Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Epilepsy (2)
- SV2A (2)
- adverse events (2)
- epilepsy (2)
- levetiracetam (2)
- refractory (2)
- seizure (2)
- Anticonvulsants (1)
- Dravet (1)
- Encephalopathy (1)
Institute
- Medizin (5)
Background: Epilepsy surgery is an established treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy (DRFE) that results in seizure freedom in about 60% of patients. Correctly identifying an epileptogenic lesion in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is challenging but highly relevant since it improves the likelihood of being referred for presurgical diagnosis. The epileptogenic lesion’s etiology directly relates to the surgical intervention’s indication and outcome. Therefore, it is vital to correctly identify epileptogenic lesions and their etiology presurgically.
Methods: We compared the final histopathological diagnoses of all patients with DRFE undergoing epilepsy surgery at our center between 2015 and 2021 with their MRI diagnoses before and after presurgical diagnosis at our epilepsy center, including MRI evaluations by expert epilepsy neuroradiologists. Additionally, we analyzed the outcome of different subgroups.
Results: This study included 132 patients. The discordance between histopathology and MRI diagnoses significantly decreased from 61.3% for non-expert MRI evaluations (NEMRIs) to 22.1% for epilepsy center MRI evaluations (ECMRIs; p < 0.0001). The MRI-sensitivity improved significantly from 68.6% for NEMRIs to 97.7% for ECMRIs (p < 0.0001). Identifying focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) and amygdala dysplasia was the most challenging for both subgroups. 65.5% of patients with negative NEMRI were seizure-free 12 months postoperatively, no patient with negative ECMRI achieved seizure-freedom. The mean duration of epilepsy until surgical intervention was 13.6 years in patients with an initial negative NEMRI and 9.5 years in patients with a recognized lesion in NEMRI.
Conclusions: This study provides evidence that for patients with DRFE—especially those with initial negative findings in a non-expert MRI—an early consultation at an epilepsy center, including an ECMRI, is important for identifying candidates for epilepsy surgery. NEMRI-negative findings preoperatively do not preclude seizure freedom postoperatively. Therefore, patients with DRFE that remain MRI-negative after initial NEMRI should be referred to an epilepsy center for presurgical evaluation. Nonreferral based on NEMRI negativity may harm such patients and delay surgical intervention. However, ECMRI-negative patients have a reduced chance of becoming seizure-free after epilepsy surgery. Further improvements in MRI technique and evaluation are needed and should be directed towards improving sensitivity for FCDs and amygdala dysplasias.
22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome (22q11.2DS) is the most common microdeletion in humans, with a heterogenous clinical presentation including medical, behavioural and psychiatric conditions. Previous neuroimaging studies examining the neuroanatomical underpinnings of 22q11.2DS show alterations in cortical volume (CV), cortical thickness (CT) and surface area (SA). The aim of this study was to identify (1) the spatially distributed networks of differences in CT and SA in 22q11.2DS compared to controls, (2) their unique and spatial overlap, as well as (3) their relative contribution to observed differences in CV. Structural MRI scans were obtained from 62 individuals with 22q11.2DS and 57 age-and-gender-matched controls (aged 6–31). Using FreeSurfer, we examined differences in vertex-wise estimates of CV, CT and SA at each vertex, and compared the frequencies of vertices with a unique or overlapping difference for each morphometric feature. Our findings indicate that CT and SA make both common and unique contributions to volumetric differences in 22q11.2DS, and in some areas, their strong opposite effects mask differences in CV. By identifying the neuroanatomic variability in 22q11.2DS, and the separate contributions of CT and SA, we can start exploring the shared and distinct mechanisms that mediate neuropsychiatric symptoms across disorders, e.g. 22q11.2DS-related ASD and/or psychosis/schizophrenia.
Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate the long-term efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruited all patients who initiated BRV between February and November 2016, with observation until February 2021. Results: Long-term data for 262 patients (mean age = 40 years, range = 5–81 years, 129 men) were analyzed, including 227 (87%) diagnosed with focal epilepsy, 19 (7%) with genetic generalized epilepsy, and 16 (6%) with other or unclassified epilepsy syndromes. Only 26 (10%) patients had never received levetiracetam (LEV), whereas 133 (50.8%) were switched from LEV. The length of BRV exposure ranged from 1 day to 5 years, with a median retention time of 1.6 years, resulting in a total BRV exposure time of 6829 months (569 years). The retention rate was 61.1% at 12 months, with a reported efficacy of 33.1% (79/239; 50% responder rate, 23 patients lost-to-follow-up), including 10.9% reported as seizure-free. The retention rate for the entire study period was 50.8%, and at last follow-up, 133 patients were receiving BRV at a mean dose of 222 ± 104 mg (median = 200, range = 25–400), including 52 (39.1%) who exceeded the recommended upper dose of 200 mg. Fewer concomitant antiseizure medications and switching from LEV to BRV correlated with better short-term responses, but no investigated parameters correlated with positive long-term outcomes. BRV was discontinued in 63 (24%) patients due to insufficient efficacy, in 29 (11%) for psychobehavioral adverse events, in 25 (10%) for other adverse events, and in 24 (9%) for other reasons. Significance: BRV showed a clinically useful 50% responder rate of 33% at 12 months and overall retention of >50%, despite 90% of included patients having previous LEV exposure. BRV was well tolerated; however, psychobehavioral adverse events occurred in one out of 10 patients. Although we identified short-term response and retention predictors, we could not identify significant predictors for long-term outcomes. Key Points Long-term postmarketing data for brivaracetam in 262 patients showed an overall retention rate of 50.8%; At 12 months, the 50% responder rate for brivaracetam was 33.1%, with 10.9% reporting seizure freedom; Previous treatment with levetiracetam (90%) did not impact brivaracetam retention or efficacy; Levetiracetam treatment failure should not preclude brivaracetam introduction; No long-term efficacy predictors could be identified.
Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate the long-term efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruited all patients who initiated BRV between February and November 2016, with observation until February 2021. Results: Long-term data for 262 patients (mean age = 40 years, range = 5–81 years, 129 men) were analyzed, including 227 (87%) diagnosed with focal epilepsy, 19 (7%) with genetic generalized epilepsy, and 16 (6%) with other or unclassified epilepsy syndromes. Only 26 (10%) patients had never received levetiracetam (LEV), whereas 133 (50.8%) were switched from LEV. The length of BRV exposure ranged from 1 day to 5 years, with a median retention time of 1.6 years, resulting in a total BRV exposure time of 6829 months (569 years). The retention rate was 61.1% at 12 months, with a reported efficacy of 33.1% (79/239; 50% responder rate, 23 patients lost-to-follow-up), including 10.9% reported as seizure-free. The retention rate for the entire study period was 50.8%, and at last follow-up, 133 patients were receiving BRV at a mean dose of 222 ± 104 mg (median = 200, range = 25–400), including 52 (39.1%) who exceeded the recommended upper dose of 200 mg. Fewer concomitant antiseizure medications and switching from LEV to BRV correlated with better short-term responses, but no investigated parameters correlated with positive long-term outcomes. BRV was discontinued in 63 (24%) patients due to insufficient efficacy, in 29 (11%) for psychobehavioral adverse events, in 25 (10%) for other adverse events, and in 24 (9%) for other reasons. Significance: BRV showed a clinically useful 50% responder rate of 33% at 12 months and overall retention of >50%, despite 90% of included patients having previous LEV exposure. BRV was well tolerated; however, psychobehavioral adverse events occurred in one out of 10 patients. Although we identified short-term response and retention predictors, we could not identify significant predictors for long-term outcomes. Key Points Long-term postmarketing data for brivaracetam in 262 patients showed an overall retention rate of 50.8%; At 12 months, the 50% responder rate for brivaracetam was 33.1%, with 10.9% reporting seizure freedom; Previous treatment with levetiracetam (90%) did not impact brivaracetam retention or efficacy; Levetiracetam treatment failure should not preclude brivaracetam introduction; No long-term efficacy predictors could be identified.
Background: Novel treatments are needed to control refractory status epilepticus (SE). This study aimed to assess the potential effectiveness of fenfluramine (FFA) as an acute treatment option for SE. We present a summary of clinical cases where oral FFA was used in SE.
Methods: A case of an adult patient with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) who was treated with FFA due to refractory SE is presented in detail. To identify studies that evaluated the use of FFA in SE, we performed a systematic literature search.
Results: Four case reports on the acute treatment with FFA of SE in children and adults with Dravet syndrome (DS) and LGS were available. We report in detail a 30-year-old woman with LGS of structural etiology, who presented with generalized tonic and dialeptic seizures manifesting at high frequencies without a return to clinical baseline constituting the diagnosis of SE. Treatment with anti-seizure medications up to lacosamide 600 mg/d, brivaracetam 300 mg/d, valproate 1,600 mg/d, and various benzodiazepines did not resolve the SE. Due to ongoing refractory SE and following an unremarkable echocardiography, treatment was initiated with FFA, with an initial dose of 10 mg/d (0.22 mg/kg body weight [bw]) and fast up-titration to 26 mg/d (0.58 mg/kg bw) within 10 days. Subsequently, the patient experienced a resolution of SE within 4 days, accompanied by a notable improvement in clinical presentation and regaining her mobility, walking with the assistance of physiotherapists. In the three cases reported in the literature, DS patients with SE were treated with FFA, and a cessation of SE was observed within a few days. No treatment-emergent adverse events were observed during FFA treatment in any of the four cases.
Conclusions: Based on the reported cases, FFA might be a promising option for the acute treatment of SE in patients with DS and LGS. Observational data show a decreased SE frequency while on FFA, suggesting a potentially preventive role of FFA in these populations.
Key points
* We summarize four cases of refractory status epilepticus (SE) successfully treated with fenfluramine.
* Refractory SE resolved after 4–7 days on fenfluramine.
* Swift fenfluramine up-titration was well-tolerated during SE treatment.
* Treatment-emergent adverse events on fenfluramine were not observed.
* Fenfluramine might be a valuable acute treatment option for SE in Dravet and Lennox–Gastaut syndromes.