Cargando…

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

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) m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Terman, Samuel W., Wang, Chang, Wang, Lu, Braun, Kees P. J., Otte, Willem M., Slinger, Geertruida, Kerr, Wesley T., Lossius, Morten I., Bonnett, Laura, Burke, James F., Marson, Anthony
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9283317/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35490396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/epi.17273
_version_ 1784747287657840640
author Terman, Samuel W.
Wang, Chang
Wang, Lu
Braun, Kees P. J.
Otte, Willem M.
Slinger, Geertruida
Kerr, Wesley T.
Lossius, Morten I.
Bonnett, Laura
Burke, James F.
Marson, Anthony
author_facet Terman, Samuel W.
Wang, Chang
Wang, Lu
Braun, Kees P. J.
Otte, Willem M.
Slinger, Geertruida
Kerr, Wesley T.
Lossius, Morten I.
Bonnett, Laura
Burke, James F.
Marson, Anthony
author_sort Terman, Samuel W.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9283317
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92833172022-07-15 Reappraisal of the Medical Research Council Antiepileptic Drug Withdrawal Study: Contamination‐adjusted and dose‐response re‐analysis Terman, Samuel W. Wang, Chang Wang, Lu Braun, Kees P. J. Otte, Willem M. Slinger, Geertruida Kerr, Wesley T. Lossius, Morten I. Bonnett, Laura Burke, James F. Marson, Anthony Epilepsia Research Article 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-05-18 2022-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9283317/ /pubmed/35490396 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/epi.17273 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Epilepsia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://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.
spellingShingle Research Article
Terman, Samuel W.
Wang, Chang
Wang, Lu
Braun, Kees P. J.
Otte, Willem M.
Slinger, Geertruida
Kerr, Wesley T.
Lossius, Morten I.
Bonnett, Laura
Burke, James F.
Marson, Anthony
Reappraisal of the Medical Research Council Antiepileptic Drug Withdrawal Study: Contamination‐adjusted and dose‐response re‐analysis
title Reappraisal of the Medical Research Council Antiepileptic Drug Withdrawal Study: Contamination‐adjusted and dose‐response re‐analysis
title_full Reappraisal of the Medical Research Council Antiepileptic Drug Withdrawal Study: Contamination‐adjusted and dose‐response re‐analysis
title_fullStr Reappraisal of the Medical Research Council Antiepileptic Drug Withdrawal Study: Contamination‐adjusted and dose‐response re‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Reappraisal of the Medical Research Council Antiepileptic Drug Withdrawal Study: Contamination‐adjusted and dose‐response re‐analysis
title_short Reappraisal of the Medical Research Council Antiepileptic Drug Withdrawal Study: Contamination‐adjusted and dose‐response re‐analysis
title_sort reappraisal of the medical research council antiepileptic drug withdrawal study: contamination‐adjusted and dose‐response re‐analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9283317/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35490396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/epi.17273
work_keys_str_mv AT termansamuelw reappraisalofthemedicalresearchcouncilantiepilepticdrugwithdrawalstudycontaminationadjustedanddoseresponsereanalysis
AT wangchang reappraisalofthemedicalresearchcouncilantiepilepticdrugwithdrawalstudycontaminationadjustedanddoseresponsereanalysis
AT wanglu reappraisalofthemedicalresearchcouncilantiepilepticdrugwithdrawalstudycontaminationadjustedanddoseresponsereanalysis
AT braunkeespj reappraisalofthemedicalresearchcouncilantiepilepticdrugwithdrawalstudycontaminationadjustedanddoseresponsereanalysis
AT ottewillemm reappraisalofthemedicalresearchcouncilantiepilepticdrugwithdrawalstudycontaminationadjustedanddoseresponsereanalysis
AT slingergeertruida reappraisalofthemedicalresearchcouncilantiepilepticdrugwithdrawalstudycontaminationadjustedanddoseresponsereanalysis
AT kerrwesleyt reappraisalofthemedicalresearchcouncilantiepilepticdrugwithdrawalstudycontaminationadjustedanddoseresponsereanalysis
AT lossiusmorteni reappraisalofthemedicalresearchcouncilantiepilepticdrugwithdrawalstudycontaminationadjustedanddoseresponsereanalysis
AT bonnettlaura reappraisalofthemedicalresearchcouncilantiepilepticdrugwithdrawalstudycontaminationadjustedanddoseresponsereanalysis
AT burkejamesf reappraisalofthemedicalresearchcouncilantiepilepticdrugwithdrawalstudycontaminationadjustedanddoseresponsereanalysis
AT marsonanthony reappraisalofthemedicalresearchcouncilantiepilepticdrugwithdrawalstudycontaminationadjustedanddoseresponsereanalysis