Should substitution monotherapy or combination therapy be used after failure of the first antiseizure medication? Observations from a 30‐year cohort study

Author:

Hakeem Haris12ORCID,Alsfouk Bshra Ali A.34ORCID,Kwan Patrick125ORCID,Brodie Martin J.4ORCID,Chen Zhibin16ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia

2. Department of Neurology Alfred Health Melbourne Victoria Australia

3. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Riyadh Saudi Arabia

4. University of Glasgow Glasgow UK

5. Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital The University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria Australia

6. Clinical Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesTo assess the temporal trends in the use of second antiseizure (ASM) regimens and compare the efficacy of substitution monotherapy and combination therapy after failure of initial monotherapy in people with epilepsy.MethodsThis was a longitudinal observational cohort study conducted at the Epilepsy Unit of the Western Infirmary in Glasgow, Scotland. We included patients who were newly treated for epilepsy with ASMs between July 1982, and October 2012. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Seizure freedom was defined as no seizure for at least 1 year on unchanged medication at the last follow up.ResultsDuring the study period, 498 patients were treated with a second ASM regimen after failure of the initial ASM monotherapy, of whom 346 (69%) were prescribed combination therapy and 152 (31%) were given substitution monotherapy. The proportion of patients receiving second regimen as combination therapy increased during the study period from 46% in first epoch (1985–1994) to 78% in the last (2005–2015) (RR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.17–2.36, corrected‐p = .010). Overall, 21% (104/498) of the patients achieved seizure freedom on the second ASM regimen, which was less than half of the seizure‐free rate on the initial ASM monotherapy (45%, p < .001). Patients who received substitution monotherapy had similar seizure‐free rate compared with those who received combination therapy (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.81–1.69, p = .41). Individual ASMs used, either alone or in combination, had similar efficacy. However, the subgroup analysis was limited by small sample sizes.SignificanceThe choice of second regimen used based on clinical judgment was not associated with treatment outcome in patients whose initial monotherapy failed due to poor seizure control. Alternative approaches such as machine learning should be explored to aid individualized selection of the second ASM regimen.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Neurology (clinical),Neurology

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3