Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Corona (1)
- Epileptischer Anfall (1)
- Pandemic (1)
- Pandemie (1)
- SARS-CoV‑2 (1)
- Seizure (1)
- Status epilepticus (1)
- antiepileptic drug (1)
- antiepileptic drugs (1)
- efficacy (1)
Institute
- Medizin (4)
Der Vorstand der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Epileptologie und die Kommission „Epilepsie und Synkopen“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurologie haben die aktuelle Datenlage zur Impfung zur Vorbeugung der Corona-Virus-Krankheit 2019 (COVID-19) sowie zur Impfpriorisierung bei Menschen mit Epilepsie gesichtet, diese zusammengefasst und geben die unten genannten Empfehlungen ab.
Objective: This study was undertaken to elicit patients' preferences for attributes characterizing antiseizure medication (ASM) monotherapy options before treatment consultation, and to explore the trade-offs patients consider between treatment efficacy and risks of side effects. Further objectives were to explore how treatment consultation may affect patient preferences, to elicit physicians' preferences in selecting treatment, and to compare patient and physician preferences for treatment.
Methods: This prospective, observational study (EP0076; VOTE) included adults with focal seizures requiring a change in their ASM monotherapy. Patients completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey before and after treatment consultation. Physicians completed a similar survey after the consultation. The DCE comprised 12 choices between two hypothetical treatments defined by seven attributes. The conditional relative importance of each attribute was calculated.
Results: Three hundred ten patients (mean [SD] age = 46.8 [18.3] years, 52.3% female) were enrolled from eight European countries, of whom 305 completed the survey before consultation and 273 completed the survey before and after consultation. Overall, this preference study in patients who intended to receive a new ASM monotherapy suggests that patient preferences were ordered as expected, with better outcomes being preferred to worse outcomes; patients preferred a higher chance of seizure freedom, lower risk of developing clinical depression, and fewer severe adverse events; avoiding moderate-to-severe “trouble thinking clearly” was more important than avoiding any other side effect. There were qualitative differences in what patients and physicians considered to be the most important aspects of treatment for patients; compared with patients, physicians had a qualitatively stronger preference for greater chance of seizure freedom and avoiding personality changes. Patients' preference weights were qualitatively similar before and after treatment consultation.
Significance: For patients, seizure freedom and avoiding trouble thinking clearly were the most important treatment attributes. Physicians and patients may differ in the emphasis they place on specific attributes.
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.
Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR GNB) were found to colonise 60.8% (95% confidence interval: 52.3–68.9) of 143 refugee patients mainly from Syria (47), Afghanistan (29), and Somalia (14) admitted to the University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany, between June and December 2015. This percentage exceeds the prevalence of MDR GNB in resident patients four–fold. Healthcare personnel should be aware of this and the need to implement or adapt adequate infection control measures.