Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
AIM: To evaluate the actual evidence of efficacy of oral pharmacological treatments in the management of dyskinetic cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: A systematic review was performed according to the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine (AACPDM) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. Articles were searched for in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness, OTSeeker, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, REHABDATA, and ClinicalTrials.gov. RESULTS: Sixteen articles met the eligibility criteria. Eight studies on trihexyphenidyl and two on levodopa showed contradictory results. Low efficacy was reported for diazepam, dantrolene sodium, perphenazine, and etybenzatropine. Tetrabenazine, gabapentin and levetiracetam should be studied in more detail. The updated available evidence does not support any therapeutic algorithm for the management of dyskinetic CP. INTERPRETATION: This lack of evidence is partially owing to the inconsistency of classifications of patients and of outcome measures used in the reviewed studies. Further randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pharmacological trials, optimized for different age groups, based on valid, reliable, and disease-specific rating scales are strongly needed. Outcome measures should be selected within the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Evidence to prove (or disprove) the efficacy of oral drugs in dyskinetic cerebral palsy is low. The most investigated drugs, trihexyphenidyl and levodopa, show contradictory results. Tetrabenazine, levetiracetam, and gabapentin efficacy should be studied in more detail. Lack of evidence is partially due to the inconsistency of classifications and outcome measures used. Outcome measures should be selected within the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in next clinical trials.
Masson et al. (Tue,) studied this question.