Search

Background and ObjectivesTo describe neurologist practice patterns, challenges, and decision support needs pertaining to withdrawal of antiseizure medications (ASMs) in patients with well-controlled epilepsy.MethodsWe sent an electronic survey to (1) US and (2) European physician members of the American Academy of Neurology and (3) members of EpiCARE, a European Reference Network for rare and complex epilepsies. Analyses included frequencies and percentages, and we showed distributions through histograms and violin plots.ResultsWe sent the survey to 4,923 individuals; 463 consented, 411 passed eligibility questions, and 287 responded to at least 1 of these questions. Most respondents indicated that they might ever consider ASM withdrawal, with respondents treating mostly children being more likely ever to consider withdrawal (e.g., medical monotherapy: children 96% vs adults 81%;p< 0.05). The most important factors when making decisions included seizure probability (83%), consequences of seizures (73%), and driving (74%). The top challenges when making decisions included unclear seizure probability (81%), inadequate guidelines (50%), and difficulty communicating probabilities (45%). Respondents would consider withdrawal after a median of 2-year seizure freedom, but also responded that they would begin withdrawal on average only when the postwithdrawal seizure relapse risk in the coming 2 years was less than 15%–30%. Wide variation existed in the use of words or numbers in respondents' counsel methods, for example, percentages vs frequencies or probability of seizure freedom vs seizure. The most highly rated point-of-care methods to inform providers of calculated risk were Kaplan-Meier curves and showing percentages only, rather than pictographs or text recommendations alone.DiscussionMost surveyed neurologists would consider withdrawing ASMs in seizure-free individuals. Seizure probability was the largest factor driving decisions, yet estimating seizure probabilities was the greatest challenge. Respondents on average indicated that they may withdraw ASM after a minimum seizure-free duration of 2 years, yet also on average were willing to withdraw when seizure risk decreased below 15%–30%, which is lower than most patients' postwithdrawal risk at 2-year seizure freedom and lower than the equivalent even of a first seizure of life. These findings will inform future efforts at developing decision support tools aimed at optimizing ASM withdrawal decisions.

BACKGROUND Implementation strategies are essential for promoting the uptake of evidence-based practices and for patients to receive optimal care. Yet strategies differ substantially in their intensity and feasibility. Lower-intensity strategies (eg, training and technical support) are commonly used but may be insufficient for all clinics. Limited research has examined the comparative effectiveness of augmentations to low-level implementation strategies for nonresponding clinics. OBJECTIVES To compare 2 augmentation strategies for improving uptake of an evidence-based collaborative chronic care model (CCM) on 18-month outcomes for patients with depression at community-based clinics nonresponsive to lower-level implementation support. RESEARCH DESIGN Providers initially received support using a low-level implementation strategy, Replicating Effective Programs (REP). After 6 months, nonresponsive clinics were randomized to add either external facilitation (REP+EF) or external and internal facilitation (REP+EF/IF). MEASURES The primary outcome was patient 12-item short form survey (SF-12) mental health score at month 18. Secondary outcomes were patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression score at month 18 and receipt of the CCM during months 6 through 18. RESULTS Twenty-seven clinics were nonresponsive after 6 months of REP. Thirteen clinics (N=77 patients) were randomized to REP+EF and 14 (N=92) to REP+EF/IF. At 18 months, patients in the REP+EF/IF arm had worse SF-12 [diff, 8.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.59-13.18] and PHQ-9 scores (diff, 1.82; 95% CI, -0.14 to 3.79), and lower odds of CCM receipt (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.30-1.49) than REP+EF patients. CONCLUSIONS Patients at sites receiving the more intensive REP+EF/IF saw less improvement in mood symptoms at 18 months than those receiving REP+EF and were no more likely to receive the CCM. For community-based clinics, EF augmentation may be more feasible than EF/IF for implementing CCMs.