Objective: Optimal choice of antiseizure medication (ASM) depends on seizure type, syndrome, age, gender, comorbidities and co-medications. There are no fixed rules on how to weigh these factors; choices are subjective and experience-driven. We investigated agreement among experts in selecting ASM as monotherapy and used their prevailing choices to validate a web-based decision-support application. Methods: Twenty-four international experts, blinded to the app, selected the optimal ASM for 25 individual patient-cases covering a wide variation of seizure types and other factors influencing ASM selection. The app ranked ASMs in order of likely appropriateness for each case. In a second step, experts rated anonymously the choices of the app. Results: Of the 25 patient-cases (age 13-74 years), 13 were female, 18 (72%) had comorbidities, six (24%) were on contraceptives, and 13 (52%) had other co-medications. The median number of experts who selected the same ASM for a given case was 15 (62.5%) and interquartile range (IQR) 13-18 (54%-75%). Gwet's agreement coefficient among experts was 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.44), corresponding to a "fair" agreement. Agreement between the app and the prevailing expert choice for each case was 0.48 (95% CI 0.29-0.67), corresponding to a “moderate” beyond chance agreement. The percent agreement between the highest ranked selections of the app and the expert selections was 73% (95% CI 64%-82%). Ninety-five percent of the experts considered that no incorrect or potentially harmful ASMs were ranked highest by the app, and most experts strongly agreed with the app's selections. Significance: This app, now validated by experts, provides an objective, reproducible method for selecting ASM that accounts for relevant clinical features. It is freely available at: https://epipick.org.

Optimal choice of antiseizure medication: Agreement among experts and validation of a web-based decision support application

Perucca E.;
2021-01-01

Abstract

Objective: Optimal choice of antiseizure medication (ASM) depends on seizure type, syndrome, age, gender, comorbidities and co-medications. There are no fixed rules on how to weigh these factors; choices are subjective and experience-driven. We investigated agreement among experts in selecting ASM as monotherapy and used their prevailing choices to validate a web-based decision-support application. Methods: Twenty-four international experts, blinded to the app, selected the optimal ASM for 25 individual patient-cases covering a wide variation of seizure types and other factors influencing ASM selection. The app ranked ASMs in order of likely appropriateness for each case. In a second step, experts rated anonymously the choices of the app. Results: Of the 25 patient-cases (age 13-74 years), 13 were female, 18 (72%) had comorbidities, six (24%) were on contraceptives, and 13 (52%) had other co-medications. The median number of experts who selected the same ASM for a given case was 15 (62.5%) and interquartile range (IQR) 13-18 (54%-75%). Gwet's agreement coefficient among experts was 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.44), corresponding to a "fair" agreement. Agreement between the app and the prevailing expert choice for each case was 0.48 (95% CI 0.29-0.67), corresponding to a “moderate” beyond chance agreement. The percent agreement between the highest ranked selections of the app and the expert selections was 73% (95% CI 64%-82%). Ninety-five percent of the experts considered that no incorrect or potentially harmful ASMs were ranked highest by the app, and most experts strongly agreed with the app's selections. Significance: This app, now validated by experts, provides an objective, reproducible method for selecting ASM that accounts for relevant clinical features. It is freely available at: https://epipick.org.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11571/1361914
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 16
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 16
social impact