Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo. RESULTS: Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control. CONCLUSIONS: Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

Changing Agendas on Sleep, Treatment and Learning in Epilepsy (CASTLE) Sleep-E: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing an online behavioural sleep intervention with standard care in children with Rolandic epilepsy.

INTRODUCTION: Sleep and epilepsy have an established bidirectional relationship yet only one randomised controlled clinical trial has assessed the effectiveness of behavioural sleep interventions for children with epilepsy. The intervention was successful, but was delivered via face-to-face educational sessions with parents, which are costly and non-scalable to population level. The Changing Agendas on Sleep, Treatment and Learning in Epilepsy (CASTLE) Sleep-E trial addresses this problem by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness in children with Rolandic epilepsy between standard care (SC) and SC augmented with a novel, tailored parent-led CASTLE Online Sleep Intervention (COSI) that incorporates evidence-based behavioural components. METHODS AND ANALYSES: CASTLE Sleep-E is a UK-based, multicentre, open-label, active concurrent control, randomised, parallel-group, pragmatic superiority trial. A total of 110 children with Rolandic epilepsy will be recruited in outpatient clinics and allocated 1:1 to SC or SC augmented with COSI (SC+COSI). Primary clinical outcome is parent-reported sleep problem score (Children's Sleep Habits Questionnaire). Primary health economic outcome is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective, Child Health Utility 9D Instrument). Parents and children (≥7 years) can opt into qualitative interviews and activities to share their experiences and perceptions of trial participation and managing sleep with Rolandic epilepsy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The CASTLE Sleep-E protocol was approved by the Health Research Authority East Midlands (HRA)-Nottingham 1 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/EM/0205). Trial results will be disseminated to scientific audiences, families, professional groups, managers, commissioners and policymakers. Pseudo-anonymised individual patient data will be made available after dissemination on reasonable request. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13202325.

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy. DESIGN: Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel. SETTING: Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication. INTERVENTIONS: Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Focal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions. FUTURE WORK: SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel. CONCLUSIONS: Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The SANAD II trial was a clinical trial designed to identify the most clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for adults and children aged > 5 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. There are two main epilepsy types: focal and generalised. In focal epilepsy, seizures start at a single place in the brain (a focus), whereas in generalised epilepsy seizures start in both sides of the brain at the same time. Anti-seizure medications are the main treatment. For people with newly diagnosed epilepsy, the first anti-seizure medication should control the seizures as quickly as possible while avoiding side effects. The first-choice treatments are lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) for focal epilepsy and valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) for generalised epilepsy (however, the latter should be avoided in women who could become pregnant). A number of newer anti-seizure medications have been approved for NHS use, but it is unclear whether or not they should be used as first-line treatments. The SANAD II trial focused on the new medicines levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). We recruited 1510 people aged ≥ 5 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy: 990 with focal epilepsy and 520 with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. FINDINGS: FOCAL EPILEPSY: People starting treatment with levetiracetam or zonisamide were significantly less likely to have a 12-month remission from seizures than people starting treatment with lamotrigine, unless they were changed to another anti-seizure medication. Side effects that were thought to be caused by anti-seizure medications were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% of those starting levetiracetam and 45% of those starting zonisamide. The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that neither levetiracetam nor zonisamide is value for money for the NHS when compared with lamotrigine. The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. FINDINGS: GENERALISED AND UNCLASSIFIABLE EPILEPSY: People starting treatment with levetiracetam were significantly less likely to have a 12-month remission from seizures than people starting valproate, unless they were changed to another anti-seizure medication. Side effects that were thought to be caused by anti-seizure medications were reported by 37% of participants starting valproate and 42% of participants starting levetiracetam. The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that levetiracetam is not good value for money for the NHS when compared with valproate. The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. Importantly, our results will inform treatment decisions for women, who may choose a less effective treatment that is safer in pregnancy.

Care After Presenting with Seizures (CAPS): An analysis of the impact of a seizure referral pathway and nurse support on neurology referral rates for patients admitted with a seizure.

INTRODUCTION: The National Audit of Seizure Management in Hospitals (NASH) identified low referral rates to neurology and epilepsy services after an emergency department attendance or admission with a seizure. METHODS: National Health Service Secondary Users Service (SUS) data were used to assess the impact of a seizure pathway at seven hospitals in Cheshire & Merseyside, which was implemented in 2014. Three of these hospitals also had a nurse employed part-time to support the pathway. Patients admitted with a seizure between 2011 and 2018 inclusive were identified using an algorithm based on ICD-10 codes, and the primary outcome was a neurology referral within 3 months of admission. Regression models were used to assess the impact of age, deprivation and comorbidity on post admission clinic referral rates. RESULTS: 13,285 admissions with seizure were included in the analysis. 5,677 had not attended a neurology clinic appointment in the 12 months before the admission. The percentage of whom that were offered an appointment following the admission was: 16.0% before the pathway and 35.9% with the nurse-supported pathway, which was significant in the regression model. 4,700 admissions had attended a neurology clinic appointment in the 12 months before the admission. Of this group, the percentage of whom that were offered an appointment following the admission was: 55.2% before the pathway and 62.4% with the nurse-supported pathway, an increase that was not significant in the regression model. The regression models identified significant health inequalities whereby older patients, those with comorbidities and those living in deprived areas were significantly less likely to be referred. CONCLUSION: Neurology out-patient appointment rates following an admission with seizures are low, worryingly so for those with no neurology appointment in the previous 12 months. A nurse-supported pathway can improve appointment rates, but the effect is modest. Further service redesign is required; the impact of which should be rigorously evaluated.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. INTERPRETATION: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. INTERPRETATION: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

EstablishINg the best STEp-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma despite INhaled corticosteroids (EINSTEIN): protocol for a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis using individual participant data (IPD).

INTRODUCTION: Asthma affects millions of children worldwide-1.1 million children in the UK. Asthma symptoms cannot be cured but can be controlled with low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in the majority of individuals. Treatment with a low-dose ICS, however, fails to control asthma symptoms in around 10%-15% of children and this places the individual at increased risk for an asthma attack. At present, there is no clear preferred treatment option for a child whose asthma is not controlled by low-dose ICS and international guidelines currently recommend at least three treatment options. Herein, we propose a systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis (IPD-NMA) aiming to synthesise all available published and unpublished evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to establish the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological treatments in children and adolescents with uncontrolled asthma on ICS and help to make evidence-informed treatment choices. This will be used to parameterise a Markov-based economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative treatment options in order to inform decisions in the context of drug formularies and clinical guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, NICE Technology Appraisals and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment series for RCTs of interventions in patients with uncontrolled asthma on ICS. All studies where children and adolescents were eligible for inclusion will be considered, and authors or sponsors will be contacted to request IPD on patients aged <18. The reference lists of existing clinical guidelines, along with included studies and relevant reviews, will be checked to identify further relevant studies. Unpublished studies will be located by searching across a range of clinical trial registries, including internal trial registers for pharmaceutical companies. All studies will be appraised for inclusion against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. We will perform an IPD-NMA-eventually supplemented with aggregate data for the RCTs without IPD-to establish both the probability that a treatment is best and the probability that a particular treatment is most likely to be effective for a specific profile of the patient. The IPD-NMA will be performed for each outcome variable within a Bayesian framework, using the WinBUGS software. Also, potential patient-level characteristics that may modify treatment effects will be explored, which represents one of the strengths of this study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Committee on Research Ethics, University of Liverpool, has confirmed that ethics review is not required. The dissemination plan consists of publishing the results in an open-access medical journal, a plain-language summary available for parents and children, dissemination via local, national and international meetings and conferences and the press offices of our Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). A synopsis of results will be disseminated to NICE and British Thoracic Society/Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) as highly relevant to future clinical guideline updates. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019127599.

Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide versus standard treatments for epilepsy: a comparison of standard and new antiepileptic drugs (SANAD-II).

INTRODUCTION: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Over the past 20 years, a number of new drugs have been approved for National Health Service (NHS) use on the basis of information from short-term trials that demonstrate efficacy. These trials do not provide information about the longer term outcomes, which inform treatment policy. This trial will assess the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the newer treatment levetiracetam and zonisamide. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing new and standard treatments for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Arm A of the trial randomised 990 patients with focal epilepsy to standard AED lamotrigine or new AED levetiracetam or zonisamide. Arm B randomised 520 patients with generalised epilepsy to standard AED sodium valproate or new AED levetiracetam. Patients are recruited from UK NHS outpatient epilepsy, general neurology and paediatric clinics. Included patients are aged 5 years or older with two or more spontaneous seizures requiring AED monotherapy, who are not previously treated with AEDs. Patients are followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is time to 12-month remission from seizures. Secondary outcomes include time to treatment failure (including due to inadequate seizure control or unacceptable adverse reactions); time to first seizure; time to 24-month remission; adverse reactions and quality of life. All primary analyses will be on an intention to treat basis. Separate analyses will be undertaken for each arm. Health economic analysis will be conducted from the perspective of the NHS to assess the cost-effectiveness of each AED. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the North West-Liverpool East REC (Ref. 12/NW/0361). The trial team will disseminate the results through scientific meetings, peer-reviewed publications and patient and public involvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2012-001884-64; ISRCTN30294119.

Seizure First Aid Training For people with Epilepsy (SAFE) frequently attending emergency departments and their significant others: results of a UK multi-centre randomised controlled pilot trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and optimal design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of Seizure First Aid Training For Epilepsy (SAFE). DESIGN: Pilot RCT with embedded microcosting. SETTING: Three English hospital emergency departments (EDs). PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥16 with established epilepsy reporting ≥2 ED visits in the prior 12 months and their significant others (SOs). INTERVENTIONS: Patients (and their SOs) were randomly allocated (1:1) to SAFE plus treatment-as-usual (TAU) or TAU alone. SAFE is a 4-hour group course. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two criteria evaluated a definitive RCT's feasibility: (1) ≥20% of eligible patients needed to be consented into the pilot trial; (2) routine data on use of ED over the 12 months postrandomisation needed securing for ≥75%. Other measures included eligibility, ease of obtaining routine data, availability of self-report ED data and comparability, SAFE's effect and intervention cost. RESULTS: Of ED attendees with a suspected seizure, 424 (10.6%) patients were eligible; 53 (12.5%) patients and 38 SOs consented. Fifty-one patients (and 37 SOs) were randomised. Routine data on ED use at 12 months were secured for 94.1% patients. Self-report ED data were available for 66.7% patients. Patients reported more visits compared with routine data. Most (76.9%) patients randomised to SAFE received it and no related serious adverse events occurred. ED use at 12 months was lower in the SAFE+TAU arm compared with TAU alone, but not significantly (rate ratio=0.62, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.17). A definitive trial would need ~674 patient participants and ~39 recruitment sites. Obtaining routine data was challenging, taking ~8.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: In satisfying only one predetermined 'stop/go' criterion, a definitive RCT is not feasible. The low consent rate in the pilot trial raises concerns about a definitive trial's finding's external validity and means it would be expensive to conduct. Research is required into how to optimise recruitment from the target population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13871327.

The Modified Ketogenic Diet in Adults with Glioblastoma: An Evaluation of Feasibility and Deliverability within the National Health Service.

There is an increasing interest in the use of the ketogenic diet (KD) as an adjuvant therapy for glioma patients. We assessed the tolerability and feasibility of a modified ketogenic diet (MKD) in patients with glioma, along with willingness of patients to participate in future randomized controlled trials. The study was undertaken in two parts; a patient questionnaire and evaluation of the diet. One hundred and seventy-two questionnaires were completed; 69% (n = 119) of the population reported MKD should be offered to patients with glioma and 73% (n = 125) would be willing to try MKD for 3 months. Six male patients with high grade gliomas tried the diet; 4 completed the 3-month feasibility period. Ketosis was achieved in all patients. The only gastrointestinal side effect was constipation (n = 2). Minimal changes were observed in weight, body mass index, fat mass and cholesterol profiles. MKD was well tolerated, with few side effects and is deliverable within a financially viable, NHS service. There is a high level of interest in the diet within the glioma patient community to ensure adequate recruitment for a clinical trial. Further studies are required to demonstrate efficacy and patient benefit before implementing a service.

The modified ketogenic diet for adults with refractory epilepsy: An evaluation of a set up service.

PURPOSE: The ketogenic diet (KD) has been proven to be effective in children with refractory epilepsy and is recommended by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). There is no randomised control trial (RCT) evidence for the clinical or cost effectiveness of KD in adults, for whom the KD is not currently recommended. We assessed the feasibility of the modified ketogenic diet (MKD) in adults with refractory epilepsy along with the willingness of patients to participate in a future RCT. METHODS: The service evaluation was undertaken in two parts; questionnaire and diet evaluation. RESULTS: 102 patients completed a questionnaire, of which 51 patients were willing to try the MKD for 3 months to assess effect on seizures. Forty three patients were willing to participate in a clinical trial to investigate deliverability, efficacy and tolerability. Thirty seven of which would still be willing to participate if the trial were randomised. Of the 17 patients who commenced the diet, 9 completed the 12 week period, 7 of which stayed on the diet for the longer term. Constipation (n=6) and loose stools (n=3) were the only reported adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that there is demand for a ketogenic diet service in adults. The MKD is well tolerated, feasible and financially viable to deliver to adults with epilepsy in the NHS. There is also interest in and willingness to participate in a UK based RCT that would ultimately inform decisions about commissioning appropriate services.

Resource implications of preparing individual participant data from a clinical trial to share with external researchers.

BACKGROUND: Demands are increasingly being made for clinical trialists to actively share individual participant data (IPD) collected from clinical trials using responsible methods that protect the confidentiality and privacy of clinical trial participants. Clinical trialists, particularly those receiving public funding, are often concerned about the additional time and money that data-sharing activities will require, but few published empirical data are available to help inform these decisions. We sought to evaluate the activity and resources required to prepare anonymised IPD from a clinical trial in anticipation of a future data-sharing request. METHODS: Data from two UK publicly funded clinical trials were used for this exercise: 2437 participants with epilepsy recruited from 90 hospital outpatient clinics in the SANAD trial and 146 children with neuro-developmental problems recruited from 18 hospitals in the MENDS trial. We calculated the time and resources required to prepare each anonymised dataset and assemble a data pack ready for sharing. RESULTS: The older SANAD trial (published 2007) required 50 hours of staff time with a total estimated associated cost of £3185 whilst the more recently completed MENDS trial (published 2012) required 39.5 hours of staff time with total estimated associated cost of £2540. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial researchers, funders and sponsors should consider appropriate resourcing and allow reasonable time for preparing IPD ready for subsequent sharing. This process would be most efficient if prospectively built into the standard operational design and conduct of a clinical trial. Further empirical examples exploring the resource requirements in other settings is recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SANAD: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry: ISRCTN38354748 . Registered on 25 April 2003. MENDS: EU Clinical Trials Register Eudract 2006-004025-28 . Registered on 16 May 2007. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry: ISRCTN05534585 /MREC 07/MRE08/43. Registered on 26 January 2007.

Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND: Greater transparency, including sharing of patient-level data for further research, is an increasingly important topic for organisations who sponsor, fund and conduct clinical trials. This is a major paradigm shift with the aim of maximising the value of patient-level data from clinical trials for the benefit of future patients and society. We consider the analysis of shared clinical trial data in three broad categories: (1) reanalysis - further investigation of the efficacy and safety of the randomized intervention, (2) meta-analysis, and (3) supplemental analysis for a research question that is not directly assessing the randomized intervention. DISCUSSION: In order to support appropriate interpretation and limit the risk of misleading findings, analysis of shared clinical trial data should have a pre-specified analysis plan. However, it is not generally possible to limit bias and control multiplicity to the extent that is possible in the original trial design, conduct and analysis, and this should be acknowledged and taken into account when interpreting results. We highlight a number of areas where specific considerations arise in planning, conducting, interpreting and reporting analyses of shared clinical trial data. A key issue is that that these analyses essentially share many of the limitations of any post hoc analyses beyond the original specified analyses. The use of individual patient data in meta-analysis can provide increased precision and reduce bias. Supplemental analyses are subject to many of the same issues that arise in broader epidemiological analyses. Specific discussion topics are addressed within each of these areas. Increased provision of patient-level data from industry and academic-led clinical trials for secondary research can benefit future patients and society. Responsible data sharing, including transparency of the research objectives, analysis plans and of the results will support appropriate interpretation and help to address the risk of misleading results and avoid unfounded health scares.

Advertising as a cue to consume: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of acute exposure to unhealthy food and nonalcoholic beverage advertising on intake in children and adults.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have assessed the effects of food and nonalcoholic beverage (hereafter collectively referred to as food) advertising on food consumption, but the results of these studies have been mixed. This lack of clarity may be impeding policy action. OBJECTIVE: We examined the evidence for a relation between acute exposure to experimental unhealthy food advertising and food consumption. DESIGN: The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies in which advertising exposure (television or Internet) was experimentally manipulated, and food intake was measured. Five electronic databases were searched for relevant publications (SCOPUS, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Emerald Insight, and JSTOR). An inverse variance meta-analysis was used whereby the standardized mean difference (SMD) in food intake was calculated between unhealthy food advertising and control conditions. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles were eligible for inclusion. Data were available for 18 articles to be included in the meta-analysis (which provided 20 comparisons). With all available data included, the analysis indicated a small-to-moderate effect size for advertising on food consumption with participants eating more after exposure to food advertising than after control conditions (SMD: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.09; 0.65; I(2) = 98%). Subgroup analyses showed that the experiments with adult participants provided no evidence of an effect of advertising on intake (SMD: 0.00; P = 1.00; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.08; I(2) = 8%), but a significant effect of moderate size was shown for children, whereby food advertising exposure was associated with greater food intake (SMD: 0.56; P = 0.003; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.94; I(2) = 98%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to date shows that acute exposure to food advertising increases food intake in children but not in adults. These data support public health policy action that seeks to reduce children's exposure to unhealthy food advertising.

UK publicly funded Clinical Trials Units supported a controlled access approach to share individual participant data but highlighted concerns.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate current data sharing activities of UK publicly funded Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and identify good practices and barriers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Web-based survey of Directors of 45 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered CTUs. RESULTS: Twenty-three (51%) CTUs responded: Five (22%) of these had an established data sharing policy and eight (35%) specifically requested consent to use patient data beyond the scope of the original trial. Fifteen (65%) CTUs had received requests for data, and seven (30%) had made external requests for data in the previous 12 months. CTUs supported the need for increased data sharing activities although concerns were raised about patient identification, misuse of data, and financial burden. Custodianship of clinical trial data and requirements for a CTU to align its policy to their parent institutes were also raised. No CTUs supported the use of an open access model for data sharing. CONCLUSION: There is support within the publicly funded UKCRC-registered CTUs for data sharing, but many perceived barriers remain. CTUs are currently using a variety of approaches and procedures for sharing data. This survey has informed further work, including development of guidance for publicly funded CTUs, to promote good practice and facilitate data sharing.

Assessment of the quality of harms reporting in non-randomised studies and randomised controlled studies of topiramate for the treatment of epilepsy using CONSORT criteria.

PURPOSE: Treatment decisions should be informed by high quality evidence of both the potential benefit and harms of treatment alternatives. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence regarding benefits; however information relating to serious, rare and long-term harms is usually available only from non-randomised studies (NRSs). The aim of this study was to use a checklist based on the CONSORT (Consolidating Standards for Reporting Trials) extension for harms recommendations to assess the quality of reporting of harms data in both NRSs and RCTs of antiepileptic drugs, using studies of topiramate as an example. RESULTS: Seventy-eight studies were included from an online search of seven databases. Harms data was extracted from each study using a 25-point checklist. The mean number of items met was 11.5 (SD 2.96) per study. Commercially funded studies met on average 12.7 items and non-commercially funded studies met 10.08 (p value < 0.001). RCTs met on average 13.0 items and NRSs met 10.8 (p = 0.001). Multi-centre studies and commercially funded studies met significantly more items than single centre and non-commercially funded studies respectively. There was no significant difference in the mean number of items met by studies that had included adult vs. child participants, or studies published pre- vs. post-CONSORT extension for harms in 2004. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of harms is significantly better in RCTs than in NRSs of TPM, but is suboptimal overall and has not improved since the publication of CONSORT extension for harms in 2004. There is a need to improve the reporting of harms in order to better inform treatment decisions.

Quality-of-life outcomes of initiating treatment with standard and newer antiepileptic drugs in adults with new-onset epilepsy: findings from the SANAD trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes over 2 years following initiation of treatment with a standard or newer antiepileptic drug (AED) in adults with new-onset epilepsy. To examine the impact of seizure remission and failure of initial treatment on QoL outcomes measured over 2 years. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, randomized, unblinded, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial (the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs [SANAD] trial) comparing clinical and cost effectiveness of initiating treatment with carbamazepine versus lamotrigine, gabapentin, oxcarbazepine and topiramate, and valproate versus lamotrigine and topiramate. QoL data were collected by mail at baseline, 3 months, and at 1 and 2 years using validated measures. These data were analyzed using longitudinal data models. Continuous QoL measures, time to 12-month remission and time to treatment withdrawal were explored using joint models. RESULTS: Baseline questionnaires were returned by 1,575 adults; 1,439 returned the 3-month questionnaire, 1,274 returned the 1-year questionnaire, and 1,121 returned the 2-year questionnaire. There were few statistically significant differences between drugs over 2 years in QoL outcomes. Significant association was identified between QoL scores over the 2-year time frame and the risk of experiencing a 12-month remission or treatment withdrawal over that period. SIGNIFICANCE: The choice of initial treatment had no significant effect on QoL by 2-year follow-up. However, overall QoL was reduced with continued seizures, adverse events, and failure of the initial treatment.

The value of source data verification in a cancer clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Source data verification (SDV) is a resource intensive method of quality assurance frequently used in clinical trials. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that SDV would impact on comparative treatment effect results from a clinical trial. METHODS: Data discrepancies and comparative treatment effects obtained following 100% SDV were compared to those based on data without SDV. Overall survival (OS) and Progression-free survival (PFS) were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests and Cox models. Tumour response classifications and comparative treatment Odds Ratios (ORs) for the outcome objective response rate, and number of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) were compared. OS estimates based on SDV data were compared against estimates obtained from centrally monitored data. FINDINGS: Data discrepancies were identified between different monitoring procedures for the majority of variables examined, with some variation in discrepancy rates. There were no systematic patterns to discrepancies and their impact was negligible on OS, the primary outcome of the trial (HR (95% CI): 1.18(0.99 to 1.41), p = 0.064 with 100% SDV; 1.18(0.99 to 1.42), p = 0.068 without SDV; 1.18(0.99 to 1.40), p = 0.073 with central monitoring). Results were similar for PFS. More extreme discrepancies were found for the subjective outcome overall objective response (OR (95% CI): 1.67(1.04 to 2.68), p = 0.03 with 100% SDV; 2.45(1.49 to 4.04), p = 0.0003 without any SDV) which was mostly due to differing CT scans. INTERPRETATION: Quality assurance methods used in clinical trials should be informed by empirical evidence. In this empirical comparison, SDV was expensive and identified random errors that made little impact on results and clinical conclusions of the trial. Central monitoring using an external data source was a more efficient approach for the primary outcome of OS. For the subjective outcome objective response, an independent blinded review committee and tracking system to monitor missing scan data could be more efficient than SDV.