No abstract

Aim Pharmacogenetic studies have identified the presence of the HLA‐A*31:01 allele as a predictor of cutaneous adverse drugs reactions (ADRs) to carbamazepine. This study aimed to ascertain the preferences of patients and clinicians to inform carbamazepine pharmacogenetic testing services. Methods Attributes of importance to people with epilepsy and neurologists were identified through interviews and from published sources. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were conducted in 82 people with epilepsy and 83 neurologists. Random‐effects logit regression models were used to determine the importance of the attributes and direction of effect. Results In the patient DCE, all attributes (seizure remission, reduction in seizure frequency, memory problems, skin rash and rare, severe ADRs) were significant. The estimated utility of testing was greater, at 0.52 (95% CI 0.19, 1.00) than not testing at 0.33 (95% CI –0.07, 0.81). In the physician DCE, cost, inclusion in the British National Formulary, coverage, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) were significant. Marginal rates of substitution indicated that neurologists were willing to pay £5.87 for a 1 percentage point increase in NPV and £3.99 for a 1 percentage point increase in PPV. Conclusion The inclusion of both patients' and clinicians' perspectives represents an important contribution to the understanding of preferences towards pharmacogenetic testing prior to initiating carbamazepine. Both groups identified different attributes but had generally consistent preferences. Patients' acceptance of a decrease in treatment benefit for a reduced chance of severe ADRs adds support for the implementation of HLA‐A*31:01 testing in routine practice.

Background: Clinical trials generally each collect their own data despite routinely collected health data (RCHD) increasing in quality and breadth. Our aim is to quantify UK-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) accessing RCHD for participant data, characterise how these data are used and thereby recommend how more trials could use RCHD. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of RCTs accessing RCHD from at least one registry in the UK between 2013 and 2018 for the purposes of informing or supplementing participant data. A list of all registries holding RCHD in the UK was compiled. In cases where registries published release registers, these were searched for RCTs accessing RCHD. Where no release register was available, registries were contacted to request a list of RCTs. For each identified RCT, information was collected from all publicly available sources (release registers, websites, protocol etc.). The search and data extraction were undertaken between January and May 2019. Results: We identified 160 RCTs accessing RCHD between 2013 and 2018 from a total of 22 registries; this corresponds to only a very small proportion of all UK RCTs (about 3%). RCTs accessing RCHD were generally large (median sample size 1590), commonly evaluating treatments for cancer or cardiovascular disease. Most of the included RCTs accessed RCHD from NHS Digital (68%), and the most frequently accessed datasets were mortality (76%) and hospital visits (55%). RCHD was used to inform the primary trial (82%) and long-term follow-up (57%). There was substantial variation in how RCTs used RCHD to inform participant outcome measures. A limitation was the lack of information and transparency from registries and RCTs with respect to which datasets have been accessed and for what purposes. Conclusions: In the last five years, only a small minority of UK-based RCTs have accessed RCHD to inform participant data. We ask for improved accessibility, confirmed data quality and joined-up thinking between the registries and the regulatory authorities.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the evolution of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment patterns and seizure outcomes in England from 2003 to 2016.Design, setting and participantsRetrospective cohort study of electronic medical records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink and National Health Service Digital Hospital Episode Statistics databases. Patients newly diagnosed with epilepsy were identified and followed until end of data availability. Three eras were defined starting 1 April 2003 (first National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline); 1 September 2007 (Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs publication); and 1 January 2012 (second NICE guideline).Outcome measuresTime from diagnosis to first AED; AED sequence; time from first AED to first 1-year remission period (no new AED attempts and no seizure-related healthcare events); time from first AED to refractoriness (third AED attempt regardless of reason); Kaplan-Meier analysis of time-to-event variables.Results4388 patients were included (mean follow-up: 6.8, 4.2 and 1.7 years by era). 84.6% of adults (≥16 years), 75.5% of children (<16) and 89.1% of elderly subgroup (65+) received treatment within 1 year; rates were generally stable over time. Treatment trends included reduced use of carbamazepine (adult first line, era 1: 34.9%; era 3: 10.7%) and phenytoin, earlier line and increased use of levetiracetam (adult first line, era 1: 2.6%; era 3: 26.2%) and lamotrigine (particularly in adults and elderly subgroup), and a larger number of different AEDs used. Valproate use shifted somewhat to later lines. Rates of 1-year remission within 2 years of starting treatment increased in adults (era 1: 71.9%; era 3: 81.4%) and elderly (era 1: 76.1%; era 3: 81.7%). Overall, 55.5% of patients relapsed after achieving 1-year remission. Refractoriness rates remained stable over time (~26% of adults within 5 years).ConclusionTreatment trends often were not aligned with era-relevant guidance. However, our results suggest a slight improvement in epilepsy treatment outcomes over the 13-year period.