Dataset Information

The number of seizures needed in the EMU.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to develop a quantitative framework to estimate the likelihood of multifocal epilepsy based on the number of unifocal seizures observed in the epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU).Patient records from the EMU at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) from 2012 to 2014 were assessed for the presence of multifocal seizures as well the presence of multifocal interictal discharges and multifocal structural imaging abnormalities during the course of the EMU admission. Risk factors for multifocal seizures were assessed using sensitivity and specificity analysis. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate the risk of multifocal epilepsy for a given number of consecutive seizures. To overcome the limits of the Kaplan-Meier analysis, a parametric survival function was fit to the EMU subjects with multifocal seizures and this was used to develop a Bayesian model to estimate the risk of multifocal seizures during an EMU admission.Multifocal interictal discharges were a significant predictor of multifocal seizures within an EMU admission with a p < 0.01, albeit with only modest sensitivity 0.74 and specificity 0.69. Multifocal potentially epileptogenic lesions on MRI were not a significant predictor p = 0.44. Kaplan-Meier analysis was limited by wide confidence intervals secondary to significant patient dropout and concern for informative censoring. The Bayesian framework provided estimates for the number of unifocal seizures needed to predict absence of multifocal seizures. To achieve 90% confidence for the absence of multifocal seizure, three seizures are needed when the pretest probability for multifocal epilepsy is 20%, seven seizures for a pretest probability of 50%, and nine seizures for a pretest probability of 80%.These results provide a framework to assist clinicians in determining the utility of trying to capture a specific number of seizures in EMU evaluations of candidates for epilepsy surgery.

SUBMITTER: Struck AF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4877132 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The number of seizures needed in the EMU.

Struck Aaron F AF Cole Andrew J AJ Cash Sydney S SS Westover M Brandon MB

Epilepsia 20150727 11

<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study was to develop a quantitative framework to estimate the likelihood of multifocal epilepsy based on the number of unifocal seizures observed in the epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU).<h4>Methods</h4>Patient records from the EMU at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) from 2012 to 2014 were assessed for the presence of multifocal seizures as well the presence of multifocal interictal discharges and multifocal structural imaging abnormalities during the cours ...[more]

PMID: 26222350

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective:Schizophrenia clinical trials commonly measure observed changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. However, it is more intuitive to think of response vs nonresponse, a binary outcome. Assessing binary outcomes enables calculation of number needed to treat (NNT) for therapeutic outcomes, number needed to harm (NNH) for adverse outcomes, and likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) to demonstrate benefit/risk tradeoffs. Here, NNT, NNH, and LHH were used to evaluate the clinical usefulness of aripiprazole lauroxil in patients with an acute schizophrenia exacerbation. Methods:Categorical efficacy and tolerability data were taken from the pivotal Phase 3 trial evaluating aripiprazole lauroxil for treatment of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. NNT and NNH values, with 95% CIs, were calculated in this post hoc analysis. Results:Using the intent-to-treat population for the pooled doses of aripiprazole lauroxil (441 mg [n=196] and 882 mg [n=204] q4w), responder rates (?30% improvement from baseline PANSS total score) were 35.3% for aripiprazole lauroxil arms vs 18.4% for placebo (n=196), yielding a NNT of 6 (95% CI: 5-11). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs) were higher among patients randomized to placebo than to either aripiprazole lauroxil dose. Akathisia was the only AE with an incidence ?5% in each aripiprazole lauroxil group and at least twice that of placebo (11.6%, 11.5%, and 4.3% of the patients receiving aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg, 882 mg, and placebo, respectively), producing a NNH of 14 (95% CI: 9-33) for pooled aripiprazole lauroxil doses vs placebo. Calculating LHH for therapeutic response vs akathisia, aripiprazole lauroxil was 2.3 times more likely to result in a therapeutic response than an incident of akathisia. Conclusion:Using metrics of NNT, NNH, and LHH, aripiprazole lauroxil was an efficacious and well-tolerated intervention in a pivotal study in patients with an acute schizophrenia exacerbation.

Project description:IntroductionSubcutaneous galcanezumab was an effective, well-tolerated preventive treatment for adults with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) in 4 phase 3 randomized controlled trials: EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, REGAIN, and CONQUER. Number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) are metrics of effect size used to evaluate benefit-risk profiles. This study evaluated NNT, NNH, and benefit-risk profiles (measured as likelihood to be helped or harmed, LHH) of galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo in patients with EM or CM.MethodsPrimary efficacy outcomes were responses defined as ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 75% reductions from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; CONQUER) and CM (REGAIN; CONQUER); corresponding NNTs to achieve respective responses; and corresponding NNHs for discontinuations due to adverse events (DCAEs) among the safety population. Secondary efficacy outcomes were responses for patients with ≥ 2 failed prior preventive treatments due to lack of efficacy and/or for tolerability reasons. All LHHs were based on ≥ 50% response and DCAEs.ResultsDuring double-blind treatment periods with galcanezumab 120 mg, NNT to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses ranged from 4 to 10 and NNT to achieve ≥ 75% responses ranged from 5 to 23 in individual trials. NNH ranged from 93 to 1000, while LHH ranged from 18.6 to 104.6. NNTs were generally more robust among patients with EM than with CM; however, in patients with failure of ≥ 2 prior preventive treatments, NNTs to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses were similar between patients with CM and EM. NNHs were imputed as 1000 for both migraine types. Resulting LHHs were 178.8 (EM) and 127 (CM).ConclusionAcross 4 trials, galcanezumab 120 mg demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile versus placebo, based on low NNTs to achieve response and high NNHs associated with DCAEs. LHH values consistently far exceeded 1.Trial registration numbersEVOLVE-1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614183; EVOLVE-2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614196; REGAIN: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614261; CONQUER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03559257.

Project description:IntroductionThe objective was to use the evidence-based medicine metrics of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed to appraise the clinical efficacy and tolerability of sublingual dexmedetomidine in adults with agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.MethodsSublingual dexmedetomidine data for this post hoc analysis were obtained from two similarly designed, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of adults with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Response to treatment was defined as a ≥ 40% reduction from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PEC). Tolerability was assessed by evaluating rates of adverse events.ResultsThe number needed to treat (95% confidence interval) estimate versus placebo for PEC response at 2 h post-dose was 3 (2, 3) for the sublingual dexmedetomidine 180-µg group (n = 125) and 3 (3, 4) for the 120-µg group (n = 129) in the study of patients with schizophrenia and 3 (2, 3) for the sublingual dexmedetomidine 180-µg group (n = 126) and 4 (3, 6) for the 120-µg group (n = 126) in the study of patients with bipolar disorder. Number needed to harm values versus placebo were greater than 10 for all adverse events except somnolence, where the number needed to harm (95% confidence interval) was 7 (5, 10) for all doses pooled from both studies. In all instances, likelihood to be helped or harmed values were greater than 1 for efficacy versus applicable tolerability outcomes.ConclusionsThe number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed of sublingual dexmedetomidine support a favorable benefit-risk profile in adults with acute agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268303 , NCT04268303.Clinicaltrialsgov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04276883 , NCT04276883.

Dataset Information

The number of seizures needed in the EMU.

Publications

The number of seizures needed in the EMU.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets