Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Epilepsia. 2022 Jul;63(7):1724-1735. doi: 10.1111/epi.17273. Epub 2022 May 18.
The 1991 Medical Research Council (MRC) Study compared seizure relapse for seizure-free patients randomized to withdraw vs continue of antiseizure medications (ASMs). We re-analyzed this trial to account for crossover between arms using contamination-adjusted intention to treat (CA ITT) methods, to explore dose-response curves, and to validate predictions against external data. ITT assesses the effect of being randomized to withdraw, as-treated analysis assesses the confounded effect of withdrawing, but CA ITT assesses the unconfounded effect of actually withdrawing.
CA ITT involves two stages. First, we used randomized arm to predict whether patients withdrew their ASM (logistic) or total daily ASM dose (linear). Second, we used those values to predict seizure occurrence (logistic).
The trial randomized 503 patients to withdraw and 501 patients to continue ASMs. We found that 316 of 376 patients (88%) who were randomized to withdraw decreased their dose at every pre-seizure visit, compared with 35 of 424 (8%) who were randomized to continue (p < .01). Adjusted odds ratios of a 2-year seizure for those who withdrew vs those who did not was 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-1.9) in the as-treated analysis, 2.5 (95% CI 1.9-3.4) comparing those randomized to withdraw vs continue for ITT, and 3.1 (95% CI 2.1-4.5) for CA ITT. Probabilities (withdrawal vs continue) were 28% vs 24% (as-treated), 40% vs 22% (ITT), and 43% vs 21% (CA ITT). Differences between ITT and CA ITT were greater when varying the predictor (reaching zero ASMs) or outcome (1-year seizures). As-treated dose-response curves demonstrated little to no effects, but larger effects in CA ITT analysis. MRC data overpredicted risk in Lossius data, with moderate discrimination (areas under the curve ~0.70).
CA ITT results (the effect of actually withdrawing ASMs on seizures) were slightly greater than ITT effects (the effect of recommend withdrawing ASMs on seizures). How these findings affect clinical practice must be individualized.
1991 年医学研究委员会(MRC)研究比较了无癫痫发作患者随机分为停药组和继续用药组的癫痫复发率。我们使用污染调整意向治疗(CA ITT)方法重新分析了这项试验,以考虑到臂之间的交叉,并探索剂量反应曲线,并根据外部数据验证预测。意向治疗评估随机分组停药的效果,实际治疗分析评估停药的混杂效果,但 CA ITT 评估实际停药的无混杂效果。
CA ITT 包括两个阶段。首先,我们使用随机臂预测患者是否停止使用抗癫痫药物(ASM)(逻辑)或每日总 ASM 剂量(线性)。其次,我们使用这些值预测癫痫发作的发生(逻辑)。
该试验随机分配 503 名患者停药和 501 名患者继续使用 ASM。我们发现,在 376 名随机分组停药的患者中,有 316 名(88%)在每次癫痫发作前就诊时降低了剂量,而在 424 名随机分组继续用药的患者中,只有 35 名(8%)(p<.01)。对于实际停药的患者与未停药的患者,2 年内癫痫发作的调整优势比为 1.3(95%置信区间 [CI] 0.9-1.9),对于随机分组停药的患者与继续用药的患者,为 2.5(95%CI 1.9-3.4),对于 CA ITT,为 3.1(95%CI 2.1-4.5)。停药与继续用药的可能性分别为 28%比 24%(实际治疗),40%比 22%(意向治疗),43%比 21%(CA ITT)。当改变预测因子(达到零 ASM)或结果(1 年发作)时,意向治疗和 CA ITT 之间的差异更大。实际治疗剂量反应曲线显示几乎没有效果,但 CA ITT 分析的效果更大。MRC 数据高估了 Lossius 数据的风险,具有中等的区分度(曲线下面积约为 0.70)。
CA ITT 结果(实际停药对癫痫发作的影响)略大于 ITT 结果(建议停药对癫痫发作的影响)。这些发现如何影响临床实践必须个体化。