CATALOGO DEI PRODOTTI DELLA RICERCA
IRIS è la soluzione IT che facilita la raccolta e la gestione dei dati relativi alle attività e ai prodotti della ricerca. Fornisce a ricercatori, amministratori e valutatori gli strumenti per monitorare i risultati della ricerca, aumentarne la visibilità e allocare in modo efficace le risorse disponibili.
EnglishObjective: to compare intravenous valproate (IV-VPA) with intravenous phenobarbitone (IV-PB) in the treatment of established generalised convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE). Efficacy and safety were estimated using a common-reference based indirect comparison meta-analysis (CRBMA) methodology. Methods: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of IV-VPA or IV-PB versus intravenous phenytoin (IV-PHT) for GCSE were identified by a systematic search of the literature. A random effects model was used to estimate Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) for efficacy and safety of IV-VPA or IV-PB versus IV-PHT in a standard meta-analysis. Adjusted indirect comparisonswere then made between VPA and PB using the obtained results. Results: CRBMA showed that VPA does not lead to significantly higher seizure cessation (OR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.36-2.76) compared to PB, although it exhibits fewer adverse effects (OR 0.17; 95% CI: 0.04-0.71). Results of thisCRBMAare consistent with results of a recently published head-to-head comparison of IV-VPA and IV-PB. Conclusion: there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate superiority of IV-VPA over IV-PB for the treatment ofGCSEin terms of efficacy.Somedirect and indirect comparisons suggest that VPA has a better safety profile than PB. However, the limited numbers of underpowered RCTs included in this meta-analysis are not sufficient to justify a change in clinical practice. More rigorous and appropriately powered RCTs are therefore required to definitively determine the efficacy and tolerability of VPA for the treatment of GCSE.
| Titolo: | A common reference-based indirect comparison meta-analysis of intravenous valproate versus intravenous phenobarbitone for convulsive status epilepticus. |
| Autori: | |
| Data di pubblicazione: | 2013 |
| Rivista: | |
| Abstract: | Objective: to compare intravenous valproate (IV-VPA) with intravenous phenobarbitone (IV-PB) in the treatment of established generalised convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE). Efficacy and safety were estimated using a common-reference based indirect comparison meta-analysis (CRBMA) methodology. Methods: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of IV-VPA or IV-PB versus intravenous phenytoin (IV-PHT) for GCSE were identified by a systematic search of the literature. A random effects model was used to estimate Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) for efficacy and safety of IV-VPA or IV-PB versus IV-PHT in a standard meta-analysis. Adjusted indirect comparisonswere then made between VPA and PB using the obtained results. Results: CRBMA showed that VPA does not lead to significantly higher seizure cessation (OR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.36-2.76) compared to PB, although it exhibits fewer adverse effects (OR 0.17; 95% CI: 0.04-0.71). Results of thisCRBMAare consistent with results of a recently published head-to-head comparison of IV-VPA and IV-PB. Conclusion: there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate superiority of IV-VPA over IV-PB for the treatment ofGCSEin terms of efficacy.Somedirect and indirect comparisons suggest that VPA has a better safety profile than PB. However, the limited numbers of underpowered RCTs included in this meta-analysis are not sufficient to justify a change in clinical practice. More rigorous and appropriately powered RCTs are therefore required to definitively determine the efficacy and tolerability of VPA for the treatment of GCSE. |
| Handle: | http://hdl.handle.net/11562/609751 |
| Appare nelle tipologie: | 01.01 Articolo in Rivista |
File in questo prodotto:
Copyright © 2020