AntiEpileptic drug Monitoring in PREgnancy (EMPiRE): a double-blind randomised trial on effectiveness and acceptability of monitoring strategies.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with epilepsy on antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may experience a reduction in serum AED levels. This has the potential to worsen seizure control. OBJECTIVE: To determine if, in pregnant women with epilepsy on AEDs, additional therapeutic drug monitoring reduces seizure deterioration compared with clinical features monitoring after a reduction in serum AED levels. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomised trial nested within a cohort study was conducted and a qualitative study of acceptability of the two strategies was undertaken. Stratified block randomisation with a 1 : 1 allocation method was carried out. SETTING: Fifty obstetric and epilepsy clinics in secondary and tertiary care units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women with epilepsy on one or more of the following AEDs: lamotrigine, carbamazepine, phenytoin or levetiracetam. Women with a ≥ 25% decrease in serum AED level from baseline were randomised to therapeutic drug monitoring or clinical features monitoring strategies. INTERVENTIONS: In the therapeutic drug monitoring group, clinicians had access to clinical findings and monthly serum AED levels to guide AED dosage adjustment for seizure control. In the clinical features monitoring group, AED dosage adjustment was based only on clinical features. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - seizure deterioration, defined as time to first seizure and to all seizures after randomisation per woman until 6 weeks post partum. Secondary outcomes - pregnancy complications in mother and offspring, maternal quality of life, seizure rates in cohorts with stable serum AED level, AED dose exposure and adverse events related to AEDs. ANALYSIS: Analysis of time to first and to all seizures after randomisation was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model, and multivariate failure time analysis by the Andersen-Gill model. The effects were reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary outcomes were reported as mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios. RESULTS: A total of 130 women were randomised to the therapeutic drug monitoring group and 133 to the clinical features monitoring group; 294 women did not have a reduction in serum AED level. A total of 127 women in the therapeutic drug monitoring group and 130 women in the clinical features monitoring group (98% of complete data) were included in the primary analysis. There were no significant differences in the time to first seizure (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.2) or timing of all seizures after randomisation (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.5) between both trial groups. In comparison with the group with stable serum AED levels, there were no significant increases in seizures in the clinical features monitoring (odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.5) or therapeutic drug monitoring group (odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.5) associated with a reduction in serum AED levels. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups, except for higher cord blood levels of lamotrigine (MD 0.55 mg/l, 95% CI 0.11 to 1 mg/l) or levetiracetam (MD 7.8 mg/l, 95% CI 0.86 to 14.8 mg/l) in the therapeutic drug monitoring group than in the clinical features monitoring group. There were no differences between the groups on daily AED exposure or quality of life. An increase in exposure to lamotrigine, levetiracetam and carbamazepine significantly increased the cord blood levels of the AEDs, but not maternal or fetal complications. Women with epilepsy perceived the need for weighing up their increased vulnerability to seizures during pregnancy against the side effects of AEDs. LIMITATIONS: Fewer women than the original target were recruited. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence to suggest that regular monitoring of serum AED levels in pregnancy improves seizure control or affects maternal or fetal outcomes. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Further evaluation of the risks of seizure deterioration for various threshold levels of reduction in AEDs and the long-term neurodevelopment of infants born to mothers in both randomised groups is needed. An individualised prediction model will help to identify those women who need close monitoring in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01253916. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Training nurses in a competency framework to support adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability: the EpAID cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with an intellectual (learning) disability (ID) and epilepsy have an increased seizure frequency, higher frequencies of multiple antiepileptic drug (AED) use and side effects, higher treatment costs, higher mortality rates and more behavioural problems than the rest of the population with epilepsy. The introduction of nurse-led care may lead to improvements in outcome for those with an ID and epilepsy; however, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not ID nurses, using a competency framework developed to optimise nurse management of epilepsy in people with an ID, can cost-effectively improve clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in the management of epilepsy compared with treatment as usual. DESIGN: Cluster-randomised two-arm trial. SETTING: Community-based secondary care delivered by members of community ID teams. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults aged 18-65 years with an ID and epilepsy under the care of a community ID team and had had at least one seizure in the 6 months before the trial. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental intervention was the Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework. This provides guidelines describing a structure and goals to support the delivery of epilepsy care and management by ID-trained nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the seizure severity scale from the Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life questionnaire. Measures of mood, behaviour, AED side effects and carer strain were also collected. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken along with a qualitative examination of carers' views of participants' epilepsy management. RESULTS: In total, 312 individuals were recruited into the study from 17 research clusters. Using an intention-to-treat analysis controlling for baseline individual-level and cluster-level variables there was no significant difference in seizure severity score between the two arms. Altogether, 238 complete cases were included in the non-imputed primary analysis. Analyses of the secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences between arms. A planned subgroup analysis identified a significant interaction between treatment arm and level of ID. There was a suggestion in those with mild to moderate ID that the competency framework may be associated with a small reduction in concerns over seizure severity (standard error 2.005, 95% confidence interval -0.554 to 7.307; p = 0.092). However, neither subgroup showed a significant intervention effect individually. Family members' perceptions of nurses' management depended on the professional status of the nurses, regardless of trial arm. Economic analysis suggested that the competency framework intervention was likely to be cost-effective, primarily because of a reduction in the costs of supporting participants compared with treatment as usual. LIMITATIONS: The intervention could not be delivered blinded. Treatment as usual varied widely between the research sites. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for adults with an ID and epilepsy, the framework conferred no clinical benefit compared with usual treatment. The economic analysis suggested that there may be a role for the framework in enhancing the cost-effectiveness of support for people with epilepsy and an ID. Future research could explore the specific value of the competency framework for those with a mild to moderate ID and the potential for greater long-term benefits arising from the continuing professional development element of the framework. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96895428. FUNDING: This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Improving outcomes in adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability (EpAID) using a nurse-led intervention: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In adults with intellectual disability (ID) and epilepsy there are suggestions that improvements in management may follow introduction of epilepsy nurse-led care. However, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial and results cannot be generalised from general population studies as epilepsy tends to be more severe and to involve additional clinical comorbidities in adults with ID. This trial investigates whether nurses with expertise in epilepsy and ID, working proactively to a clinically defined role, can improve clinical and quality of life outcomes in the management of epilepsy within this population, compared to treatment as usual. The trial also aims to establish whether any perceived benefits represent good value for money. METHODS/DESIGN: The EpAID clinical trial is a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of nurse-led epilepsy management versus treatment as usual. This trial aims to obtain follow-up data from 320 participants with ID and drug-resistant epilepsy. Participants are randomly assigned either to a 'treatment as usual' control or a 'defined epilepsy nurse role' active arm, according to the cluster site at which they are treated. The active intervention utilises the recently developed Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework for adults with ID. Participants undergo 4 weeks of baseline data collection, followed by a minimum of 20 weeks intervention (novel treatment or treatment as usual), followed by 4 weeks of follow-up data collection. The primary outcome is seizure severity, including associated injuries and the level of distress manifest by the patient in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes include cost-utility analysis, carer strain, seizure frequency and side effects. Descriptive measures include demographic and clinical descriptors of participants and clinical services in which they receive their epilepsy management. Qualitative study of clinical interactions and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and participants' carers are also undertaken. DISCUSSION: The EpAID clinical trial is the first cluster randomised controlled trial to test possible benefits of a nurse-led intervention in adults with epilepsy and ID. This research will have important implications for ID and epilepsy services. The challenges of undertaking such a trial in this population, and the approaches to meeting these are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN96895428 version 1.1. Registered on 26 March 2013.