A longitudinal cohort study on the impact of the clobazam shortage on patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Drug shortages are occurring at an increasing rate. From May to October 2016, there was a shortage of a level I critical antiepileptic drug, clobazam. We aimed to study the impact of this shortage on patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Adult patients from Calgary's Comprehensive Epilepsy Program who were taking clobazam were approached to participate in the study. Baseline data from the clinic prospective registry included clinical variables and presurvey patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as the Global Assessment of Severity of Epilepsy, the Global Assessment of Disability Associated with Seizures, and the Quality of Life in Epilepsy questionnaire. We used a mixed-methods cross-sectional questionnaire via telephone. We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive methods and qualitative data using a phenomenological approach. RESULTS: Of the 85 eligible patients, 84% (n = 71) agreed to participate. Participants ranged from 18 to 78 years old, and 59.2% of participants were female. Overall, 80% of participants experienced some form of medication change due to the shortage. No significant differences were found in the pre- and during-shortage PRO data. However, 6 important themes emerged regarding the impact of the antiepileptic drug shortage on patients: (1) communication and awareness, (2) burden on patients and caregivers, (3) physical impact, (4) psychological impact, (5) health care provider assistance in navigating the shortage, and (6) policy change. SIGNIFICANCE: We examined the impact of the clobazam shortage on patients with epilepsy from the patient's perspective and identified 6 important themes. As a result, we were able to gain insight into what patients need to cope with drug shortages and make recommendations that can help mitigate the impact of shortages on patients in the future. Further research is needed to better understand drug shortages from the patient's perspective in various settings and conditions.

A systematic review of clinical decision rules for epilepsy.

Clinical decision rules (CDRs) have been empirically demonstrated to improve patient satisfaction and enhance cost-effective care. The use of CDRs has not yet been robustly explored for epilepsy. We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE (from 1946) and Embase (from 1947) using Medical Subject Headings and keywords related to CDRs and epilepsy. We included original research of any language deriving, validating, or implementing a CDR using standardized definitions. Study quality was determined using a modified version of previously published criteria. A bivariate model was used to meta-analyze studies undergoing sequential derivation and validation studies. Of 2445 unique articles, 5 were determined to be relevant to this review. Three were derivation studies (three diagnostic and one therapeutic), one validation study, and one combined derivation and validation study. No implementation studies were identified. Study quality varied but was primarily of a moderate level. Two CDRs were validated and, thus, able to be meta-analyzed. Although initial measures of accuracy were high (sensitivity ~80% or above), they tended to diminish significantly in the validation studies. The pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity both exhibited wide 95% confidence and prediction intervals that may limit their utility in routine practice. Despite the advances in therapeutic and diagnostic interventions for epilepsy, few CDRs have been developed to guide their use. Future CDRs should address common clinical scenarios such as efficient use of diagnostic tools and optimal clinical treatment decisions. Given their potential for advancing efficient, evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare, CDR development should be a priority in epilepsy.

Computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography for detection of intracranial vascular malformations in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial vascular malformations (brain or pial/dural arteriovenous malformations/fistulae, and aneurysms) are the leading cause of intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) in young adults. Early identification of the intracranial vascular malformation may improve outcome if treatment can prevent ICH recurrence. Catheter intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (IADSA) is considered the reference standard for the detection an intracranial vascular malformation as the cause of ICH. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) are less invasive than IADSA and may be as accurate for identifying some causes of ICH. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of CTA and MRA versus IADSA for the detection of intracranial vascular malformations as a cause of ICH. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1948 to August 2013), EMBASE (1980 to August 2013), MEDION (August 2013), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; August 2013), the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA; August 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (August 2013), and WHO ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Register Portfolio; August 2013). We also performed a cited reference search for forward tracking of relevant articles on Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/), screened bibliographies, and contacted authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies reporting data that could be used to construct contingency tables that compared CTA or MRA, or both, with IADSA in the same patients for the detection of intracranial vascular malformations following ICH. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (CBJ and RA-SS) independently extracted data on study characteristics and measures of test accuracy. Two authors (CBJ and PMW) independently extracted data on test characteristics. We obtained data restricted to the subgroup undergoing IADSA in studies using multiple reference standards. We combined data using the bivariate model. We generated forest plots of the sensitivity and specificity of CTA and MRA and created a summary receiver operating characteristic plot. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies (n = 927 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Eight studies compared CTA with IADSA (n = 526) and three studies compared MRA with IADSA (n = 401). Methodological quality varied considerably among studies, with partial verification bias in 7/11 (64%) and retrospective designs in 5/10 (50%). In studies of CTA, the pooled estimate of sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.97) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). The results remained robust in a sensitivity analysis in which only studies evaluating adult patients (≥ 16 years of age) were included. In studies of MRA, the pooled estimate of sensitivity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). An indirect comparison of CTA and MRA using a bivariate model incorporating test type as one of the parameters failed to reveal a statistically significant difference in sensitivity or specificity between the two imaging modalities (P value = 0.6). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CTA and MRA appear to have good sensitivity and specificity following ICH for the detection of intracranial vascular malformations, although several of the included studies had methodological shortcomings (retrospective designs and partial verification bias in particular) that may have increased apparent test accuracy.