Evaluating therapeutic outcome in epileptic patients using the changes of interval and duration

BACKGROUND: Seizure frequency is in abnormal distribution, and it is not enough to express the trend of concentration using means, and its median loses a lot of information, thus it lacks of a standard for evaluating the therapeutic effects based on seizure frequency. OBJECTIVE: To establish a method for evaluating the therapeutic effects on anti-epileptic drugs using changes of interval and duration of seizure.DESIGN: A prospective cohort study.SETTING: Zhumadian Psychiatric Hospital.PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients and inpatients suffering from epilepsy attending firstly visited Zhumadian Psychiatric Hospital from June 2001 to June 2002 were enrolled. They were diagnosed as epileptic according to the International Classification of Epileptic Seizure by International League Against Epilepsy (1981) based on the clinical history, physical examination, and investigations. The interval time was no more than 6 months. Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects, and the study was approved by the hospital ethical committee.METHODS: ① For the first visit and each follow-up, the following data were recorded, including general demographic information, seizure type, the date and time of ictus, the duration of ictus, and inducement or situation related, according to which the following indexes could be calculated, including seizure styles, interval, duration, cluster frequency and cluster duration. The information from the first review was noted as annals A. The second interview was taken at the end of the evaluating period; the information from the second review was noted as annals B. The third interview was taken within two weeks after the second one; the information from the third review was noted as annals C. The annals B or the annals C were respectively compared with the annals A in the light of the same types or the same styles of the same patient. Summation of the scores of interval change and duration change of the same type or the same style and 5 of basic score was the score of a corresponding seizure type or a corresponding style of one patient. In order to test its reliability and validity, the score of change of frequency or duration plus 5 scores respectively was the score of frequency or duration. ② Reliability and validity were tested by calculating corresponding correlation coefficient with SPSS 11.0. ROC curve was used for developing diagnostic criterion of predicting therapeutic effects with SPSS 11.0.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ① Reliability and validity; ② Diagnostic criterion for predicting therapeutic effects one year later.RESULTS: Totally 28 patients were involved in the final analysis of results. ① Reliability and validity were high: rinter-rater=0.98, rtest-retest=0.99, rconstruct validity=0.83. ② A total score > 6 was the optimal diagnostic criteria for predicting therapeutic effects one year later, in other words, a patient who scored more than 6 at the evaluating period may be seizure-free one year later.CONCLUSION: It is a potential tool for evaluating epileptic therapeutic outcome, and it can be diffusely used in interrelated fields after being further validated.

Evaluating therapeutic outcome in epileptic patients using the changes of interval and duration

BACKGROUND: Seizure frequency is in abnormal distribution, and it is not enough to express the trend of concentration using means, and its median loses a lot of information, thus it lacks of a standard for evaluating the therapeutic effects based on seizure frequency.OBJECTIVE: To establish a method for evaluating the therapeutic effects on anti-epileptic drugs using changes of interval and duration of seizure.DESIGN: A prospective cohort study.SETTING: Zhumadian Psychiatric Hospital.PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients and inpatients suffering from epilepsy attending firstly visited Zhumadian Psychiatric Hospital from June 2001 to June 2002 were enrolled. They were diagnosed as epileptic according to the International Classification of Epileptic Seizure by International League Against Epilepsy (1981) based on the clinical history, physical examination, and investigations. The interval time was no more than 6 months. Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects, and the study was approved by the hospital ethical committee.METHODS: ① For the first visit and each follow-up, the following data were recorded, including general demographic information, seizure type, the date and time of ictus, the duration of ictus, and inducement or situation related, according to which the following indexes could be calculated, including seizure styles,interval, duration, cluster frequency and cluster duration. The information from the first review was noted as annals A. The second interview was taken at the end of the evaluating period; the information from the second review was noted as annals B. The third interview was taken within two weeks after the second one;the information from the third review was noted as annals C. The annals B or the annals C were respectively compared with the annals A in the light of the same types or the same styles of the same patient. Summation of the scores of interval change and duration change of the same type or the same style and 5 of basic score was the score of a corresponding seizure type or a corresponding style of one patient. In order to test its reliability and validity, the score of change of frequency or duration plus 5 scores respectively was the score of frequency or duration. ② Reliability and validity were tested by calculating corresponding correlation coefficient with SPSS 11.0. ROC curve was used for developing diagnostic criterion of predicting therapeutic effects with SPSS 11.0.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ① Reliability and validity; ② Diagnostic criterion for predicting therapeutic effects one year later.RESULTS: Totally 28 patients were involved in the final analysis of results. ① Reliability and validity were high: rinter-rater=0.98, rtest-retest=0.99, rconstruct validity=0.83. ② A total score ＞ 6 was the optimal diagnostic criteria for predicting therapeutic effects one year later, in other words, a patient who scored more than 6 at the evaluating period may be seizure-free one year later.CONCLUSION: It is a potential tool for evaluating epileptic therapeutic outcome, and it can be diffusely used in interrelated fields after being further validated.