Long-term seizure diary tracking habits in clinical studies: Evidence from the Human Epilepsy Project

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Epilepsy Research Pub Date : 2024-05-08 DOI:10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2024.107379
Kristen R. Miller , Sarah Barnard , Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga , Jacqueline A. French , Jacob Pellinen , on behalf of the Human Epilepsy Project Investigators
{"title":"Long-term seizure diary tracking habits in clinical studies: Evidence from the Human Epilepsy Project","authors":"Kristen R. Miller ,&nbsp;Sarah Barnard ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga ,&nbsp;Jacqueline A. French ,&nbsp;Jacob Pellinen ,&nbsp;on behalf of the Human Epilepsy Project Investigators","doi":"10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2024.107379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To characterize seizure tracking patterns of people with focal epilepsy using electronic seizure diary entries, and to assess for risk factors associated with poor tracking.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We analyzed electronic seizure diary data from 410 participants with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy in the Human Epilepsy Project 1 (HEP1). Each participant was expected to record data each day during the study, regardless of seizure occurrence. The primary outcome of this post-hoc analysis was whether each participant properly tracked a seizure diary entry each day during their study participation. Using finite mixture modeling, we grouped patient tracking trajectories into data-driven clusters. Once defined, we used multinomial modeling to test for independent risk factors of tracking group membership.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Using over up to three years of daily seizure diary data per subject, we found four distinct seizure tracking groups: consistent, frequent at study onset, occasional, and rare. Participants in the consistent tracking group tracked a median of 92% (interquartile range, IQR: 82%, 99%) of expected days, compared to 47% (IQR:34%, 60%) in the frequent at study onset group, 37% (IQR: 26%, 49%) in the occasional group, and 9% (IQR: 3%, 15%) in the rare group. In multivariable analysis, consistent trackers had lower rates of seizure days per tracked year during their study participation, compared to other groups.</p></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><p>Future efforts need to focus on improving seizure diary tracking adherence to improve quality of outcome data, particularly in those with higher seizure burden. In addition, accounting for missing data when using seizure diary data as a primary outcome is important in research trials. If not properly accounted for, total seizure burden may be underestimated and biased, skewing results of clinical trials.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11914,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsy Research","volume":"203 ","pages":"Article 107379"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsy Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920121124000949","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To characterize seizure tracking patterns of people with focal epilepsy using electronic seizure diary entries, and to assess for risk factors associated with poor tracking.

Methods

We analyzed electronic seizure diary data from 410 participants with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy in the Human Epilepsy Project 1 (HEP1). Each participant was expected to record data each day during the study, regardless of seizure occurrence. The primary outcome of this post-hoc analysis was whether each participant properly tracked a seizure diary entry each day during their study participation. Using finite mixture modeling, we grouped patient tracking trajectories into data-driven clusters. Once defined, we used multinomial modeling to test for independent risk factors of tracking group membership.

Results

Using over up to three years of daily seizure diary data per subject, we found four distinct seizure tracking groups: consistent, frequent at study onset, occasional, and rare. Participants in the consistent tracking group tracked a median of 92% (interquartile range, IQR: 82%, 99%) of expected days, compared to 47% (IQR:34%, 60%) in the frequent at study onset group, 37% (IQR: 26%, 49%) in the occasional group, and 9% (IQR: 3%, 15%) in the rare group. In multivariable analysis, consistent trackers had lower rates of seizure days per tracked year during their study participation, compared to other groups.

Significance

Future efforts need to focus on improving seizure diary tracking adherence to improve quality of outcome data, particularly in those with higher seizure burden. In addition, accounting for missing data when using seizure diary data as a primary outcome is important in research trials. If not properly accounted for, total seizure burden may be underestimated and biased, skewing results of clinical trials.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床研究中的长期发作日记追踪习惯:人类癫痫项目的证据
方法 我们分析了人类癫痫项目 1(HEP1)中 410 名新确诊的局灶性癫痫患者的电子发作日记数据。每位参与者在研究期间每天都要记录数据,无论是否有癫痫发作。这项事后分析的主要结果是每位参与者在参与研究期间是否每天都正确记录了发作日记条目。通过有限混合建模,我们将患者的追踪轨迹分为数据驱动的群组。结果利用每个受试者长达三年的每日癫痫发作日记数据,我们发现了四个不同的癫痫发作追踪组:持续追踪组、研究开始时频繁追踪组、偶尔追踪组和罕见追踪组。持续追踪组的参与者追踪了92%(四分位数间距:82%,99%)的预期天数,而研究开始时频繁组为47%(四分位数间距:34%,60%),偶尔组为37%(四分位数间距:26%,49%),罕见组为9%(四分位数间距:3%,15%)。在多变量分析中,与其他组别相比,坚持追踪者在参与研究期间每追踪一年的癫痫发作天数比率较低。重要意义未来的工作需要重点改善癫痫发作日记追踪的坚持性,以提高结果数据的质量,尤其是那些癫痫发作负担较重的患者。此外,在使用癫痫发作日记数据作为主要结果时,对缺失数据进行核算在研究试验中非常重要。如果不适当地考虑缺失数据,总的癫痫发作负担可能会被低估并产生偏差,从而影响临床试验的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Epilepsy Research
Epilepsy Research 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
4.50%
发文量
143
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Epilepsy Research provides for publication of high quality articles in both basic and clinical epilepsy research, with a special emphasis on translational research that ultimately relates to epilepsy as a human condition. The journal is intended to provide a forum for reporting the best and most rigorous epilepsy research from all disciplines ranging from biophysics and molecular biology to epidemiological and psychosocial research. As such the journal will publish original papers relevant to epilepsy from any scientific discipline and also studies of a multidisciplinary nature. Clinical and experimental research papers adopting fresh conceptual approaches to the study of epilepsy and its treatment are encouraged. The overriding criteria for publication are novelty, significant clinical or experimental relevance, and interest to a multidisciplinary audience in the broad arena of epilepsy. Review articles focused on any topic of epilepsy research will also be considered, but only if they present an exceptionally clear synthesis of current knowledge and future directions of a research area, based on a critical assessment of the available data or on hypotheses that are likely to stimulate more critical thinking and further advances in an area of epilepsy research.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Cannabis use, sleep and mood disturbances among persons with epilepsy – A clinical and polysomnography study from a Canadian tertiary care epilepsy center Evaluating the late seizures of acute encephalopathy with biphasic seizures and late reduced diffusion via monitoring using continuous electroencephalogram Validation of hemispherectomy outcome prediction scale in treatment of medically intractable epilepsy MicroRNAs as potential biomarkers of response to modified Atkins diet in treatment of adults with drug-resistant epilepsy: A proof-of-concept study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1