Search

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., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AM reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from UCB Pharma, outside of the submitted work. JPL reports grants from University of Liverpool during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from UCB Pharma; and personal fees from Eisai, Janssen CIlag Pharmaceuticals, GW Pharmaceuticals, GSK Pharma, outside of the submitted work. GS reports personal fees from UCB Pharma, Eisai, Arvelle Therapeutics GmbH, outside of the submitted work. CP reports grants from National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme during the conduct of this study. CT reports grants from University of Liverpool during the conduct of the study. DH reports grants from National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme during the conduct of the study. RM reports personal fees from UCB Pharma and grants from UCB Pharma and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. PES is a member of the NICE Panel for Epilepsy guideline 2021 and is an editor of the journal Practical Neurology. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AM reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from UCB Pharma, outside of the submitted work. JPL reports grants from University of Liverpool during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from UCB Pharma; and personal fees from Eisai, Janssen CIlag Pharmaceuticals, GW Pharmaceuticals, GSK Pharma, outside of the submitted work. GS reports personal fees from UCB Pharma, Eisai, Arvelle Therapeutics GmbH, outside of the submitted work. CP reports grants from National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme during the conduct of this study. CT reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research, during the conduct of the study. DH reports grants from National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme during the conduct of the study. RM reports personal fees from UCB Pharma and grants from UCB Pharma and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. PES is a member of the NICE Panel for Epilepsy guideline 2021 and is an editor of the journal Practical Neurology. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Different methods to examine research gaps have been described, but there are still no standard methods for identifying, prioritizing, or reporting research gaps. This study aimed to describe the methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps in health research., Methods: A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework was carried out. We included all study types describing or reporting on methods to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research. Data synthesis is both quantitative and qualitative., Results: Among 1,938 identified documents, 139 articles were selected for analysis; 90 (65%) aimed to identify gaps, 23 (17%) aimed to determine research priorities, and 26 (19%) had both aims. The most frequent methods in the review were aimed at gap identification and involved secondary research, which included knowledge synthesis (80/116 articles, 69%), specifically systematic reviews and scoping reviews (58/80, 73%). Among 49 studies aimed at research prioritization, the most frequent methods were both primary and secondary research, accounting for 24 (49%) reports. Finally, 52 (37%) articles described methods for displaying gaps and/or priorities in health research., Conclusion: This study provides a mapping of different methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The objective of this study was to describe and evaluate a training intervention for recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), particularly for those anticipated to be difficult for recruitment., Study Design and Setting: One of three training workshops was offered to surgeons and one to research nurses. Self-confidence in recruitment was measured through questionnaires before and up to 3 months after training; perceived impact of training on practice was assessed after. Data were analyzed using two-sample t-tests and supplemented with findings from the content analysis of free-text comments., Results: Sixty-seven surgeons and 32 nurses attended. Self-confidence scores for all 10 questions increased after training [range of mean scores before 5.1-6.9 and after 6.9-8.2 (scale 0-10, all 95% confidence intervals are above 0 and all P-values <0.05)]. Awareness of hidden challenges of recruitment following training was high-surgeons' mean score 8.8 [standard deviation (SD), 1.2] and nurses' 8.4 (SD, 1.3) (scale 0-10); 50% (19/38) of surgeons and 40% (10/25) of nurses reported on a 4-point Likert scale that training had made "a lot" of difference to their RCT discussions. Analysis of free text revealed this was mostly in relation to how to convey equipoise, explain randomization, and manage treatment preferences., Conclusion: Surgeons and research nurses reported increased self-confidence in discussing RCTs with patients, a raised awareness of hidden challenges and a positive impact on recruitment practice following QuinteT RCT Recruitment Training. Training will be made more available and evaluated in relation to recruitment rates and informed consent., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2017 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2016 American Society for Nutrition.)

Background: Reductions in eating rate are recommended to prevent and treat obesity; yet, the relation between eating rate and energy intake has not been systematically reviewed, with studies producing mixed results., Objective: Our main objective was to examine how experimentally manipulated differences in eating rate influence concurrent energy intake and subjective hunger ratings., Design: We systematically reviewed studies that experimentally manipulated eating rate and measured concurrent food intake, self-reported hunger, or both. We combined effect estimates from studies by using inverse variance meta-analysis, calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) in food intake between fast and slow eating rate conditions., Results: Twenty-two studies were eligible for inclusion. Evidence indicated that a slower eating rate was associated with lower energy intake in comparison to a faster eating rate (random-effects SMD: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.65; P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis indicated that the effect was consistent regardless of the type of manipulation used to alter eating rate, although there was a large amount of heterogeneity between studies. There was no significant relation between eating rate and hunger at the end of the meal or up to 3.5 h later., Conclusions: Evidence to date supports the notion that eating rate affects energy intake. Research is needed to identify effective interventions to reduce eating rate that can be adopted in everyday life to help limit excess consumption., (© 2014 American Society for Nutrition.)

Evidence from clinical trials, ideally using randomisation and allocation concealment, is essential for informing clinical decisions regarding the benefits and harms of treatments for patients. Where diseases are rare, such as in paediatric rheumatic diseases, patient recruitment into clinical trials can be a major obstacle, leading to an absence of evidence and patients receiving treatments based on anecdotal evidence. There are numerous trial designs and modifications that can be made to improve efficiency and maximise what little data may be available in a rare disease clinical trial. These are discussed and illustrated with examples from paediatric rheumatology. Regulatory incentives and support from research networks have helped to deliver these trials, but more can be done to continue this important research., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)