28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reappraisal of the Medical Research Council Antiepileptic Drug Withdrawal Study: Contamination‐adjusted and dose‐response re‐analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          The 1991 Medical Research Council (MRC) Study compared seizure relapse for seizure‐free patients randomized to withdraw vs continue of antiseizure medications (ASMs). We re‐analyzed this trial to account for crossover between arms using contamination‐adjusted intention to treat (CA ITT) methods, to explore dose‐response curves, and to validate predictions against external data. ITT assesses the effect of being randomized to withdraw, as‐treated analysis assesses the confounded effect of withdrawing, but CA ITT assesses the unconfounded effect of actually withdrawing.

          Methods

          CA ITT involves two stages. First, we used randomized arm to predict whether patients withdrew their ASM (logistic) or total daily ASM dose (linear). Second, we used those values to predict seizure occurrence (logistic).

          Results

          The trial randomized 503 patients to withdraw and 501 patients to continue ASMs. We found that 316 of 376 patients (88%) who were randomized to withdraw decreased their dose at every pre‐seizure visit, compared with 35 of 424 (8%) who were randomized to continue ( p < .01). Adjusted odds ratios of a 2‐year seizure for those who withdrew vs those who did not was 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9–1.9) in the as‐treated analysis, 2.5 (95% CI 1.9–3.4) comparing those randomized to withdraw vs continue for ITT, and 3.1 (95% CI 2.1–4.5) for CA ITT. Probabilities (withdrawal vs continue) were 28% vs 24% (as‐treated), 40% vs 22% (ITT), and 43% vs 21% (CA ITT). Differences between ITT and CA ITT were greater when varying the predictor (reaching zero ASMs) or outcome (1‐year seizures). As‐treated dose‐response curves demonstrated little to no effects, but larger effects in CA ITT analysis. MRC data overpredicted risk in Lossius data, with moderate discrimination (areas under the curve ~0.70).

          Significance

          CA ITT results (the effect of actually withdrawing ASMs on seizures) were slightly greater than ITT effects (the effect of recommend withdrawing ASMs on seizures). How these findings affect clinical practice must be individualized.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Treatment Outcomes in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy Treated With Established and New Antiepileptic Drugs

          A study published in 2000 showed that more than one-third of adults with epilepsy have inadequate control of seizures with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). This study evaluates overall treatment outcomes in light of the introduction of more than 1 dozen new AEDs in the past 2 decades.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The hazards of hazard ratios.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                sterman@umich.edu
                Journal
                Epilepsia
                Epilepsia
                10.1111/(ISSN)1528-1167
                EPI
                Epilepsia
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0013-9580
                1528-1167
                18 May 2022
                July 2022
                : 63
                : 7 ( doiID: 10.1111/epi.v63.7 )
                : 1724-1735
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] ringgold 1259; Department of Neurology University of Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan USA
                [ 2 ] ringgold 1259; Department of Biostatistics School of Public Health University of Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan USA
                [ 3 ] Department of Child Neurology University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands
                [ 4 ] National Center for Epilepsy Oslo University Hospital Oslo Norway
                [ 5 ] Institute of Clinical Medicine University of Oslo Oslo Norway
                [ 6 ] ringgold 4591; Department of Health Data Science University of Liverpool Liverpool UK
                [ 7 ] ringgold 2647; Department of Neurology The Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA
                [ 8 ] ringgold 4591; Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics University of Liverpool Liverpool UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Samuel W. Terman, Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Taubman 1st Floor, Reception C, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, SPC 5316. Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

                Email: sterman@ 123456umich.edu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6179-9467
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1511-6834
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6861-8806
                Article
                EPI17273
                10.1111/epi.17273
                9283317
                35490396
                a6766d5e-90f5-4122-ba49-02f1d88b4a8e
                © 2022 The Authors. Epilepsia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 27 April 2022
                : 01 March 2022
                : 27 April 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Pages: 12, Words: 6213
                Funding
                Funded by: American Epilepsy Society , doi 10.13039/100001454;
                Funded by: Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research , doi 10.13039/100008269;
                Award ID: UL1TR002240
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                July 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.0 mode:remove_FC converted:07.10.2022

                Neurology
                antiseizure medication,clinical trials,drug withdrawal,epilepsy,risk prediction
                Neurology
                antiseizure medication, clinical trials, drug withdrawal, epilepsy, risk prediction

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content181

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors332