Evaluation of drug treatment outcome in epilepsy: A clinical perspective

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive discussion of clinical outcome measures used in trials aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of antiepileptic drugs. For efficacy, assessment still relies on careful documentation of changes in ictal activity as determined by seizure counts based on patients recall, direct clinical observation and (for absence seizures) EEG monitoring. In selected cases, assessment of seizure severity may also be indicated. The precise choice of outcome measures is largerly dependent upon the specific trial design. In short-term regulatory trials, parameters such as time to nth seizure after randomization (or after achievement of target dosage) may be used as an index of antiepileptic efficacy, but the clinical relevance of such measures is questionable. In add-on trials in refractory patients, changes in seizure counts and proportion of patients achieving 50%, 75% and 100% reduction in seizure frequency may be appropriate. For long-term monotherapy trials in newly diagnosed patients, proportion of patients achieving prolonged remission (1-year or longer) usually represents the most clinically meaningful efficacy outcome. Retention of patients on the allocated treatment over time is also a valuable measure, but it should be regarded as a composite endpoint because decision to continue treatment is dependent on both efficacy and tolerability. At present, there is no universally accepted method for evaluating side effects, particularly those which can not be documented objectively. Spontaneous reports of symptoms or use of specific checklists have advantages and disadvantages. Studies aimed at ensuring greater standardization in safety assessment should be encouraged, especially with respect to need of obtaining quantitative estimates, and information on both prevalence and incidence of side effects should be reported in all trials.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)217-222
Number of pages6
JournalPharmacy World and Science
Volume19
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1997

Fingerprint

Drug therapy
Drug Evaluation
Anticonvulsants
Epilepsy
Seizures
Electroencephalography
Refractory materials
Standardization
Monitoring
Composite materials
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Safety
Absence Epilepsy
Random Allocation
Checklist
Documentation
Stroke
Observation
Incidence
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Antiepileptic drugs
  • Controlled trials
  • Efficacy
  • Outcome measures
  • Safety
  • Seizures
  • Side effect
  • Trial design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Chemistry(all)
  • Pharmaceutical Science
  • Pharmacology

Cite this

Evaluation of drug treatment outcome in epilepsy : A clinical perspective. / Perucca, Emilio.

In: Pharmacy World and Science, Vol. 19, No. 5, 1997, p. 217-222.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f12c99bc3fd042a8a1a0299cd0930163,
title = "Evaluation of drug treatment outcome in epilepsy: A clinical perspective",
abstract = "This article provides a comprehensive discussion of clinical outcome measures used in trials aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of antiepileptic drugs. For efficacy, assessment still relies on careful documentation of changes in ictal activity as determined by seizure counts based on patients recall, direct clinical observation and (for absence seizures) EEG monitoring. In selected cases, assessment of seizure severity may also be indicated. The precise choice of outcome measures is largerly dependent upon the specific trial design. In short-term regulatory trials, parameters such as time to nth seizure after randomization (or after achievement of target dosage) may be used as an index of antiepileptic efficacy, but the clinical relevance of such measures is questionable. In add-on trials in refractory patients, changes in seizure counts and proportion of patients achieving 50{\%}, 75{\%} and 100{\%} reduction in seizure frequency may be appropriate. For long-term monotherapy trials in newly diagnosed patients, proportion of patients achieving prolonged remission (1-year or longer) usually represents the most clinically meaningful efficacy outcome. Retention of patients on the allocated treatment over time is also a valuable measure, but it should be regarded as a composite endpoint because decision to continue treatment is dependent on both efficacy and tolerability. At present, there is no universally accepted method for evaluating side effects, particularly those which can not be documented objectively. Spontaneous reports of symptoms or use of specific checklists have advantages and disadvantages. Studies aimed at ensuring greater standardization in safety assessment should be encouraged, especially with respect to need of obtaining quantitative estimates, and information on both prevalence and incidence of side effects should be reported in all trials.",
keywords = "Antiepileptic drugs, Controlled trials, Efficacy, Outcome measures, Safety, Seizures, Side effect, Trial design",
author = "Emilio Perucca",
year = "1997",
doi = "10.1023/A:1008698807530",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "217--222",
journal = "Pharmacy World and Science",
issn = "0928-1231",
publisher = "Kluwer Academic Publishers",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of drug treatment outcome in epilepsy

T2 - A clinical perspective

AU - Perucca, Emilio

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - This article provides a comprehensive discussion of clinical outcome measures used in trials aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of antiepileptic drugs. For efficacy, assessment still relies on careful documentation of changes in ictal activity as determined by seizure counts based on patients recall, direct clinical observation and (for absence seizures) EEG monitoring. In selected cases, assessment of seizure severity may also be indicated. The precise choice of outcome measures is largerly dependent upon the specific trial design. In short-term regulatory trials, parameters such as time to nth seizure after randomization (or after achievement of target dosage) may be used as an index of antiepileptic efficacy, but the clinical relevance of such measures is questionable. In add-on trials in refractory patients, changes in seizure counts and proportion of patients achieving 50%, 75% and 100% reduction in seizure frequency may be appropriate. For long-term monotherapy trials in newly diagnosed patients, proportion of patients achieving prolonged remission (1-year or longer) usually represents the most clinically meaningful efficacy outcome. Retention of patients on the allocated treatment over time is also a valuable measure, but it should be regarded as a composite endpoint because decision to continue treatment is dependent on both efficacy and tolerability. At present, there is no universally accepted method for evaluating side effects, particularly those which can not be documented objectively. Spontaneous reports of symptoms or use of specific checklists have advantages and disadvantages. Studies aimed at ensuring greater standardization in safety assessment should be encouraged, especially with respect to need of obtaining quantitative estimates, and information on both prevalence and incidence of side effects should be reported in all trials.

AB - This article provides a comprehensive discussion of clinical outcome measures used in trials aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of antiepileptic drugs. For efficacy, assessment still relies on careful documentation of changes in ictal activity as determined by seizure counts based on patients recall, direct clinical observation and (for absence seizures) EEG monitoring. In selected cases, assessment of seizure severity may also be indicated. The precise choice of outcome measures is largerly dependent upon the specific trial design. In short-term regulatory trials, parameters such as time to nth seizure after randomization (or after achievement of target dosage) may be used as an index of antiepileptic efficacy, but the clinical relevance of such measures is questionable. In add-on trials in refractory patients, changes in seizure counts and proportion of patients achieving 50%, 75% and 100% reduction in seizure frequency may be appropriate. For long-term monotherapy trials in newly diagnosed patients, proportion of patients achieving prolonged remission (1-year or longer) usually represents the most clinically meaningful efficacy outcome. Retention of patients on the allocated treatment over time is also a valuable measure, but it should be regarded as a composite endpoint because decision to continue treatment is dependent on both efficacy and tolerability. At present, there is no universally accepted method for evaluating side effects, particularly those which can not be documented objectively. Spontaneous reports of symptoms or use of specific checklists have advantages and disadvantages. Studies aimed at ensuring greater standardization in safety assessment should be encouraged, especially with respect to need of obtaining quantitative estimates, and information on both prevalence and incidence of side effects should be reported in all trials.

KW - Antiepileptic drugs

KW - Controlled trials

KW - Efficacy

KW - Outcome measures

KW - Safety

KW - Seizures

KW - Side effect

KW - Trial design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030875699&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030875699&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1023/A:1008698807530

DO - 10.1023/A:1008698807530

M3 - Article

C2 - 9368921

AN - SCOPUS:0030875699

VL - 19

SP - 217

EP - 222

JO - Pharmacy World and Science

JF - Pharmacy World and Science

SN - 0928-1231

IS - 5

ER -