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: Preliminary evidence for gender effects of levetiracetam monotherapy duration on bone health of patients with epilepsy.
    Author: Artemiadis AK, Lambrinoudaki I, Voskou P, Tsivgoulis G, Safouris A, Bougea A, Giannopoulos S, Gatzonis S, Triantafyllou N.
    Journal: Epilepsy Behav; 2016 Feb; 55():84-6. PubMed ID: 26773675.
    Abstract:
    Enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs AEDs have adverse effects on bone mineral density (BMD), whereas studies on levetiracetam (LEV), a nonenzyme-inducing agent, have showed conflicting results. The aim of this study was to further elucidate the role of LEV in bone health. A sample of forty-six patients with epilepsy (mean age: 35.7 years, range: 20.2-64.2 years, 39.1% males) on LEV monotherapy for at least one year (range: 1.5-14.5 years, median 5.5 years) underwent femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) BMD measurements. The T- and Z-scores were calculated. Results showed that 15.2% of the patients were identified with osteopenia and none with osteoporosis. Pearson's correlations revealed a negative but not significant association of LEV duration with bone-related measurements (range of rhos: from -0.004 to -0.23), except for LS T-scores. In terms of FN BMD measurements, Z-scores, and T-scores, longer LEV therapy duration had adverse but not significant effects on bone health after adjusting for age and gender. With regard to LS BMD measurements, Z-scores, and T-scores, men taking LEV for at least 5.5 years had better, although not significant, bone health compared with men with shorter LEV exposure, after adjusting for age. The opposite was found in women, although differences did not reach significance. These preliminary results are indicative of a differential effect of LEV therapy duration in men and women, which could presumably account for the incongruity of the already published studies. Also, LS assessments were more sensitive to these gender differences. Future larger studies should validate these results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]