Antiseizure Medication Use and Outcomes After Suspected or Confirmed Acute Symptomatic Seizures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are frequently prescribed for acute symptomatic seizures and epileptiform abnormalities (EAs; eg, periodic or rhythmic patterns). There are limited data on factors associated with ASM use and their association with outcomes. Objectives: To determine factors associated with ASM use in patients with confirmed or suspected acute symptomatic seizures undergoing continuous electroencephalography, and to explore the association of ASMs with outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study was performed between July 1 and September 30, 2021, at 5 US centers of the Post Acute Symptomatic Seizure Investigation and Outcomes Network. After screening 1717 patients, the study included 1172 hospitalized adults without epilepsy who underwent continuous electroencephalography after witnessed or suspected acute symptomatic seizures. Data analysis was performed from November 14, 2023, to February 2, 2024. Exposure: ASM treatment (inpatient ASM continuation ≥48 hours). Main Outcomes and Measures: Factors associated with (1) ASM treatment, (2) discharge ASM prescription, and (3) discharge and 3-month Glasgow Outcome Scale score of 4 or 5 were ascertained. Results: A total of 1172 patients (median [IQR] age, 64 [52-75] years; 528 [45%] female) were included. Among them, 285 (24%) had clinical acute symptomatic seizures, 107 (9%) had electrographic seizures, and 364 (31%) had EAs; 532 (45%) received ASM treatment. Among 922 patients alive at discharge, 288 (31%) were prescribed ASMs. The respective frequencies of inpatient ASM treatment and discharge prescription were 82% (233 of 285) and 69% (169 of 246) for patients with clinical acute symptomatic seizures, 96% (103 of 107) and 95% (61 of 64) for electrographic seizures, and 64% (233 of 364) and 48% (128 of 267) for EAs. On multivariable analysis, acute and progressive brain injuries were independently associated with increased odds of inpatient ASM treatment (odds ratio [OR], 3.86 [95% CI, 2.06-7.32] and 8.37 [95% CI, 3.48-20.80], respectively) and discharge prescription (OR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.04-4.98] and 10.10 [95% CI, 3.94-27.00], respectively). Admission to the neurology or neurosurgery service (OR, 2.56 [95% CI, 1.08-6.18]) or to the neurological intensive care unit (OR, 7.98 [95% CI, 3.49-19.00]) was associated with increased odds of treatment. Acute symptomatic seizures and EAs were significantly associated with increased odds of ASM treatment (OR, 14.30 [95% CI, 8.52-24.90] and 2.30 [95% CI, 1.47-3.61], respectively) and discharge prescription (OR, 12.60 [95% CI, 7.37-22.00] and 1.72 [95% CI, 1.00-2.97], respectively). ASM treatment was not associated with outcomes at discharge (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.61-1.52]) or at 3 months after initial presentation (OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.78-2.04]). Among 623 patients alive and with complete data at 3 months after discharge, 30 (5%) had postdischarge seizures, 187 (30%) were receiving ASMs, and 202 (32%) had all-cause readmissions. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that etiology and electrographic findings are associated with ASM treatment for acute symptomatic seizures and EAs; ASM treatment was not associated with functional outcomes. Comparative effectiveness studies are indicated to identify which patients may benefit from ASMs and to determine the optimal treatment duration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".