Refine
Document Type
- Article (68)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (69)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (69) (remove)
Keywords
- Epilepsy (19)
- Seizure (11)
- epilepsy (9)
- seizure (7)
- Epilepsie (5)
- Dravet syndrome (4)
- Epileptischer Anfall (4)
- Prevalence (4)
- Burden of illness (3)
- Encephalopathy (3)
Institute
- Medizin (69)
- Georg-Speyer-Haus (1)
- Pharmazie (1)
Objective: Despite increased awareness of the serious epilepsy complication sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), a substantial population of people with epilepsy (PWE) remain poorly informed. Physicians indicate concern that SUDEP information may adversely affect patients' health and quality of life. We examined SUDEP awareness and the immediate and long-term effects of providing SUDEP information to PWE.
Methods: Baseline knowledge and behaviors among PWE and behavioral adjustments following the provision of SUDEP information were evaluated in a prospective, multicenter survey using the following validated scales: Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy for depression symptoms, the EuroQoL five-dimension scale for health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a visual analog scale for overall health, the revised Epilepsy Stigma Scale for perceived stigma, and the Seizure Worry Scale for seizure-related worries. The prospective study collected data through semiquantitative interviews before (baseline), immediately after, and 3 months after the provision of SUDEP information.
Results: In total, 236 participants (mean age = 39.3 years, range = 18-77 years, 51.7% women) were enrolled, and 205 (86.9%) completed long-term, 3-month follow-up. One patient died from SUDEP before follow-up. No worsening symptoms from baseline to 3-month follow-up were observed on any scale. At baseline, 27.5% of participants were aware of SUDEP. More than 85% of participants were satisfied with receiving SUDEP information. Three quarters of participants were not concerned by the information, and >80% of participants recommended the provision of SUDEP information to all PWE. Although most patients reported no behavioral adjustments, 24.8% reported strong behavioral adjustments at 3-month follow-up.
Significance: The provision of SUDEP information has no adverse effects on overall health, HRQoL, depressive symptoms, stigma, or seizure worry among PWE, who appreciate receiving information. SUDEP information provision might improve compliance among PWE and reduce but not eliminate the increased mortality risk.
Objective: This study was undertaken to quantify epilepsy-related costs of illness (COI) in Germany and identify cost-driving factors.
Methods: COI were calculated among adults with epilepsy of different etiologies and severities. Multiple regression analysis was applied to determine any epilepsy-related and sociodemographic factors that serve as cost-driving factors.
Results: In total, 486 patients were included, with a mean age of 40.5 ± 15.5 years (range = 18–83 years, 58.2% women). Mean 3-month COI were estimated at €4911, €2782, and €2598 for focal, genetic generalized, and unclassified epilepsy, respectively. The mean COI for patients with drug-refractory epilepsy (DRE; €7850) were higher than those for patients with non-DRE (€4720), patients with occasional seizures (€3596), or patients with seizures in remission for >1 year (€2409). Identified cost-driving factors for total COI included relevant disability (unstandardized regression coefficient b = €2218), poorer education (b = €2114), living alone (b = €2612), DRE (b = €1831), and frequent seizures (b = €2385). Younger age groups of 18–24 years (b = −€2945) and 25–34 years (b = −€1418) were found to have lower overall expenditures. A relevant disability (b = €441), DRE (b = €1253), frequent seizures (b = €735), and the need for specialized daycare (b = €749) were associated with higher direct COI, and poorer education (b = €1969), living alone (b = €2612), the presence of a relevant disability (b = €1809), DRE (b = €1831), and frequent seizures (b = €2385) were associated with higher indirect COI.
Significance: This analysis provides up-to-date COI data for use in further health economics analyses, highlighting the high economic impacts associated with disease severity, disability, and disease-related loss of productivity among adult patients with epilepsy. The identified cost drivers could be used as therapeutic and socioeconomic targets for future cost-containment strategies.
Der Status epilepticus (SE) stellt eine schwerwiegende akute Erkrankung dar, die eine frühzeitige und gezielte Therapie erfordert. Insbesondere der refraktäre SE (RSE) sowie der superrefraktäre SE (SRSE) sind bereits bei jungen Menschen eine interdisziplinäre therapeutische Herausforderung. Bei Patienten in höherem Lebensalter sind hierbei weitere relevante Aspekte zu beachten, die sich einerseits aufgrund einer abweichenden Pharmakokinetik und -dynamik ergeben, andererseits aber auch aus Komorbiditäten, Polypharmazie und möglichen medizinischen Therapielimitationen bzw. Patientenpräferenzen resultieren. Ziel dieses Artikels ist es, diese besonderen Aspekte im Rahmen der SE-Versorgung älterer Menschen aufzuarbeiten und potenzielle Therapiestrategien jenseits der Leitlinie aufzuzeigen. Insbesondere wird hierbei auf alternative Applikationswege und mögliche konservative Eskalationsformen der Therapie eingegangen, die v. a. bei relevant vorerkrankten Patienten von Bedeutung sind, bei denen eine intensivmedizinische Behandlung die ohnehin schon hohe Mortalität des SE im gehobenen Alter weiter erhöhen würde. Mit unterschiedlichen parenteralen Applikationsformen von Benzodiazepinen im SE sowie dem mittlerweile gut beschriebenen Einsatz weiterer Antikonvulsiva wie Brivaracetam, Perampanel, Stiripentol, Topiramat und Zonisamid in RSE und SRSE stehen auch für diese vulnerable Patientengruppe adäquate Therapieoptionen zur Verfügung. Nichtsdestotrotz sollte in der Therapie des SE im gehobenen Alter insbesondere in Anbetracht der per se hohen Mortalität verstärkt auf Patientenpräferenzen und medizinethische Aspekte geachtet werden.
Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is a rare genetic disease that is, besides cutaneous and visceral organ manifestations, typically associated with a severe, usually drug refractory epilepsy at a very early stage of the disease. Due to its direct effect on the mTOR signaling pathway dysregulated by TSC and its synergistic effects on other organ manifestations, the rapamycin derivative everolimus (EVE) is increasingly being used. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of EVE in patients with TSC-associated, refractory epilepsy.
Background: Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) represents a serious medical condition requiring early and targeted therapy. Given the increasing number of elderly or multimorbid patients with a limitation of life-sustaining therapy (LOT) or within a palliative care setting (PCS), guidelines-oriented therapy escalation options for RSE have to be omitted frequently. Objectives: This systematic review sought to summarize the evidence for fourth-line antiseizure drugs (ASDs) and other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options beyond guideline recommendations in patients with RSE to elaborate on possible treatment options for patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS. Methods: A systematic review of the literature in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, focusing on fourth-line ASDs or other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options was performed in February and June 2020 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The search terminology was constructed using the name of the specific ASD or therapy option and the term ‘status epilepticus’ with the use of Boolean operators, e.g. “(brivaracetam) AND (status epilepticus)”. The respective Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree terms were used, if available. Results: There is currently no level 1, grade A evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE. The best evidence was found for the use of lacosamide and topiramate (level 3, grade C), followed by brivaracetam, perampanel (each level 4, grade D) and stiripentol, oxcarbazepine and zonisamide (each level 5, grade D). Regarding non-medicinal options, there is little evidence for the use of the ketogenic diet (level 4, grade D) and magnesium sulfate (level 5, grade D) in RSE. The broad use of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatment options in the absence of a presumed autoimmune etiology cannot be recommended; however, if an autoimmune etiology is assumed, steroid pulse, intravenous immunoglobulins and plasma exchange/plasmapheresis should be considered (level 4, grade D). Even if several studies suggested that the use of neurosteroids (level 5, grade D) is beneficial in RSE, the current data situation indicates that there is formal evidence against it. Conclusions: RSE in patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS represents a challenge for modern clinicians and epileptologists. The evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE beyond that in current guidelines is low, but several effective and well-tolerated options are available that should be considered in this patient population. More so than in any other population, advance care planning, advance directives, and medical ethical aspects have to be considered carefully before and during therapy.
The article Therapeutic Options for Patients with Refractory Status Epilepticus in Palliative Settings or with a Limitation of Life‑Sustaining Therapies: A Systematic Review, written by Laurent M. Willems, Sebastian Bauer, Kolja Jahnke, Martin Voss, Felix Rosenow, Adam Strzelczyk, was originally published Online First without Open Access. After publication in volume 34, issue 8, pages 801–826 the author decided to opt for Open Choice and to make the article an Open Access publication. Post-publication open access was funded by Projekt DEAL. Therefore, the copyright of the article has been changed to © The Author(s) 2021 and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. The original article has been corrected.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in a severely drug refractory cohort of patients with epileptic encephalopathies (EE).
Method: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients treated with EE who began treatment with BRV in an enrolling epilepsy center between 2016 and 2017.
Results: Forty-four patients (27 male [61%], mean age 29 years, range 6 to 62) were treated with BRV. The retention rate was 65% at 3 months, 52% at 6 months and 41% at 12 months. A mean retention time of 5 months resulted in a cumulative exposure to BRV of 310 months. Three patients were seizure free during the baseline. At 3 months, 20 (45%, 20/44 as per intention-to-treat analysis considering all patients that started BRV including three who were seizure free during baseline) were either seizure free (n = 4; 9%, three of them already seizure-free at baseline) or reported at least 25% (n = 4; 9%) or 50% (n = 12; 27%) reduction in seizures. An increase in seizure frequency was reported in two (5%) patients, while there was no change in the seizure frequency of the other patients. A 50% long-term responder rate was apparent in 19 patients (43%), with two (5%) free from seizures for more than six months and in nine patients (20%, with one [2 %] free from seizures) for more than 12 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events were predominantly of psychobehavioural nature and were observed in 16%.
Significance: In this retrospective analysis the rate of patients with a 50% seizure reduction under BRV proofed to be similar to those seen in regulatory trials for focal epilepsies. BRV appears to be safe and relatively well tolerated in EE and might be considered in patients with psychobehavioral adverse events while on levetiracetam.
Objective: This study was undertaken to calculate epilepsy-related direct, indirect, and total costs in adult patients with active epilepsy (ongoing unprovoked seizures) in Germany and to analyze cost components and dynamics compared to previous studies from 2003, 2008, and 2013. This analysis was part of the Epi2020 study.
Methods: Direct and indirect costs related to epilepsy were calculated with a multicenter survey using an established and validated questionnaire with a bottom-up design and human capital approach over a 3-month period in late 2020. Epilepsy-specific costs in the German health care sector from 2003, 2008, and 2013 were corrected for inflation to allow for a valid comparison.
Results: Data on the disease-specific costs for 253 patients in 2020 were analyzed. The mean total costs were calculated at €5551 (±€5805, median = €2611, range = €274–€21 667) per 3 months, comprising mean direct costs of €1861 (±€1905, median = €1276, range = €327–€13 158) and mean indirect costs of €3690 (±€5298, median = €0, range = €0–€11 925). The main direct cost components were hospitalization (42.4%), antiseizure medication (42.2%), and outpatient care (6.2%). Productivity losses due to early retirement (53.6%), part-time work or unemployment (30.8%), and seizure-related off-days (15.6%) were the main reasons for indirect costs. However, compared to 2013, there was no significant increase of direct costs (−10.0%), and indirect costs significantly increased (p < .028, +35.1%), resulting in a significant increase in total epilepsy-related costs (p < .047, +20.2%). Compared to the 2013 study population, a significant increase of cost of illness could be observed (p = .047).
Significance: The present study shows that disease-related costs in adult patients with active epilepsy increased from 2013 to 2020. As direct costs have remained constant, this increase is attributable to an increase in indirect costs. These findings highlight the impact of productivity loss caused by early retirement, unemployment, working time reduction, and seizure-related days off.
Background: The approval of everolimus (EVE) for the treatment of angiomyolipoma (2013), subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (2013) and drug-refractory epilepsy (2017) in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) represents the first disease-modifying treatment option available for this rare and complex genetic disorder. Objective: The objective of this study was to analyse the use, efficacy, tolerability and treatment retention of EVE in patients with TSC in Germany from the patient’s perspective. Methods: A structured cross-age survey was conducted at 26 specialised TSC centres in Germany and by the German TSC patient advocacy group between February and July 2019, enrolling children, adolescents and adult patients with TSC. Results: Of 365 participants, 36.7% (n = 134) reported the current or past intake of EVE, including 31.5% (n = 115) who were taking EVE at study entry. The mean EVE dosage was 6.1 ± 2.9 mg/m2 (median: 5.6 mg/m2, range 2.0–15.1 mg/m2) in children and adolescents and 4 ± 2.1 mg/m2 (median: 3.7 mg/m2, range 0.8–10.1 mg/m2) in adult patients. An early diagnosis of TSC, the presence of angiomyolipoma, drug-refractory epilepsy, neuropsychiatric manifestations, subependymal giant cell astrocytoma, cardiac rhabdomyoma and overall multi-organ involvement were associated with the use of EVE as a disease-modifying treatment. The reported efficacy was 64.0% for angiomyolipoma (75% in adult patients), 66.2% for drug-refractory epilepsy, and 54.4% for subependymal giant cell astrocytoma. The overall retention rate for EVE was 85.8%. The retention rates after 12 months of EVE therapy were higher among adults (93.7%) than among children and adolescents (88.7%; 90.5% vs 77.4% after 24 months; 87.3% vs 77.4% after 36 months). Tolerability was acceptable, with 70.9% of patients overall reporting adverse events, including stomatitis (47.0%), acne-like rash (7.7%), increased susceptibility to common infections and lymphoedema (each 6.0%), which were the most frequently reported symptoms. With a total score of 41.7 compared with 36.8 among patients not taking EVE, patients currently being treated with EVE showed an increased Liverpool Adverse Event Profile. Noticeable deviations in the sub-items ‘tiredness’, ‘skin problems’ and ‘mouth/gum problems’, which are likely related to EVE-typical adverse effects, were more frequently reported among patients taking EVE. Conclusions: From the patients’ perspective, EVE is an effective and relatively well-tolerated disease-modifying treatment option for children, adolescents and adults with TSC, associated with a high long-term retention rate that can be individually considered for each patient. Everolimus therapy should ideally be supervised by a centre experienced in the use of mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors, and adverse effects should be monitored on a regular basis.
Tuberöse Sklerose („tuberous sclerosis complex“ [TSC]) ist eine seltene genetische Erkrankung, die neben kutanen und viszeralen Organmanifestationen typischerweise bereits in einem sehr frühen Erkrankungsstadium mit einer schweren, meist therapierefraktären Epilepsie einhergeht. Aufgrund seiner direkten Wirkung am durch TSC dysregulierten mTOR-Signalweg sowie der synergistischen Effekte auf andere Organmanifestationen kommt das Rapamycin-Derivat Everolimus (EVE) zunehmend zur Anwendung. Ziel dieses systematischen Reviews ist, die Wirksamkeit, Sicherheit und Verträglichkeit von EVE bei Patienten mit TSC-assoziierter, therapierefraktärer Epilepsie aufzuarbeiten.