Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- antiepileptic drugs (1)
- elderly (1)
- epilepsy (1)
- lacosamide (1)
- seizures (1)
- stroke (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2) (remove)
Objectives: To assess tolerability and efficacy of lacosamide in adults with cerebrovascular epilepsy etiology (CVEE).
Materials and methods: Exploratory post hoc analyses of a double‐blind, initial monotherapy trial of lacosamide vs carbamazepine‐controlled release (carbamazepine‐CR) (SP0993; NCT01243177); a double‐blind conversion to lacosamide monotherapy trial (SP0902; NCT00520741); and an observational study of adjunctive lacosamide added to one antiepileptic drug (SP0973 VITOBA; NCT01098162). Patients with CVEE were identified based on epilepsy etiology recorded at baseline.
Results: In the initial monotherapy trial, 61 patients had CVEE (lacosamide: 27; carbamazepine‐CR: 34). 20 (74.1%) patients on lacosamide (27 [79.4%] on carbamazepine‐CR) reported treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), most commonly (≥10%) headache, dizziness, and fatigue (carbamazepine‐CR: headache, dizziness). A numerically higher proportion of patients on lacosamide than carbamazepine‐CR completed 6 months (22 [81.5%]; 20 [58.8%]) and 12 months (18 [66.7%]; 17 [50.0%]) treatment without seizure at last evaluated dose. In the conversion to monotherapy trial, 26/30 (86.7%) patients with CVEE reported TEAEs, most commonly (≥4 patients) dizziness, convulsion, fatigue, headache, somnolence, and cognitive disorder. During lacosamide monotherapy, 17 (56.7%) patients were 50% responders and six (20.0%) were seizure‐free. In the observational study, 36/83 (43.4%) patients with CVEE reported TEAEs, most commonly (≥5%) fatigue and dizziness. Effectiveness was assessed for 75 patients. During the last 3 months, 60 (80%) were 50% responders and 42 (56.0%) were seizure‐free.
Conclusions: These exploratory post hoc analyses suggested lacosamide was generally well tolerated and effective in patients with CVEE, with data from the initial monotherapy trial suggesting numerically better efficacy than carbamazepine‐CR.
Background: Compound flaps offer the advantage of one stage defect reconstruction respecting all relevant tissues and early functional recovery by optimal vascularity of all components. Due to its specific vascular anatomy and the three-dimensional donor site, compound flaps with bone components may result in higher complication rates compared to soft tissue compound flaps. The meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence and evaluates whether bone components are a risk factor for periprocedural complications in upper extremity multidimensional defect reconstruction. Method: PubMed and Embase were searched for all publications addressing compound free flaps for upper extremity defect reconstruction with bone or soft tissue components published between January 1988 and May 2018. The methodological quality was assessed with the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Evidence Rating Scale for Therapeutic Studies. Flap loss, thrombosis rate, early infection, hematoma, seroma, as well as donor site complications were extracted and analyzed. Results: Twelve out of 1157 potentially eligible studies (evidence-III) comprising 159 patients were finally included with publication bias for all summarized complication rates. Complication rates for flaps with/ without bone components were: total flap loss 5%, 95% CI = 3%–10% (6%/5%); partial flap loss 8%, 95% CI = 5%–15%, (9%/8%); arterial/venous thrombosis 7%, 95% CI = 4%–12%, (8%/5%)/14%, 95% CI = 9%–21% (16%/6%, P < .05) with higher risk for flaps with bone components; infection 6%, 95% CI = 3%–12% (6%/6%); hematoma 6%, 95% CI = 3%–11% (6%/5%); seroma 5%, 95% CI = 3%–10% (5%/5%); dehiscence 10%, 95% CI = 6%–17% (11%/9%). Conclusion: Compound flaps for upper extremity defect reconstruction including bone components have a higher venous thrombosis rate compared to compound soft-tissue flaps.