预测成人癫痫患者抗癫痫药物治疗效果的风险评估工具。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management Pub Date : 2024-08-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/TCRM.S467975
Rose Aniza Rusli, Mohd Makmor Bakry, Noraida Mohamed Shah, Xin Ling Loo, Stefanie Kar Yan Hung
{"title":"预测成人癫痫患者抗癫痫药物治疗效果的风险评估工具。","authors":"Rose Aniza Rusli, Mohd Makmor Bakry, Noraida Mohamed Shah, Xin Ling Loo, Stefanie Kar Yan Hung","doi":"10.2147/TCRM.S467975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Identifying a patient's risk for poor outcomes after starting antiseizure medication (ASM) therapy is crucial in managing epilepsy pharmacologically. To date, there is a lack of designated tools to assess such risks.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To develop and validate a risk assessment tool for the therapeutic outcomes of ASM therapy.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study was carried out in a hospital-based specialist clinic from September 2022 to August 2023. Data was analyzed from patients' medical records and face-to-face assessments. The seizure control domain was determined from the patients' medical records while seizure severity (SS) and adverse effects (AE) of ASM were assessed using the Seizure Severity Questionnaire and the Liverpool Adverse Event Profile respectively. The developed tool was devised from prediction models using logistic and linear regressions. Concurrent validity and interrater reliability methods were employed for validity assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 397 patients were included in the analysis. For seizure control, the identified predictors include ≥10 years' epilepsy duration (OR:1.87,95% CI:1.10-3.17), generalized onset (OR:7.42,95% CI:2.95-18.66), focal onset seizure (OR:8.24,95% CI:2.98-22.77), non-adherence (OR:3.55,95% CI:1.52-8.27) and having ≥3 ASM (OR:3.29,95% CI:1.32-8.24). Younger age at epilepsy onset (≤40) (OR:3.29,95% CI:1.32-8.24) and neurological deficit (OR:3.55,95% CI:1.52-8.27) were significant predictors for SS. For AE, the positive predictors were age >35 (OR:0.12,95% CI:0.03-0.20), <13 years epilepsy duration (OR:2.89,95% CI:0.50-5.29) and changes in ASM regimen (OR:2.93,95% CI: 0.24-5.62). The seizure control domain showed a good discriminatory ability with a <i>c-index</i> of 0.711. From the Bonferroni (ANOVA) analysis, only SS predicted scores generated a linear plot against the mean of the actual scores. The AE domain was omitted from the final tool because it did not meet the requirements for validity assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This newly developed tool (RAS-TO) is a promising tool that could help healthcare providers in determining optimal treatment strategies for adults with epilepsy.</p>","PeriodicalId":22977,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","volume":"20 ","pages":"529-541"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363947/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk Assessment Tool in Predicting the Therapeutic Outcomes of Antiseizure Medication in Adults with Epilepsy.\",\"authors\":\"Rose Aniza Rusli, Mohd Makmor Bakry, Noraida Mohamed Shah, Xin Ling Loo, Stefanie Kar Yan Hung\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/TCRM.S467975\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Identifying a patient's risk for poor outcomes after starting antiseizure medication (ASM) therapy is crucial in managing epilepsy pharmacologically. To date, there is a lack of designated tools to assess such risks.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To develop and validate a risk assessment tool for the therapeutic outcomes of ASM therapy.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study was carried out in a hospital-based specialist clinic from September 2022 to August 2023. Data was analyzed from patients' medical records and face-to-face assessments. The seizure control domain was determined from the patients' medical records while seizure severity (SS) and adverse effects (AE) of ASM were assessed using the Seizure Severity Questionnaire and the Liverpool Adverse Event Profile respectively. The developed tool was devised from prediction models using logistic and linear regressions. Concurrent validity and interrater reliability methods were employed for validity assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 397 patients were included in the analysis. For seizure control, the identified predictors include ≥10 years' epilepsy duration (OR:1.87,95% CI:1.10-3.17), generalized onset (OR:7.42,95% CI:2.95-18.66), focal onset seizure (OR:8.24,95% CI:2.98-22.77), non-adherence (OR:3.55,95% CI:1.52-8.27) and having ≥3 ASM (OR:3.29,95% CI:1.32-8.24). Younger age at epilepsy onset (≤40) (OR:3.29,95% CI:1.32-8.24) and neurological deficit (OR:3.55,95% CI:1.52-8.27) were significant predictors for SS. For AE, the positive predictors were age >35 (OR:0.12,95% CI:0.03-0.20), <13 years epilepsy duration (OR:2.89,95% CI:0.50-5.29) and changes in ASM regimen (OR:2.93,95% CI: 0.24-5.62). The seizure control domain showed a good discriminatory ability with a <i>c-index</i> of 0.711. From the Bonferroni (ANOVA) analysis, only SS predicted scores generated a linear plot against the mean of the actual scores. The AE domain was omitted from the final tool because it did not meet the requirements for validity assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This newly developed tool (RAS-TO) is a promising tool that could help healthcare providers in determining optimal treatment strategies for adults with epilepsy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"529-541\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363947/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S467975\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S467975","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定患者在开始抗癫痫药物(ASM)治疗后出现不良后果的风险对于癫痫的药物治疗至关重要。目的:开发并验证抗癫痫药物治疗疗效风险评估工具:一项横断面研究于 2022 年 9 月至 2023 年 8 月在一家医院专科门诊进行。数据分析来自患者的病历和面对面评估。根据患者病历确定癫痫发作控制领域,同时分别使用癫痫发作严重程度问卷(SS)和利物浦不良事件档案(Liverpool Adverse Event Profile)评估 ASM 的发作严重程度(SS)和不良反应(AE)。开发的工具是根据逻辑回归和线性回归的预测模型设计的。在进行有效性评估时,采用了并发有效性和分析者间可靠性方法:共有 397 名患者被纳入分析。在癫痫发作控制方面,已确定的预测因素包括:癫痫持续时间≥10 年(OR:1.87,95% CI:1.10-3.17)、全身性发病(OR:7.42,95% CI:2.95-18.66)、局灶性发病(OR:1.87,95% CI:1.10-3.17)。95-18.66)、局灶性发作(OR:8.24,95% CI:2.98-22.77)、不依从(OR:3.55,95% CI:1.52-8.27)和有≥3 个 ASM(OR:3.29,95% CI:1.32-8.24)。癫痫发病年龄较小(≤40 岁)(OR:3.29,95% CI:1.32-8.24)和神经功能缺损(OR:3.55,95% CI:1.52-8.27)是 SS 的显著预测因素。就 AE 而言,年龄大于 35 岁(OR:0.12,95% CI:0.03-0.20)是阳性预测因子,c 指数为 0.711。从 Bonferroni(方差分析)分析结果来看,只有 SS 预测得分与实际得分的平均值形成了线性对比。由于 AE 领域不符合有效性评估的要求,因此最终工具中省略了 AE 领域:这个新开发的工具(RAS-TO)是一个很有前途的工具,可以帮助医疗服务提供者确定成人癫痫患者的最佳治疗策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Risk Assessment Tool in Predicting the Therapeutic Outcomes of Antiseizure Medication in Adults with Epilepsy.

Aim: Identifying a patient's risk for poor outcomes after starting antiseizure medication (ASM) therapy is crucial in managing epilepsy pharmacologically. To date, there is a lack of designated tools to assess such risks.

Purpose: To develop and validate a risk assessment tool for the therapeutic outcomes of ASM therapy.

Patients and methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in a hospital-based specialist clinic from September 2022 to August 2023. Data was analyzed from patients' medical records and face-to-face assessments. The seizure control domain was determined from the patients' medical records while seizure severity (SS) and adverse effects (AE) of ASM were assessed using the Seizure Severity Questionnaire and the Liverpool Adverse Event Profile respectively. The developed tool was devised from prediction models using logistic and linear regressions. Concurrent validity and interrater reliability methods were employed for validity assessments.

Results: A total of 397 patients were included in the analysis. For seizure control, the identified predictors include ≥10 years' epilepsy duration (OR:1.87,95% CI:1.10-3.17), generalized onset (OR:7.42,95% CI:2.95-18.66), focal onset seizure (OR:8.24,95% CI:2.98-22.77), non-adherence (OR:3.55,95% CI:1.52-8.27) and having ≥3 ASM (OR:3.29,95% CI:1.32-8.24). Younger age at epilepsy onset (≤40) (OR:3.29,95% CI:1.32-8.24) and neurological deficit (OR:3.55,95% CI:1.52-8.27) were significant predictors for SS. For AE, the positive predictors were age >35 (OR:0.12,95% CI:0.03-0.20), <13 years epilepsy duration (OR:2.89,95% CI:0.50-5.29) and changes in ASM regimen (OR:2.93,95% CI: 0.24-5.62). The seizure control domain showed a good discriminatory ability with a c-index of 0.711. From the Bonferroni (ANOVA) analysis, only SS predicted scores generated a linear plot against the mean of the actual scores. The AE domain was omitted from the final tool because it did not meet the requirements for validity assessment.

Conclusion: This newly developed tool (RAS-TO) is a promising tool that could help healthcare providers in determining optimal treatment strategies for adults with epilepsy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
139
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management is an international, peer-reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies in all therapeutic areas, outcomes, safety, and programs for the effective, safe, and sustained use of medicines, therapeutic and surgical interventions in all clinical areas. The journal welcomes submissions covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary. The journal will consider case reports but only if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. As of 18th March 2019, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
期刊最新文献
Synergistic Effect of the CHA2DS2-VASc Score and Left Atrial Epicardial Adipose Tissue Volume on Predicting Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Ablation. Novel Obstetric Air Cushion for the Prevention of Hypotension During Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Clinical Manifestations and Risk Factors of Liver Injury Induced by PD-1 Inhibitors in Patients with Malignancies: A Case-Control Study. Development and Validation of Machine Learning Models for Outcome Prediction in Patients with Poor-Grade Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Following Endovascular Treatment. A Nomogram Based on S100A7 and Clinicopathological Characteristics to Predict the Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: A Retrospective 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