Table 12.
Pairwise and network meta‐analysis results ‐ Time to six‐month remission of seizures for individuals with partial seizures
| Comparisiona | Direct evidence (pairwise meta‐analysis) | Direct plus indirect evidence (network meta‐analysis) | ||||
| Number of studies | Number of participants | HR (95% CI)b,c | I² statisticd | Direct evidence (%)5 | HR (95% CI)b,c | |
| CBZ vs PHB | 4 | 525 | 1.24 (0.95 to 1.61) | 0% | 31.3% | 0.95 (0.76 to 1.19) |
| CBZ vs PHT | 3 | 430 | 0.85 (0.66 to 1.09) | 4.2% | 23.3% | 1.03 (0.88 to 1.20) |
| CBZ vs VPS | 5 | 816 | 1.06 (0.90 to 1.25) | 56.5% | 16.6% | 1.10 (0.96 to 1.25) |
| CBZ vs LTG | 7 | 1535 | 1.15 (0.89 to 1.48) | 0% | 26.4% | 1.11 (0.98 to 1.27) |
| CBZ vs OXC | 2 | 555 | 1.15 (0.65 to 2.04) | 0% | 16.6% | 0.98 (0.82 to 1.18) |
| CBZ vs TPM | 2 | 925 | 1.05 (0.64 to 1.72) | 0% | 8.8% | 1.11 (0.96 to 1.28) |
| CBZ vs GBP | 2 | 943 | 0.81 (0.52 to 1.27) | 0% | 73.7% | 1.16 (0.99 to 1.35) |
| CBZ vs LEV | 3 | 1567 | 1.06 (0.84 to 1.33) | 37.9% | 20.4% | 1.04 (0.93 to 1.16) |
| CBZ vs ZNS | 1 | 582 | 1.00 (0.82 to 1.20) | NA | 100% | 1.00 (0.83 to 1.20) |
| PHB vs PHT | 4 | 465 | 0.79 (0.60 to 1.05) | 0% | 31.1% | 1.08 (0.85 to 1.37) |
| PHB vs VPS | 2 | 80 | 0.67 (0.42 to 1.08) | 0% | 9.1% | 1.15 (0.89 to 1.49) |
| PHB vs LTG | No direct evidence | 0% | 1.16 (0.90 to 1.52) | |||
| PHB vs OXC | No direct evidence | 0% | 1.03 (0.77 to 1.39) | |||
| PHB vs TPM | No direct evidence | 0% | 1.16 (0.89 to 1.54) | |||
| PHB vs GBP | No direct evidence | 0% | 1.22 (0.93 to 1.59) | |||
| PHB vs LEV | No direct evidence | 0% | 1.10 (0.85 to 1.41) | |||
| PHB vs ZNS | No direct evidence | 0% | 1.04 (0.78 to 1.41) | |||
| PHT vs VPS | 5 | 245 | 0.90 (0.70 to 1.15) | 0% | 26.5% | 1.06 (0.88 to 1.30) |
| PHT vs LTG | 1 | 90 | 0.88 (0.25 to 3.03) | NA | 1.20% | 1.09 (0.88 to 1.32) |
| PHT vs OXC | 2 | 318 | 1.21 (0.79 to 1.87) | 0% | 33.2% | 0.95 (0.75 to 1.22) |
| PHT vs TPM | No direct evidence | 0% | 1.09 (0.88 to 1.33) | |||
| PHT vs GBP | No direct evidence | 0% | 1.12 (0.91 to 1.39) | |||
| PHT vs LEV | No direct evidence | 0% | 1.02 (0.84 to 1.22) | |||
| PHT vs ZNS | No direct evidence | 0% | 0.97 (0.76 to 1.23) | |||
| VPS vs LTG | 3 | 221 | 1.22 (0.97 to 1.52) | 0% | 32.1% | 1.02 (0.85 to 1.22) |
| VPS vs OXC | No direct evidence | 0% | 0.90 (0.72 to 1.12) | |||
| VPS vs TPM | 2 | 111 | 1.08 (0.87 to 1.34) | 0% | 61.7% | 1.02 (0.83 to 1.23) |
| VPS vs GBP | No direct evidence | 0% | 1.05 (0.87 to 1.28) | |||
| VPS vs LEV | 1 | 190 | 1.09 (0.88 to 1.33) | NA | 40.5% | 0.95 (0.79 to 1.14) |
| VPS vs ZNS | No direct evidence | 0% | 0.91 (0.72 to 1.14) | |||
| LTG vs OXC | 1 | 499 | 1.08 (0.27 to 4.32) | NA | 2.4% | 0.88 (0.73 to 1.08) |
| LTG vs TPM | 1 | 636 | 0.89 (0.70 to 1.13) | NA | 1.7% | 1.00 (0.85 to 1.18) |
| LTG vs GBP | 1 | 647 | 1.46 (0.16 to 13.0) | NA | 1.6% | 1.04 (0.88 to 1.22) |
| LTG vs LEV | 1 | 240 | 0.83 (0.59 to 1.17) | NA | 17.8% | 0.93 (0.80 to 1.10) |
| LTG vs ZNS | No direct evidence | 0% | 0.89 (0.71 to 1.12) | |||
| OXC vs TPM | 1 | 487 | 0.86 (0.26 to 2.86) | NA | 3.3% | 1.14 (0.93 to 1.37) |
| OXC vs GBP | 1 | 498 | 1.35 (0.15 to 12.1) | NA | 2.1% | 1.18 (0.96 to 1.43) |
| OXC vs LEV | No direct evidence | 0% | 1.06 (0.86 to 1.32) | |||
| OXC vs ZNS | No direct evidence | 0% | 1.01 (0.78 to 1.32) | |||
| TPM vs GBP | 1 | 635 | 1.56 (0.2 to 12.5) | NA | 1.6% | 1.04 (0.88 to 1.23) |
| TPM vs LEV | No direct evidence | 0% | 0.93 (0.79 to 1.12) | |||
| TPM vs ZNS | No direct evidence | 0% | 0.89 (0.70 to 1.14) | |||
| GBP vs LEV | No direct evidence | 0% | 0.90 (0.75 to 1.09) | |||
| GBP vs ZNS | No direct evidence | 0% | 0.86 (0.68 to 1.10) | |||
| LEV vs ZNS | No direct evidence | 0% | 0.95 (0.77 to 1.19) | |||
CBZ: carbamazepine; CI: confidence interval; GBP: gabapentin; HR: hazard ratio; LEV: levetiracetam; LTG: lamotrigine; OXC: oxcarbazepine; PHB: phenobarbitone; PHT: phenytoin; TPM: topiramate; VPS: sodium valproate; ZNS: zonisamide
aOrder of drugs in the table: most commonly used drug first (carbamazepine), then drugs are ordered approximately by the date they were licenced as a monotherapy treatment (oldest first). bHRs and 95% CIs are calculated from fixed‐effect analyses (pairwise and network meta‐analysis); where substantial heterogeneity was present (I2 > 50%), random‐effects meta‐analysis was also conducted, see Effects of interventions for further details. cNote that HR < 1 indicates an advantage to the second drug in the comparison; results in highlighted in bold are statistically significant. dNA ‐ heterogeneity is not applicable as only one study contributed direct evidence. eDirect evidence (%) ‐ proportion of the estimate contributed by direct evidence.