Which of 4 antiseizure drug prophylaxis strategies provides the most quality-adjusted life-years on average for patients with an incident spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH)?
In this decision analysis simulating 4 common clinical scenarios, short-term (7-day) early-seizure prophylaxis strategies dominated long-term therapy under most clinical scenarios. A risk-guided strategy using a risk stratification tool (2HELPS2B) to identify patients likely to benefit from short-term primary vs secondary prophylaxis performed comparably or better than alternative strategies in most settings.
This decision analysis underscores the importance of early discontinuation of antiseizure drug therapy initiated before or after early seizures; use of the 2HELPS2B score to guide the clinical decision on initiation of short-term primary vs secondary early-seizure prophylaxis should be considered for all patients after sICH, assuming timely availability of electroencephalography.
Limited evidence is available concerning optimal seizure prophylaxis after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH).
To evaluate which of 4 seizure prophylaxis strategies provides the greatest net benefit for patients with sICH.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This decision analysis used models to simulate the following 4 common scenarios: (1) a 60-year-old man with low risk of early (≤7 days after stroke) (10%) and late (3.6% or 9.8%) seizures and average risk of short- (9%) and long-term (30%) adverse drug reaction (ADR); (2) an 80-year-old woman with low risk of early (10%) and late (3.6% or 9.8%) seizures and high short- (24%) and long-term (80%) ADR risks; (3) a 55-year-old man with high risk of early (19%) and late (34.8% or 46.2%) seizures and low short- (9%) and long-term (30%) ADR risks; and (4) a 45-year-old woman with high risk of early (19%) and late (34.8% or 46.2%) seizures and high short- (18%) and long-term (60%) ADR risks.
The following 4 antiseizure drug strategies were included: (1) conservative, consisting of short-term (7-day) secondary early-seizure prophylaxis with long-term therapy after late seizure; (2) moderate, consisting of long-term secondary early-seizure prophylaxis or late-seizure therapy; (3) aggressive, consisting of long-term primary prophylaxis; and (4) risk guided, consisting of short-term secondary early-seizure prophylaxis among low-risk patients (2HELPS2B score, 0), short-term primary prophylaxis among patients at higher risk (2HELPS2B score, ≥1), and long-term secondary therapy for late seizure.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
For scenario 1, the risk-guided strategy (8.13 QALYs) was preferred over the conservative (8.08 QALYs), moderate (8.07 QALYs), and aggressive (7.88 QALYs) strategies. For scenario 2, the conservative strategy (2.18 QALYs) was preferred over the risk-guided (2.17 QALYs), moderate (2.09 QALYs), and aggressive (1.15 QALYs) strategies. For scenario 3, the aggressive strategy (9.21 QALYs) was preferred over the risk-guided (8.98 QALYs), moderate (8.93 QALYs), and conservative (8.77 QALYs) strategies. For scenario 4, the risk-guided strategy (11.53 QALYs) was preferred over the conservative (11.23 QALYs), moderate (10.93 QALYs), and aggressive (8.08 QALYs) strategies. Sensitivity analyses suggested that short-term strategies (conservative and risk guided) are preferred under most scenarios, and the risk-guided strategy performs comparably to or better than alternative strategies in most settings.
Conclusions and Relevance
This decision analytical model suggests that short-term (7-day) prophylaxis dominates longer-term therapy after sICH. Use of the 2HELPS2B score to guide clinical decisions for initiation of short-term primary vs secondary early-seizure prophylaxis should be considered for all patients after sICH.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Jones FJS, Sanches PR, Smith JR, et al. Seizure Prophylaxis After Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage. JAMA Neurol. 2021;78(9):1128–1136. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.2249
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: