Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- anticonvulsant (1)
- antiepileptic drug (1)
- epilepsy (1)
- seizure (1)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Objective: Novel treatments are needed to control treatment‐resistant status epilepticus (SE). We present a summary of clinical cases where oral topiramate (TPM) was used in refractory SE (RSE) and superrefractory SE (SRSE).
Methods: A review of medical records was carried out to detect TPM administration in SE patients treated in Frankfurt and Marburg between 2011 and 2016. The primary outcome question concerned SE resolution after TPM initiation.
Results: In total, TPM was used in 106 of 854 patients having a mean age of 67.4 ± 18.1 years, 61 of whom were female (57.5%). The median latency from SE onset to TPM initiation was 8.5 days. Patients with SE had previously failed a median of five other antiepileptic drugs. The median initial TPM dose was 100 mg/d, which was uptitrated to a median maintenance dose of 400 mg/d. Treatment with TPM was continued for a median time of 12 days. TPM was the last drug provided to 42 of 106 (39.6%) patients, with a resultant response attributed to TPM observed in 29 of 106 (27.4%) patients. A response was attributed to TPM in 21 (31.8%) of 66 RSE cases and eight (20%) of 40 SRSE cases. Treatment‐emergent adverse events were attributed to TPM usage in two patients, one each with pancreatitis and hyperchloremic acidosis, and in 38 patients (35.8%), hyperammonemia was seen. Thirty‐four of these patients received a combination of TPM and valproate and/or phenobarbital. The intrahospital mortality rate was 22.6% (n = 24).
Significance: The rate of SE cessation attributed to TPM treatment (27.4%) represents a relevant response given the late treatment position of TPM and the treatment latency of more than 8 days. Based on these results and in line with the findings of other case series, TPM can be considered an alternative option for treating RSE and SRSE.
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.