Seizure Prophylaxis After Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage

IMPORTANCE: Limited evidence is available concerning optimal seizure prophylaxis after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). OBJECTIVE: 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. INTERVENTIONS: 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). RESULTS: 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 str