6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Safety of Early Discontinuation of Antiseizure Medication After Acute Symptomatic Neonatal Seizures

      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.

          Key Points

          Question

          Is discontinuation of antiseizure medication (ASM) after resolution of acute symptomatic neonatal seizures and prior to discharge from the hospital associated with functional neurodevelopment or epilepsy at 24 months?

          Findings

          In this comparative effectiveness study of 303 children with neonatal seizures from 9 centers, 64% had ASM maintained at hospital discharge. No difference was found between ASM maintenance and discontinuation groups in functional neurodevelopment or epilepsy; 13% of children developed epilepsy, including more than one-third with infantile spasms.

          Meaning

          These results support discontinuing ASMs for most neonates with acute symptomatic seizures prior to discharge from the hospital, an approach that may represent an evidence-based change in practice for many clinicians.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Antiseizure medication (ASM) treatment duration for acute symptomatic neonatal seizures is variable. A randomized clinical trial of phenobarbital compared with placebo after resolution of acute symptomatic seizures closed early owing to low enrollment.

          Objective

          To assess whether ASM discontinuation after resolution of acute symptomatic neonatal seizures and before hospital discharge is associated with functional neurodevelopment or risk of epilepsy at age 24 months.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This comparative effectiveness study included 303 neonates with acute symptomatic seizures (282 with follow-up data and 270 with the primary outcome measure) from 9 US Neonatal Seizure Registry centers, born from July 2015 to March 2018. The centers all had level IV neonatal intensive care units and comprehensive pediatric epilepsy programs. Data were analyzed from June 2020 to February 2021.

          Exposures

          The primary exposure was duration of ASM treatment dichotomized as ASM discontinued vs ASM maintained at the time of discharge from the neonatal seizure admission. To enhance causal association, each outcome risk was adjusted for propensity to receive ASM at discharge. Propensity for ASM maintenance was defined by a logistic regression model including seizure cause, gestational age, therapeutic hypothermia, worst electroencephalogram background, days of electroencephalogram seizures, and discharge examination (all P ≤ .10 in a joint model except cause, which was included for face validity).

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Functional neurodevelopment was assessed by the Warner Initial Developmental Evaluation of Adaptive and Functional Skills (WIDEA-FS) at 24 months powered for propensity-adjusted noninferiority of early ASM discontinuation. Postneonatal epilepsy, a prespecified secondary outcome, was defined per International League Against Epilepsy criteria, determined by parent interview, and corroborated by medical records.

          Results

          Most neonates (194 of 303 [64%]) had ASM maintained at the time of hospital discharge. Among 270 children evaluated at 24 months (mean [SD], 23.8 [0.7] months; 147 [54%] were male), the WIDEA-FS score was similar for the infants whose ASMs were discontinued (101 of 270 [37%]) compared with the infants with ASMs maintained (169 of 270 [63%]) at discharge (median score, 165 [interquartile range, 150-175] vs 161 [interquartile range, 129-174]; P = .09). The propensity-adjusted average difference was 4 points (90% CI, −3 to 11 points), which met the a priori noninferiority limit of −12 points. The epilepsy risk was similar (11% vs 14%; P = .49), with a propensity-adjusted odds ratio of 1.5 (95% CI, 0.7-3.4; P = .32).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this comparative effectiveness study, no difference was found in functional neurodevelopment or epilepsy at age 24 months among children whose ASM was discontinued vs maintained at hospital discharge after resolution of acute symptomatic neonatal seizures. These results support discontinuation of ASM prior to hospital discharge for most infants with acute symptomatic neonatal seizures.

          Abstract

          This comparative effectiveness study assesses whether discontinuation of antiseizure medication prior to discharge from the hospital after resolution of acute symptomatic neonatal seizures is associated with impaired functional neurodevelopment or the risk of epilepsy at 24 months.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

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

          An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies

          The propensity score is the probability of treatment assignment conditional on observed baseline characteristics. The propensity score allows one to design and analyze an observational (nonrandomized) study so that it mimics some of the particular characteristics of a randomized controlled trial. In particular, the propensity score is a balancing score: conditional on the propensity score, the distribution of observed baseline covariates will be similar between treated and untreated subjects. I describe 4 different propensity score methods: matching on the propensity score, stratification on the propensity score, inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score. I describe balance diagnostics for examining whether the propensity score model has been adequately specified. Furthermore, I discuss differences between regression-based methods and propensity score-based methods for the analysis of observational data. I describe different causal average treatment effects and their relationship with propensity score analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            The Elements of Statistical Learning

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

              Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment.

              The performance of a diagnostic test in the case of a binary predictor can be evaluated using the measures of sensitivity and specificity. However, in many instances, we encounter predictors that are measured on a continuous or ordinal scale. In such cases, it is desirable to assess performance of a diagnostic test over the range of possible cutpoints for the predictor variable. This is achieved by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve that includes all the possible decision thresholds from a diagnostic test result. In this brief report, we discuss the salient features of the ROC curve, as well as discuss and interpret the area under the ROC curve, and its utility in comparing two different tests or predictor variables of interest.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Neurol
                JAMA Neurol
                JAMA Neurol
                JAMA Neurology
                American Medical Association
                2168-6149
                2168-6157
                24 May 2021
                July 2021
                8 July 2021
                24 May 2021
                : 78
                : 7
                : 1-9
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco
                [2 ]Department of Pediatrics, UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco
                [3 ]Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics; University of California, San Francisco
                [4 ]Department of Neurology, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [5 ]Department of Neurology, Children’s National Hospital, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC
                [6 ]Department of Neurology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
                [7 ]Division of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
                [8 ]Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [9 ]Department of Neurology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [10 ]Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [11 ]Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [12 ]Departments of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
                [13 ]Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
                [14 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati, Division of Neurology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
                [15 ]Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Golisano Children's Hospital, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
                [16 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [17 ]Department of Family Health Care Nursing, University of California, San Francisco
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: March 18, 2021.
                Published Online: May 24, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.1437
                Correction: This article was corrected on July 8, 2021, to add CC-BY Open Access.
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Glass HC et al. JAMA Neurology.
                Corresponding Author: Hannah C. Glass, MDCM, MAS, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Ln, PO Box 0663, San Francisco, CA 94143 ( hannah.glass@ 123456ucsf.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Glass and McCulloch had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Glass and Shellhaas are the co–primary investigators of the listed Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) contract.
                Concept and design: Glass, Chang, Wusthoff, Chu, Massey, Abend, Lemmon, Thomas, Guillet, Rogers, Franck, Shellhaas.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Glass, Soul, Chang, Wusthoff, Chu, Massey, Abend, Lemmon, Thomas, Numis, Sturza, McNamara, Rogers, McCulloch, Shellhaas.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Glass, Shellhaas.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Glass, Sturza, McCulloch.
                Obtained funding: Glass, Shellhaas.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Glass, Chang, Wusthoff, Chu, Thomas, Numis, McNamara, Franck, Shellhaas.
                Supervision: Glass, Wusthoff, Chu, Thomas, Rogers, Shellhaas.
                Other - co-investigator for grant : Guillet.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Glass reported grants from PCORI and grants from the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation during the conduct of the study and grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Cerebral Palsy Alliance during the conduct of the study outside the submitted work. Dr Soul reported grants from UCB Pharma outside the submitted work. Dr Chang reported grants from PCORI during the conduct of the study. Dr Wusthoff reported grants from PCORI during the conduct of the study. Dr Chu reported grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study and grants from Biogen Inc and personal fees from Sleep Med Inc outside the submitted work. Dr Abend reported receiving royalties from Demos, consultation fees from the Epilepsy Foundation, grants from the NIH, and grants from UCB Pharma outside the submitted work. Dr Lemmon reported grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study and payment for expert testimony from the Department of Justice Medicolegal Team outside the submitted work. Dr Thomas reported grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr Numis reported grants from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) (K23NS105918) outside the submitted work. Dr Guillet reported grants from PCORI during the conduct of the study and grants from the Neonatal Research Network at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the NIH as site alternate PI with salary support; grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the NIH as coinvestigator with salary support; and grants from the Clinical & Translational Science Institute at the University of Rochester as a Member of Education Directorate with salary support outside the submitted work. Dr McNamara reported grants from the Spasm Prediction After Symptomatic Neonatal Seizures in the SPASM Study Pediatric Epilepsy Research during the conduct of the study. Dr McCulloch reported grants from the NIH and grants from PCORI during the conduct of the study. Dr Shellhaas reported grants from PCORI during the conduct of the study; personal fees from UpToDate for authorship related to neonatal seizures; personal fees from The Epilepsy Study Consortium as a consultant, personal fees from American Academy of Neurology as Associate Editor of Neurology, grants from the NIH, and grants from the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: PCORI supported this study (2015C2-1507-31187).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organization had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Additional Contributions: We thank the Neonatal Seizure Registry Parent Advisory Panel and representatives from Casey’s Circle, Hand to Hold, and Hope for HIE (hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy), whose members contributed valuable perspectives regarding study design, implementation, and interpretation. The authors acknowledge Donna Ferriero, MD, MS (University of California, San Francisco), and Faye Silverstein, MD (University of Michigan), for their contributions to the Neonatal Seizure Registry. No compensation was received. We are grateful for the hard work of the clinical research coordinators at each study center.
                Article
                noi210025
                10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.1437
                8145161
                34028496
                d9cc1e91-f1ce-434e-b913-6ad21de04ff0
                Copyright 2021 Glass HC et al. JAMA Neurology.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 11 November 2020
                : 18 March 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Featured
                Online First
                Comments

                Comments

                Comment on this article