Subcutaneous sodium valproate in palliative care: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Seizures are an important palliative symptom, the management of which can be complicated by patients' capacity to swallow oral medications. In this setting, and the wish to avoid intravenous access, subcutaneous infusions may be employed. Options for antiseizure medications that can be provided subcutaneously may be limited. Subcutaneous sodium valproate may be an additional management strategy. AIM: To evaluate the published experience of subcutaneous valproate use in palliative care, namely with respect to effectiveness and tolerability. DESIGN: A systematic review was registered (PROSPERO CRD42023453427), conducted and reported according to PRISMA reporting guidelines. DATA SOURCES: The databases PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus were searched for publications until August 11, 2023. RESULTS: The searches returned 429 results, of which six fulfilled inclusion criteria. Case series were the most common study design, and most studies included <10 individuals who received subcutaneous sodium valproate. There were three studies that presented results on the utility of subcutaneous sodium valproate for seizure control, which described it to be an effective strategy. One study also described it as an effective treatment for neuropathic pain. The doses were often based on presumed 1:1 oral to subcutaneous conversion ratios. Only one study described a local site adverse reaction, which resolved with a change of administration site. CONCLUSIONS: There are limited data on the use of subcutaneous sodium valproate in palliative care. However, palliative symptoms for which subcutaneous sodium valproate have been used successfully are seizures and neuropathic pain. The available data have described few adverse effects, supporting its use with an appropriate degree of caution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".