Breakthrough Seizures - Further analysis of the Standard versus New Antiepileptic Drugs (SANAD) study

Objectives To develop prognostic models for risk of a breakthrough seizure, risk of seizure recurrence after a breakthrough seizure, and likelihood of achieving 12-month remission following a breakthrough seizure. A breakthrough seizure is one that occurs following at least 12 months remission whilst on treatment. Methods We analysed data from the SANAD study. This long-term randomised trial compared treatments for participants with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Multivariable Cox models investigated how clinical factors affect the probability of each outcome. Best fitting multivariable models were produced with variable reduction by Akaike’s Information Criterion. Risks associated with combinations of risk factors were calculated from each multivariable model. Results Significant factors in the multivariable model for risk of a breakthrough seizure following 12-month remission were number of tonic-clonic seizures by achievement of 12-month remission, time taken to achieve 12-month remission, and neurological insult. Significant factors in the model for risk of seizure recurrence following a breakthrough seizure were total number of drugs attempted to achieve 12-month remission, time to achieve 12-month remission prior to breakthrough seizure, and breakthrough seizure treatment decision. Significant factors in the model for likelihood of achieving 12-month remission after a breakthrough seizure were gender, age at breakthrough seizure, time to achieve 12-month remission prior to breakthrough, and breakthrough seizure treatment decision. Conclusions This is the first analysis to consider risk of a breakthrough seizure and subsequent outcomes. The described models can be used to identify people most likely to have a breakthrough seizure, a seizure recurrence following a breakthrough seizure, and to achieve 12-month remission following a breakthrough seizure. The results suggest that focussing on achieving 12-month remission swiftly represents the best therapeutic aim to reduce the risk of a breakthrough seizure and subsequent negative outcomes. This will aid individual patient risk stratification and the design of future epilepsy trials

Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, first published in Issue 1, 2003 and updated in 2015. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenobarbitone are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for partial onset seizures, and is used in the USA and Europe. Phenobarbitone is no longer considered a first-line treatment because of concerns over associated adverse events, particularly documented behavioural adverse events in children treated with the drug. However, phenobarbitone is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.To review the time to withdrawal, remission, and first seizure of carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 18 August 2016: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (from 1823) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.RCTs in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenobarbitone monotherapy.This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'adverse events'. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.IPD were available for 836 participants out of 1455 eligible individuals from six out of 13 trials; 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for phenobarbitone, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were HR 1.50 for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; P = 0.003); HR 0.93 for time to achieve 12-month remission (95% CI 0.72 to 1.20; P = 0.57); HR 0.99 for time to achieve six-month remission (95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; P = 0.95); and HR 0.87 for time to first seizure (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06; P = 0.18). Results suggest an advantage for carbamazepine over phenobarbitone in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and no statistically significant evidence between the drugs for the other outcomes. We found evidence of a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (Chi² test for subgroup differences P = 0.03), where phenobarbitone was favoured for partial onset seizures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02) and carbamazepine was favoured for generalised onset seizures (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.77; P = 0.27). We found no evidence of an interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for the other outcomes. However, methodological quality of the included studies was variable, with 10 out of the 13 included studies (4 out of 6 studies contributing IPD) judged at high risk of bias for at least one methodological aspect, leading to variable individual study results, and therefore, heterogeneity in the analyses of this review. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of poor methodological aspects, where possible.Overall, we found evidence suggestive of an advantage for carbamazepine in terms of drug effectiveness compared with phenobarbitone (retention of the drug in terms of seizure control and adverse events) and evidence suggestive of an association between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (phenobarbitone favoured for partial seizures and carbamazepine favoured for generalised seizures). However, this evidence was judged to be of low quality due to poor methodological quality and the potential impact on individual study results (and therefore variability (heterogeneity) present in the analysis within this review), we encourage caution when interpreting the results of this review and do not advocate that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations for allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results

Indirect Comparisons: A Review of Reporting and Methodological Quality

Background: The indirect comparison of two interventions can be valuable in many situations. However, the quality of an indirect comparison will depend on several factors including the chosen methodology and validity of underlying assumptions. Published indirect comparisons are increasingly more common in the medical literature, but as yet, there are no published recommendations of how they should be reported. Our aim is to systematically review the quality of published indirect comparisons to add to existing empirical data suggesting that improvements can be made when reporting and applying indirect comparisons. Methodology/Findings: Reviews applying statistical methods to indirectly compare the clinical effectiveness of two interventions using randomised controlled trials were eligible. We searched (1966–2008) Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, The Cochrane library, and Medline. Full review publications were assessed for eligibility. Specific criteria to assess quality were developed and applied. Forty-three reviews were included. Adequate methodology was used to calculate the indirect comparison in 41 reviews. Nineteen reviews assessed the similarity assumption using sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, or meta-regression. Eleven reviews compared trial-level characteristics. Twenty-four reviews assessed statistical homogeneity. Twelve reviews investigated causes of heterogeneity. Seventeen reviews included direct and indirect evidence for the same comparison; six reviews assessed consistency. One review combined both evidence types. Twentyfive reviews urged caution in interpretation of results, and 24 reviews indicated when results were from indirect evidence by stating this term with the result. Conclusions: This review shows that the underlying assumptions are not routinely explored or reported when undertaking indirect comparisons. We recommend, therefore, that the quality of indirect comparisons should be improved, in particular, by assessing assumptions and reporting the assessment methods applied. We propose that the quality criteria applied in this article may provide a basis to help review authors carry out indirect comparisons and to aid appropriate interpretation

Topiramate versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy, the majority of which may be able to achieve remission with a single antiepileptic drug (AED).The correct choice of first-line antiepileptic therapy for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AED for an individual is based on the highest-quality evidence available regarding the potential benefits and harms of various treatments. It is also important to compare the efficacy and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types.Topiramate and carbamazepine are commonly used AEDs. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of results of outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability, and may help inform a choice between the two drugs.To assess the effects of topiramate monotherapy versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy in people with partial-onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (14 April 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (14 April 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 14 April 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators.Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial-onset seizures or generalised-onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types with a comparison of monotherapy with either topiramate or carbamazepine.This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to first seizure post randomisation', 'time to 6-month remission, 'time to 12-month remission' and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and used the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HRs and 95% CIs.IPD were available for 1151 of 1239 eligible individuals from two of three eligible studies (93% of the potential data). A small proportion of individuals recruited into these trials had 'unclassified seizures;' for analysis purposes, these individuals are grouped with those with generalised onset seizures. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for topiramate.The main overall results, given as pooled HR adjusted for seizure type (95% CI) were: for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.16 (0.98 to 1.38); time to first seizure 1.11 (0.96 to 1.29); and time to 6-month remission 0.88 (0.76 to 1.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs. A statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to 12-month remission: 0.84 (0.71 to 1.00).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial-onset seizures; 85% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. For individuals with partial-onset seizures, a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.45) and time to 12-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00). No statistically significant differences were apparent between the drugs for other outcomes and for the limited number of individuals with generalised-onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types or unclassified seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events with both drugs were drowsiness or fatigue, 'pins and needles' (tingling sensation), headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and anxiety or depression The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.We judged the methodological quality of the included trials generally to be good; however, there was some evidence that the open-label design of the larger of the two trials may have influenced the withdrawal rate from the trial. Hence, we judged the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment withdrawal to be moderate for individuals with partial-onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised-onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the evidence from this review to be high for individuals with partial-onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised-onset or unclassified seizures.For individuals with partial-onset seizures, there is evidence that carbamazepine is less likely to be withdrawn and that 12-month remission will be achieved earlier than with topiramate. No differences were found between the drugs in terms of the outcomes measured in the review for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other seizure types or unclassified epilepsy; however, we encourage caution in the interpretation of these results due to the small numbers of participants with these seizure types.We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible and take into consideration masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review.

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line antiepileptic therapy for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments. It is also important that the effectiveness and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types are compared to one another.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are first-line recommended treatments for new onset partial seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs.To review the time to withdrawal, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).The first searches for this review were run in 1997. For the most recent update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (17 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 17 October 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 17 October 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators.Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine.This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.We included 13 studies in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3394 eligible individuals from nine out of 13 trials: 78% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were: time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), time to first seizure (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.37) and time to six-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94), showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine for withdrawal but a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07) or time to 24-month remission (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so the evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment withdrawal to be moderate for individuals with partial onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with partial onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures.Lamotrigine was significantly less likely to be withdrawn than carbamazepine but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. A choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results

The CONSENSUS study: protocol for a mixed methods study to establish which outcomes should be included in a core outcome set for oropharyngeal cancer

BACKGROUND: The incidence of oropharyngeal cancer is increasing in the developed world. This has led to a large rise in research activity and clinical trials in this area, yet there is no consensus on which outcomes should be measured. As a result, the outcomes measured often differ between trials of comparable interventions, making the combination or comparison of results between trials impossible. Outcomes may also be ‘cherry-picked’, such that favourable results are reported, and less favourable results withheld. The development of a minimum outcome reporting standard, known as a core outcome set, goes some way to addressing these problems. Core outcome sets are ideally developed using a patient-centred approach so that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and clinical practice. Core outcome sets drive up the quality and relevance of research by ensuring that the right outcomes are consistently measured and reported in trials in specific areas of health or healthcare. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a mixed methods study involving three phases to develop a core outcome set for oropharyngeal cancer clinical trials. Firstly, a systematic review will establish which outcomes are measured in published oropharyngeal cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Secondly, qualitative interviews with patients and carers in the UK and the USA will aim to establish which outcomes are important to these stakeholders. Data from these first two stages will be used to develop a comprehensive list of outcomes to be considered for inclusion in the core outcome set. In the third stage, patients and clinicians will participate in an iterative consensus exercise known as a Delphi study to refine the contents of the core outcome set. This protocol lays out the methodology to be implemented in the CONSENSUS study. DISCUSSION: A core outcome set defines a minimum outcome reporting standard for clinical trials in a particular area of health or healthcare. Its consistent implementation in oropharyngeal cancer clinical trials will improve the quality and relevance of research. TRIALS AND REGISTRATION: This study is registered at the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) portfolio, ID 13823 (17 January 2013)

Exploring treatment by covariate interactions using subgroup analysis and meta-regression in cochrane reviews:a review of recent practice

Treatment by covariate interactions can be explored in reviews using interaction analyses (e.g., subgroup analysis). Such analyses can provide information on how the covariate modifies the treatment effect and is an important methodological approach for personalising medicine. Guidance exists regarding how to apply such analyses but little is known about whether authors follow the guidance.Using published recommendations, we developed criteria to assess how well interaction analyses were designed, applied, interpreted, and reported. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (8th August 2013). We applied the criteria to the most recently published review, with an accessible protocol, for each Cochrane Review Group. We excluded review updates, diagnostic test accuracy reviews, withdrawn reviews, and overviews of reviews. Data were summarised regarding reviews, covariates, and analyses.Each of the 52 included reviews planned or did interaction analyses; 51 reviews (98%) planned analyses and 33 reviews (63%) applied analyses. The type of analysis planned and the type subsequently applied (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analysis) was discrepant in 24 reviews (46%). No review reported how or why each covariate had been chosen; 22 reviews (42%) did state each covariate a priori in the protocol but no review identified each post-hoc covariate as such. Eleven reviews (21%) mentioned five covariates or less. One review reported planning to use a method to detect interactions (i.e., interaction test) for each covariate; another review reported applying the method for each covariate. Regarding interpretation, only one review reported whether an interaction was detected for each covariate and no review discussed the importance, or plausibility, of the results, or the possibility of confounding for each covariate.Interaction analyses in Cochrane Reviews can be substantially improved. The proposed criteria can be used to help guide the reporting and conduct of analyses