the different suggestions favour some over others, with specific antiepileptic combinations still being questioned. It is our hope that the present work may integrate the available disparate relevant facts into a directed effort towards minimising the risk of foetal compromise.
Abnormalities, Drug-Induced ; Animals ; Anticonvulsants ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Epilepsy ; drug therapy ; Female ; Folic Acid Deficiency ; chemically induced ; Humans ; Pregnancy ; Teratogens ; pharmacokinetics ; pharmacology ; Triazines ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use

This is a long-term, open label, observational study aimed to broaden our clinical experiences in managing infants and toddlers with epilepsy. The long-term retention rate and side effects of topiramate (TPM) in them were evaluated and compared with carbamazepine (CBZ). A total of 146 children were involved in the study (TPM=41, CBZ=105). The retention rates at 24 , 36, and 48 months were 46.3%, 34.1%, 26.8% for TPM and 36.2%, 23.8%, 13.3% for CBZ, respectively. At 6 months after starting antiepileptic drugs (AED), the seizure freedom or clinical efficacy (seizure reduction rate more than 50 percent) were 73.2% for TPM and 62.9% for CBZ. The major side effects led to discontinuation included psychomotor slowing, poor oral intake from TPM and sleepiness and skin rash from CBZ. TPM was discontinued due to side effects in one case (2.4%) and lack of efficacy in five cases (12.2%), whereas CBZ was discontinued due to lack of efficacy (22.9%) and side effects (6.7%). As compared with CBZ, TPM showed the same long-term retention rate in children under the age of 2 yr, and no serious side effects. It is therefore concluded that TPM can be considered as a major AED for treating children with epilepsy under the age of 2 yr.
Anticonvulsants/adverse effects/*therapeutic use ; Carbamazepine/adverse effects/therapeutic use ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Epilepsy/*drug therapy ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Fructose/adverse effects/*analogs & derivatives/therapeutic use ; Humans ; Infant ; Male ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVETo investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of oxcarbazepine (OXC) suspension in children with focal epilepsy.

METHODSA total of 118 children aged 2-14 years, who were newly diagnosed with focal epilepsy between October 2009 and December 2011, were randomly divided into experimental group (n=60) and control group (n=58). The experimental group was treated with an orally suspension of OXC and the control group was orally administered with carbamazepine (CBZ) tablets. The two treatment regimens were compared in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.

RESULTSAfter 13 and 26 weeks of treatment, the experimental group had response rates of 75% and 72% respectively and seizure-free rates of 53% and 50%, and the control group had response rates of 71% and 66% and seizure-free rates of 50% and 43% respectively. There were no significant differences in the clinical efficacy between the two groups (P>0.05). After 26 weeks of treatment, the adverse event rates of the experimental and control groups were 18% and 40% respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONSOXC suspension has a comparable clinical efficacy to that of CBZ tablets in children aged 2-14 years who are newly diagnosed with focal epilepsy, but OXC suspension causes fewer adverse events and has higher safety.

Adolescent ; Anticonvulsants ; therapeutic use ; Carbamazepine ; adverse effects ; analogs & derivatives ; therapeutic use ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Epilepsies, Partial ; drug therapy ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Suspensions