These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Comparative efficacy of carbamazepine, valproic acid and topiramate in symptomatic and cryptogenic occipital lobe epilepsy in children].
    Author: Boldyreva SR, Ermakov AIu.
    Journal: Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im S S Korsakova; 2010; 110(5 Pt 1):39-44. PubMed ID: 21322824.
    Abstract:
    For a retrospective observational investigation based on real clinical practice of relative efficacy of valpoic acid (VPA), carbamazepine (CBZ) and topiramate (TPM) we have selected 106 patients with age of seizure onset before 17 years with a undoubted diagnosis of symptomatic or cryptogenic occipital lobe epilepsy (OLE), who had received treatment according to ILAE recommendations, and observation time since the last treatment change was from 2 to 10 years. Patients suspicious for idiopathic epilepsies were excluded. The groups of patient receiving CBZ, VPA and TPM did not differ significantly in presenting unfavorable prognostic factors and dose regimes that allowed to conduct direct comparison of efficacy of the investigated drugs. Efficacy of VPA in children with OLE was higher compared with CBZ (69% vs 36%, p < 0.01) and TPM (69% vs 8%, p < 0.001). CBZ and TPM caused seizure aggravation more frequently than VPA (12% and 13% respectively vs 1%, p < 0.001). In case of presence of clinico-electroencephalografic and MRI signs of significant organic brain damage and in patients with seizure onset under 11 years TPM was not effective. In case of focal cortical dysphasia the efficacy of CBZ was lower than VPA (20% vs 63%, p < 0.05). In MRI-negative cases VPA was most effective (79% vs 44% for CBZ, p < 0.001 and 29% for TPM, p < 0.01). Efficacy of CBZ and TPM reduces proportionally the number of previously used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), this tendency is noted also for VPA but as a second AED it was more effective than CBZ and TPM (56% vs 15%, p < 0.01 and 14%, p < 0.05, respectively); as a first AED VPA was also most effective (82% vs 37%, p < 0.001 for CBZ and 82% vs 33%, p < 0.01 for TPM). Adverse effects were more frequent during treatment with CBZ and TPM, than VPA (21% vs 6%, p < 0.001 and 17% vs 6%, p < 0.05).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]