1
|
Marson AG, Burnside G, Appleton R, Smith D, Leach JP, Sills G, Tudur-Smith C, Plumpton CO, Hughes DA, Williamson PR, Baker G, Balabanova S, Taylor C, Brown R, Hindley D, Howell S, Maguire M, Mohanraj R, Smith PE. Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-134. [PMID: 34931602 DOI: 10.3310/hta25750] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy. DESIGN Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel. SETTING Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication. INTERVENTIONS Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS Focal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions. FUTURE WORK SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel. CONCLUSIONS Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64. 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. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony G Marson
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Girvan Burnside
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Richard Appleton
- The Roald Dahl EEG Unit, Alder Hey Children's Health Park, Liverpool, UK
| | - Dave Smith
- The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Graeme Sills
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Catrin Tudur-Smith
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Catrin O Plumpton
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Dyfrig A Hughes
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Paula R Williamson
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Gus Baker
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Silviya Balabanova
- Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Claire Taylor
- Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Richard Brown
- Addenbrooke's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Dan Hindley
- Bolton NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Bolton Hospital, Bolton, UK
| | - Stephen Howell
- Department of Neurology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
| | | | | | - Philip Em Smith
- The Alan Richens Epilepsy Unit, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Marson A, Burnside G, Appleton R, Smith D, Leach JP, Sills G, Tudur-Smith C, Plumpton C, Hughes DA, Williamson P, Baker GA, Balabanova S, Taylor C, Brown R, Hindley D, Howell S, Maguire M, Mohanraj R, Smith PE. The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2021; 397:1363-1374. [PMID: 33838757 PMCID: PMC8047799 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00247-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2020] [Revised: 12/22/2020] [Accepted: 01/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. METHODS This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. INTERPRETATION These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony Marson
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
| | - Girvan Burnside
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Richard Appleton
- The Roald Dahl EEG Unit, Alder Hey Children's Health Park, Liverpool, UK
| | - Dave Smith
- The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Graeme Sills
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Catrin Tudur-Smith
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Catrin Plumpton
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK
| | - Dyfrig A Hughes
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK
| | - Paula Williamson
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Gus A Baker
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Silviya Balabanova
- Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Claire Taylor
- Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Richard Brown
- Addenbrooke's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Dan Hindley
- Bolton NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Bolton Hospital, Lancashire, UK
| | - Stephen Howell
- Department of Neurology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
| | | | | | - Philip E Smith
- The Alan Richens Epilepsy Unit, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Marson A, Burnside G, Appleton R, Smith D, Leach JP, Sills G, Tudur-Smith C, Plumpton C, Hughes DA, Williamson P, Baker GA, Balabanova S, Taylor C, Brown R, Hindley D, Howell S, Maguire M, Mohanraj R, Smith PE. The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2021; 397:1375-1386. [PMID: 33838758 PMCID: PMC8047813 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00246-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2020] [Revised: 12/22/2020] [Accepted: 01/20/2021] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. METHODS We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. INTERPRETATION Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony Marson
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
| | - Girvan Burnside
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Richard Appleton
- The Roald Dahl EEG Unit, Alder Hey Children's Health Park, Liverpool, UK
| | - Dave Smith
- The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Graeme Sills
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Catrin Tudur-Smith
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Catrin Plumpton
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK
| | - Dyfrig A Hughes
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK
| | - Paula Williamson
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Gus A Baker
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Silviya Balabanova
- Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Claire Taylor
- Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Richard Brown
- Addenbrooke's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Dan Hindley
- Bolton NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Bolton Hospital, Lancashire, UK
| | - Stephen Howell
- Department of Neurology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
| | | | | | - Philip E Smith
- The Alan Richens Epilepsy Unit, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hindley D, Gault M. Painless injured tongue. Arch Dis Child 2018; 103:805. [PMID: 28939638 DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-313682] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/19/2017] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Dan Hindley
- Department of Community Paediatrics, Bolton NHS Foundation Trust, Halliwell Children's Centre, Bolton, UK
| | - Maria Gault
- Department of Community Paediatrics, Bolton NHS Foundation Trust, Halliwell Children's Centre, Bolton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mount C, Hindley D. A baby with a painful shoulder. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed 2017; 102:272-273. [PMID: 27587402 DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-311256] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2016] [Accepted: 08/14/2016] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte Mount
- Department of Community Paediatrics, Halliwell Health and Children's Centre, Bolton, UK.,Departement of General Paediatrics, Royal Bolton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bolton, UK
| | - Dan Hindley
- Department of Community Paediatrics, Halliwell Health and Children's Centre, Bolton, UK.,Departement of General Paediatrics, Royal Bolton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bolton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Affiliation(s)
| | - Choy Lee
- Department of Paediatrics, Royal Bolton Hospital, Manchester, UK
| | - Dan Hindley
- Department of Paediatrics, Royal Bolton Hospital, Manchester, UK Halliwell Children's Centre, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hindley D. Looking after Keir. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2014; 4:228-9. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000734] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
|
8
|
Abstract
A 3033g male infant was born to a healthy mother at 39 weeks gestation by normal vaginal delivery with Grade 1 meconium stained liquor. There was no prolonged rupture of membranes or any antenatal risk factors for sepsis. The immediate neonatal period was uneventful and the baby was discharged after two days. At 6 weeks of age the baby was admitted with an 8-hour history of inconsolable crying. He was pyrexial. Initially the possibility of intussuception was considered, however, the submandibular swelling became more obvious and tender. His airway was clear. Chest x-ray and abdominal x-ray were normal. Ultrasound of the submandibular region showed soft tissue swelling with no fluid collection. CRP was initially 0.7 but increased to 87 the next day. Blood cultures grew group B streptococcus. (GBS) He was treated for five days with appropriate intravenous antibiotics. He was discharged home and recovered fully.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S K Shetty
- Department of Paediatrics, Royal Bolton Hospital, Bolton, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Davies J, Hindley D. Managing frequent medical absences from school. Arch Dis Child 2010; 95:314-5. [PMID: 20335245 DOI: 10.1136/adc.2009.176651] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
|
10
|
Chatha R, Huyton M, Hindley D, Clarke M. Using the "benzodiazepine switch" in difficult childhood epilepsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008; 50:635-6. [PMID: 18754904 DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03052.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
11
|
|
12
|
Huyton M, Mair K, Hindley D. Audit of the use of buccal diazepam at a residential centre for children with epilepsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2007; 49:160. [PMID: 17297748] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/02/2023]
|
13
|
|
14
|
Abstract
AIMS To investigate the diagnoses made for children referred to a "fits, faints, and funny turns" clinic. METHODS Prospective study of 380 children referred to a dedicated secondary care clinic over an eight year period. RESULTS Twenty three per cent of children were given a final diagnosis of one of the childhood epilepsies, with 48% of these having a specific epilepsy syndrome. Syncope was the commonest cause of a non-epileptic event (syncope and reflex anoxic seizures comprised 100/238, 42%) but there were a wide variety of other causes. Fifty three events (14%) were unclassified and managed without a diagnostic label or treatment. CONCLUSIONS In children with funny turns referred to secondary care, the diagnostic possibilities are numerous; among non-epileptic events, syncopes predominate. The majority do not have epilepsy. Unclassifiable events with no clear epileptic or non-epileptic cause are common and can be safely managed expectantly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Hindley
- Fairfield General Hospital, Bury, UK.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Abstract
AIMS To compare two treatments in common usage for children with atopic eczema: "wet wrap" bandages versus conventional topically applied ointments. METHODS A total of 50 children (age 4-27 months) with moderate to severe eczema were randomised to one or other treatment. Two research nurses supervised the study. The first gave advice and support, and the second, blinded to the treatment modality being used, scored the change in eczema severity over a period of four weeks using the SCORAD eczema severity scale. RESULTS Both treatments gave a benefit in overall SCORAD scores (mean change for wet wrap group was 53 to 24; for the conventional group, 41 to 17). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall improvement at four weeks or in the timescale of improvements. The amount of topical of topical steroid used was similar in both groups. The wet wrap group suffered significantly more skin infections requiring antibiotics. Carers reported that wet wraps were less easy to apply than conventional treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Hindley
- Department of Paediatrics, Fairfield General Hospital, Bury, UK.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Huyton M, Nutt J, Scheepers S, Hindley D. The dental health of children with refractory epilepsy in a residential school. Arch Dis Child 2005; 90:1318. [PMID: 16301567 PMCID: PMC1720204] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/03/2023]
|
17
|
|
18
|
|
19
|
|
20
|
Abstract
The results of karyotyping for Down's syndrome in neonates were surveyed. From local data 36%, and from a national questionnaire, 32% of such samples were negative for Down's syndrome. To examine this, a subset of notes was reviewed for documentation of clinical signs of Down's syndrome. Some characteristics were often recorded, but other common discriminatory characteristics were noted less often or not at all.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Hindley
- Fairfield General Hospital, Bury BL9 7TD, Greater Manchester, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Hindley D, Huyton M. Pyridoxine dependent and pyridoxine responsive seizures. Arch Dis Child 2001; 84:91-2. [PMID: 11213783 PMCID: PMC1718611 DOI: 10.1136/adc.84.1.89g] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
|
22
|
Griffiths M, Hindley D. Gonococcal pelvic inflammatory disease, oral contraceptives, and cervical mucus. Genitourin Med 1985; 61:67. [PMID: 4086027 PMCID: PMC1011762 DOI: 10.1136/sti.61.1.67] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
|
23
|
Abstract
56 patients with frequently recurring genital herpes were treated in a randomised double-blind trial with either oral acyclovir 200 mg four times a day or placebo for 12 weeks. 29 patients received the drug and 27 the placebo. The mean recurrence rate per month of treatment was 1.4 in the placebo-treated patients and 0.05 in the acyclovir group. Median time to the first recurrence after the start of therapy was 14 days in the placebo group compared with 100 days in the acyclovir group. After the end of treatment the recurrence rate was similar in the two groups. Prophylactic oral acyclovir seems to be an effective treatment for patients with frequently recurring genital herpes.
Collapse
|