Anticonvulsant Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis for Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients: A Decision Analysis.

Background and Purpose: We examined the impact of 3 anticonvulsant prophylaxis strategies on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) among patients with an incident acute ischemic stroke. Methods: We created a decision tree to evaluate 3 strategies: (1) long-term primary prophylaxis; (2) short-term secondary prophylaxis after an early seizure with lifetime prophylaxis if persistent or late seizures (LSs) developed; and (3) long-term secondary prophylaxis if either early, late, or persistent seizures developed. The outcome was quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALY). We created 4 base cases to simulate common clinical scenarios: (1) female patient aged 40 years with a 2% or 11% lifetime risk of an LS and a 33% lifetime risk of an adverse drug reaction (ADR); (2) male patient aged 65 years with a 6% or 29% LS risk and 60% ADR risk; (3) male patient aged 50 years with an 18% or 65% LS risk and 33% ADR risk; and (4) female patient aged 80 years with a 29% or 83% LS risk and 80% ADR risk. In sensitivity analyses, we altered the parameters and assumptions. Results: Across all 4 base cases, primary prophylaxis yielded the fewest QALYs when compared with secondary prophylaxis. For example, under scenario 1, strategies 2 and 3 resulted in 7.17 QALYs each, but strategy 1 yielded only 6.91 QALYs. Under scenario 4, strategies 2 and 3 yielded 2.85 QALYs compared with 1.40 QALYs for strategy 1. Under scenarios in which patients had higher ADR risks, strategy 2 led to the most QALYs. Conclusions: Short-term therapy with continued anticonvulsant prophylaxis only after postischemic stroke seizures arise dominates lifetime primary prophylaxis in all scenarios examined. Our findings reinforce the necessity of close follow-up and discontinuation of anticonvulsant seizure prophylaxis started during acute ischemic stroke hospitalization.

A feasibility assessment of functioning and quality-of-life patient-reported outcome measures in adult epilepsy clinics: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to identify functioning and quality-of-life (QOL) patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) feasible for use in the waiting room of adult epilepsy clinics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Web of Science for articles on in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and French published by the end of February 15th, 2019. We screened retrieved titles and abstracts looking for publications that reported the use of PROMs to measure functioning and QOL in epilepsy. The authors, clinical experts, and patient advocates from the Epilepsy Foundation of America conceptualized a set of desirable feasibility attributes for PROMs implementation in the waiting room of adult epilepsy clinics. These attributes included brief time for completion (i.e., ≤3 min), free cost, coverage of four minimum QOL domains and respective facets, and good evidence of psychometric properties. We defined QOL domains according to the World Health Organization's classification and created psychometric appraisal criteria based on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Guidance. RESULTS: Eighteen candidate instruments were identified and compared with respect to desirable attributes for use in adult epilepsy clinics. We found that the Quality-of-life in epilepsy (QOLIE)-10 and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10) were the most feasible PROMs for implementation in adult epilepsy clinics based on our criteria. The QOLIE-10 and PROMIS-10 still lack ideal evidence of responsiveness in people with epilepsy. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review that aimed to assess feasibility properties of available functioning and QOL PROMs. The QOLIE-10 and PROMIS-10 are potentially feasible instruments for implementation in the waiting room of adult epilepsy clinics. Further studies assessing the responsiveness of these PROMs are needed and will contribute to the selection of the most appropriate instrument for longitudinal use in adult epilepsy clinical practice.

Treatment characteristics of patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are novel medications approved for the treatment of hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTRv), classified as transthyretin (TTR) stabilizers or gene silencers. While many patients may be on both classes of medications, there is no data available on the safety and efficacy of combination therapy. OBJECTIVES: To describe ATTRv patient and TTR-targeted therapy characteristics in a US cohort, and compare outcomes with combination therapy versus monotherapy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study with electronic health record data of patients with ATTRv seen at a single institution between January 2018 and December 2022. We collected data on symptomatology, gene mutation, disease severity, ATTRv treatment, hospitalizations, and mortality. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients with ATTRv were identified. The average age at diagnosis was 65 years. 86 patients (53%) had the V122I variant. 119 patients were symptomatic, of whom 103 were started on ATTRv-specific treatment. 41 patients (40%) had cardiomyopathy only, and 53 (51%) had a mixed phenotype of cardiomyopathy and neuropathy. 38 patients (37%) received therapy with both a gene silencer and protein stabilizer. 9 patients (15%) in the monotherapy group had two or more cardiac hospitalizations after starting treatment, compared to 3 patients (9%) on combination therapy (p=0.26). The adjusted hazard ratio of all-cause mortality for the patients on combination therapy compared to monotherapy was 0.37 (0.08-1.8, p=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: While the efficacy is unproven, over one-third of patients with ATTRv are on both a stabilizer and a silencer. There were no safety issues for combination therapy. There was a trend towards improved hospitalizations and survival in patients in the combination group but this was not statistically significant. Larger studies with longer follow-up are necessary to determine benefit of combination therapy.

Seizure Prophylaxis After Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Importance: Limited evidence is available concerning optimal seizure prophylaxis after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). Objective: To evaluate which of 4 seizure prophylaxis strategies provides the greatest net benefit for patients with sICH. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analysis used models to simulate the following 4 common scenarios: (1) a 60-year-old man with low risk of early (≤7 days after stroke) (10%) and late (3.6% or 9.8%) seizures and average risk of short- (9%) and long-term (30%) adverse drug reaction (ADR); (2) an 80-year-old woman with low risk of early (10%) and late (3.6% or 9.8%) seizures and high short- (24%) and long-term (80%) ADR risks; (3) a 55-year-old man with high risk of early (19%) and late (34.8% or 46.2%) seizures and low short- (9%) and long-term (30%) ADR risks; and (4) a 45-year-old woman with high risk of early (19%) and late (34.8% or 46.2%) seizures and high short- (18%) and long-term (60%) ADR risks. Interventions: The following 4 antiseizure drug strategies were included: (1) conservative, consisting of short-term (7-day) secondary early-seizure prophylaxis with long-term therapy after late seizure; (2) moderate, consisting of long-term secondary early-seizure prophylaxis or late-seizure therapy; (3) aggressive, consisting of long-term primary prophylaxis; and (4) risk guided, consisting of short-term secondary early-seizure prophylaxis among low-risk patients (2HELPS2B score, 0), short-term primary prophylaxis among patients at higher risk (2HELPS2B score, ≥1), and long-term secondary therapy for late seizure. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results: For scenario 1, the risk-guided strategy (8.13 QALYs) was preferred over the conservative (8.08 QALYs), moderate (8.07 QALYs), and aggressive (7.88 QALYs) strategies. For scenario 2, the conservative strategy (2.18 QALYs) was preferred over the risk-guided (2.17 QALYs), moderate (2.09 QALYs), and aggressive (1.15 QALYs) strategies. For scenario 3, the aggressive strategy (9.21 QALYs) was preferred over the risk-guided (8.98 QALYs), moderate (8.93 QALYs), and conservative (8.77 QALYs) strategies. For scenario 4, the risk-guided strategy (11.53 QALYs) was preferred over the conservative (11.23 QALYs), moderate (10.93 QALYs), and aggressive (8.08 QALYs) strategies. Sensitivity analyses suggested that short-term strategies (conservative and risk guided) are preferred under most scenarios, and the risk-guided strategy performs comparably to or better than alternative strategies in most settings. Conclusions and Relevance: This decision analytical model suggests that short-term (7-day) prophylaxis dominates longer-term therapy after sICH. Use of the 2HELPS2B score to guide clinical decisions for initiation of short-term primary vs secondary early-seizure prophylaxis should be considered for all patients after sICH.

Accuracy of ICD-10-CM claims-based definitions for epilepsy and seizure type.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of ICD-10-CM claims-based definitions for epilepsy and classifying seizure types in the outpatient setting. METHODS: We reviewed electronic health records (EHR) for a cohort of adults aged 18+ years seen by six neurologists who had an outpatient visit at a level 4 epilepsy center between 01/2019-09/2019. The neurologists used a standardized documentation template to capture the diagnosis of epilepsy (yes/no/unsure), seizure type (focal/generalized/unknown), and seizure frequency in the EHR. Using linked ICD-10-CM codes assigned by the provider, we assessed the accuracy of claims-based definitions for epilepsy, focal seizure type, and generalized seizure type against the reference-standard EHR documentation by estimating sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: There were 673 eligible outpatient encounters. After review of EHRs for standardized documentation, an analytic sample consisted of 520 encounters representing 402 unique patients. In the EHR documentation, 93.5 % (n = 486/520) of encounters were with patients with a diagnosis of epilepsy. Of those, 66.0 % (n = 321/486) had ≥1 focal seizure, 41.6 % (n = 202/486) had ≥1 generalized seizure, and 7% (n = 34/486) had ≥1 unknown seizure. An ICD-10-CM definition for epilepsy (i.e., ICD-10 G40.X) achieved Sn = 84.4 % (95 % CI 80.8-87.5%), Sp = 79.4 % (95 % CI 62.1-91.3%), PPV = 98.3 % (95 % CI 96.6-99.3%), and NPV = 26.2 % (95 % CI 18.0-35.8%). The classification of focal vs generalized/unknown seizures achieved Sn = 69.8 % (95 % CI 64.4-74.8%), Sp = 79.4 % (95 % CI 72.4-85.3%), PPV = 86.8 % (95 % CI 82.1-90.7%), and NPV = 57.5 % (95 % CI 50.8-64.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Claims-based definitions using groups of ICD-10-CM codes assigned by neurologists in routine outpatient clinic visits at a level 4 epilepsy center performed well in discriminating between patients with and without a diagnosis of epilepsy and between seizure types.

Implementing standardized provider documentation in a tertiary epilepsy clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To incorporate standardized documentation into an epilepsy clinic and to use these standardized data to compare patients' perception of epilepsy diagnosis to provider documentation. METHODS: Using quality improvement methodology, we implemented interventions to increase documentation of epilepsy diagnosis, seizure frequency, and type from 49.8% to 70% of adult nonemployee patients seen by 6 providers over 5 months of routine clinical care. The main intervention consisted of an interactive SmartPhrase that mirrored a documentation template developed by the Epilepsy Learning Healthcare System. We assessed the weekly proportion of complete SmartPhrases among eligible patient encounters with a statistical process control chart. We used a subset of patients with established epilepsy care linked to existing patient-reported survey data to examine the proportion of patient-to-provider agreement on epilepsy diagnosis (yes vs no/unsure). We also examined sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients who disagreed vs agreed with provider's documentation of epilepsy diagnosis. RESULTS: The median SmartPhrase weekly completion rate was 78%. Established patients disagreed with providers with respect to epilepsy diagnosis in 18.5% of encounters (κ = 0.13), indicating that they did not have or were unsure if they had epilepsy despite having a provider-documented epilepsy diagnosis. Patients who disagreed with providers were similar to those who agreed with respect to age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, seizure frequency, type, and other quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSION: This project supports the feasibility of implementing standardized documentation of data relevant to epilepsy care in a tertiary epilepsy clinic and highlights an opportunity for improvement in patient-provider communication.