Nonblanchable erythema for predicting pressure ulcer development: a systematic review with an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Empirical evidence is uncertain regarding the value of nonblanchable erythema in predicting the incidence of stage 2 (or more severe) pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether nonblanchable erythema is an independent prognostic factor for pressure ulcer incidence using individual patient data. METHODS: We performed an electronic database search in February 2017 to identify longitudinal studies that considered nonblanchable erythema for predicting pressure ulcer risk in any population. We collected individual participant data for the included studies, and assessed the risk of bias of these studies using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. We analysed individual participant data in Stata using mixed-effects logistic regression to investigate the association of interest. The certainty of evidence from individual participant data analysis was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017081151). RESULTS: From the 13 included studies (total 68 077 participants) we had access to individual participant data from four (n = 3223), and 11·9% of participants (383 of 3223) developed new pressure ulcers of stage 2 or above within 28 days. Mixed-effects logistic regression showed that participants with nonblanchable erythema had higher odds of developing new pressure ulcers of stage 2 or above within 28 days of follow-up than those without nonblanchable erythema (multivariable association: n = 2684; odds ratio 2·72, 95% confidence interval 2·02-3·69; τ2 = 0; moderate-certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: This first prognostic factor review with individual-level data analysis in patients with pressure ulcers suggests that people with nonblanchable erythema are more likely to develop new pressure ulcers of stage 2 or above within 28 days than people without nonblanchable erythema. It is important to identify nonblanchable erythema in practice and to intervene appropriately to prevent pressure ulceration. What's already known about this topic? Pressure ulcer reduction is a high priority for healthcare systems. Regularly inspecting skin to identify skin abnormalities is one key practice for preventing ulceration. Nonblanchable erythema - discoloration of the skin that does not turn white when pressed - is one clinically important skin abnormality. Empirical evidence synthesized using conventional meta-analysis is uncertain regarding the value of nonblanchable erythema for predicting open pressure ulcer incidence; this is partly because the conventional technique has weakness in terms of pooling prognostic effects of different multivariable analyses across studies. What does this study add? This prognostic factor review used individual-level data analysis to overcome the limitations of the conventional meta-analysis technique. For the first time there is confirmatory and moderate-certainty evidence on the association of nonblanchable erythema with pressure ulcer incidence. People with nonblanchable erythema are more likely to develop new pressure ulcers of stage 2 or more severe within 28 days than people without nonblanchable erythema, regardless of their age, baseline pressure ulcer risk or received support surfaces.

Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods.

BACKGROUND: Routinely recorded data held in electronic health records can be used to inform the conduct of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, limitations with access and accuracy have been identified. OBJECTIVE: Using epilepsy as an exemplar condition, we assessed the attributes and agreement of routinely recorded data compared to data collected using case report forms in a UK RCT assessing antiepileptic drug treatments for individuals newly diagnosed with epilepsy. METHODS: The case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK multicentre RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drugs as treatments for epilepsy. Ninety-eight of 470 eligible participants provided consent for access to routinely recorded secondary care data that were retrieved from NHS Digital Hospital Episode Statistics (N=71) and primary and secondary care data from The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (N=27). We assessed data items relevant to the identification of individuals eligible for inclusion in SANAD II, baseline and follow-up visits. The attributes of routinely recorded data were assessed including the degree of missing data. The agreement between routinely recorded data and data collected on case report forms in SANAD II was assessed using calculation of Cohen's kappa for categorical data and construction of Bland-Altman plots for continuous data. RESULTS: There was a significant degree of missing data in the routine record for 15 of the 20 variables assessed, including all clinical variables. Agreement was poor for the majority of comparisons, including the assessments of seizure occurrence and adverse events. For example, only 23/62 (37%) participants had a date of first-ever seizure identified in routine datasets. Agreement was satisfactory for the date of prescription of antiepileptic drugs and episodes of healthcare resource use. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently significant limitations preventing the use of routinely recorded data for participant identification and assessment of clinical outcomes in epilepsy, and potentially other chronic conditions. Further research is urgently required to assess the attributes, agreement, additional benefits, cost-effectiveness and 'optimal mix' of routinely recorded data compared to data collected using standard methods such as case report forms at clinic visits for people with epilepsy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II (EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64, registered 05/09/2012; ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN30294119 , registered 03/07/2012)).

Risk of a seizure recurrence after a breakthrough seizure and the implications for driving: further analysis of the standard versus new antiepileptic drugs (SANAD) randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: A breakthrough seizure is one occurring after at least 12 months seizure freedom while on treatment. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) allows an individual to return to driving once they have been seizure free for 12 months following a breakthrough seizure. This is based on the assumption that the risk of a further seizure in the next 12 months has dropped <20%. This analysis considers whether the prescribed 1 year off driving following a breakthrough seizure is sufficient for this and stratifies risk according to clinical characteristics. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The multicentre UK-based Standard versus New Antiepileptic Drugs (SANAD) study was a randomised controlled trial assessing standard and new antiepileptic drugs for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. For participants aged at least 16 with a breakthrough seizure, data have been analysed to estimate the annual seizure recurrence risk following a period of 6, 9 and 12 months seizure freedom. Regression modelling was used to investigate how antiepileptic drug treatment and a number of clinical factors influence the risk of seizure recurrence. RESULTS: At 12 months following a breakthrough seizure, the overall unadjusted risk of a recurrence over the next 12 months is lower than 20%, risk 17% (95% CI 15% to 19%). However, some patient subgroups have been identified which have an annual recurrence risk significantly greater than 20% after an initial 12-month seizure-free period following a breakthrough seizure. CONCLUSIONS: This reanalysis of SANAD provides estimates of seizure recurrence risks following a breakthrough seizure that will inform policy and guidance about regaining an ordinary driving licence. Further guidance is needed as to how such data should be used. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: SANAD is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN38354748.

Using routinely recorded data in the UK to assess outcomes in a randomised controlled trial: The Trials of Access.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, routinely recorded data may benefit prospective studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In an on-going study, we aim to assess the feasibility of access and agreement of routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data compared to data collected during a RCT using standard prospective methods. This paper will summarise available UK routinely recorded data sources and discuss our experience with the feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data for participants of a RCT before finally proposing recommendations for improving the access and implementation of routinely recorded data in RCTs. METHODS: Setting: the case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK, multicentre, phase IV RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatments for newly diagnosed epilepsy. PARTICIPANTS: 98 participants have provided written consent to permit the request of routinely recorded data. Study procedures: routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data were identified and data requested through formal applications from available data holders for the duration that participants have been recruited into SANAD II. The feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data during a RCT is assessed and recommendations for improving access proposed. RESULTS: Secondary-care clinical and socioeconomic data is recorded on a national basis and can be accessed, although there are limitations in the application process. Primary-care data are recorded by a number of organisations on a de-identified basis but access for specific individuals has not been feasible. Access to data recorded by non-clinical sources, including The Department for Work and Pensions and The Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency, was not successful. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations discussed include further research to assess the attributes of routinely recorded data, an assessment of public perceptions and the development of strategies to collaboratively improve access to routinely recorded data for research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN30294119 . Registered on 3 July 2012. EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64. Registered on 9 May 2012.

Child development following in utero exposure: levetiracetam vs sodium valproate.

OBJECTIVE: Children born to women with epilepsy (WWE), exposed in utero to levetiracetam (LEV, n = 51), were assessed for early cognitive development and compared to children exposed to sodium valproate in utero (VPA, n = 44) and a group of children representative of the general population (n = 97). METHODS: Children were recruited prospectively from 2 cohorts in the United Kingdom and assessed using the Griffiths Mental Development Scale (1996), aged <24 months. Information regarding maternal demographics were collected and controlled for. This is an observational study with researchers not involved in the clinical management of the WWE. RESULTS: On overall developmental ability, children exposed to LEV obtained higher developmental scores when compared to children exposed to VPA (p < 0.001). When compared, children exposed to LEV did not differ from control children (p = 0.62) on overall development. Eight percent of children exposed to LEV in utero fell within the below average range (DQ score of <84), compared with 40% of children exposed to VPA. After controlling for maternal epilepsy and demographic factors using linear regression analysis, exposure to LEV in utero was not associated with outcome (p = 0.67). Conversely, when compared with VPA exposure, LEV exposure was associated with higher scores for the overall developmental quotient (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Children exposed to LEV in utero are not at an increased risk of delayed early cognitive development under the age of 24 months. LEV may therefore be a preferable drug choice, where appropriate, for WWE prior to and of childbearing age.

Risk of recurrence after a first seizure and implications for driving: further analysis of the Multicentre study of early Epilepsy and Single Seizures.

OBJECTIVE: To determine for how long after a first unprovoked seizure a driver must be seizure-free before the risk of recurrence in the next 12 months falls below 20%, enabling them to regain their driving licence. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial: Multicentre study of early Epilepsy and Single Seizures (MESS). SETTING: UK hospital outpatient clinics from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2000. PARTICIPANTS: People entered MESS if they had had one or more unprovoked seizures and both the participant and the clinician were uncertain about the need to start antiepileptic drug treatment. The subset of people used for this analysis comprised participants aged at least 16 years with a single unprovoked seizure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Risk of seizure recurrence in the 12 months after a seizure-free period of 6, 12, 18, or 24 months from the date of the first (index) seizure. Regression modelling was used to investigate how antiepileptic treatment and several clinical factors influence the risk of seizure recurrence. RESULTS: At six months after the index seizure the risk of recurrence in the next 12 months for those who start antiepileptic drugs was significantly below 20% (unadjusted risk 14%, 95% confidence interval 10% to 18%). For patients who did not start treatment the risk estimate was less than 20% but the upper limit of the confidence interval was greater than 20% (18%, 13% to 23%). Multivariable analyses identified subgroups with a significantly greater than 20% risk of seizure recurrence in the 12 months after a six month seizure-free period, such as those with a remote symptomatic seizure with abnormal electroencephalogram results. CONCLUSION: After a single unprovoked seizure this reanalysis of MESS provides estimates of seizure recurrence risks that will inform policy and guidance about regaining an ordinary driving licence. Further guidance is needed as to how such data should be utilised; in particular, whether a population approach should be taken with a focus on the unadjusted results or whether attempts should be made to individualise risk. Guidance is also required as to whether the focus should be on risk estimates only or on the confidence interval as well. If the focus is on the estimate only our unadjusted estimates suggest that treated and untreated patients are eligible to drive after being seizure-free for six months. If the focus is also on confidence intervals, direction is needed as to whether a conservative or liberal approach should be taken. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98767960.