Refine
Document Type
- Article (15)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- seizure (5)
- Epilepsy (4)
- epilepsy (4)
- Seizure (3)
- levetiracetam (3)
- SV2A (2)
- TSC (2)
- adverse events (2)
- refractory (2)
- Angiomyolipoma (1)
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.
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.
Background: Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), a multisystem genetic disorder, affects many organs and systems, characterized by benign growths. This German multicenter study estimated the disease-specific costs and cost-driving factors associated with various organ manifestations in TSC patients. Methods: A validated, three-month, retrospective questionnaire was administered to assess the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, organ manifestations, direct, indirect, out-of-pocket, and nursing care-level costs, completed by caregivers of patients with TSC throughout Germany. Results: The caregivers of 184 patients (mean age 9.8 ± 5.3 years, range 0.7–21.8 years) submitted questionnaires. The reported TSC disease manifestations included epilepsy (92%), skin disorders (86%), structural brain disorders (83%), heart and circulatory system disorders (67%), kidney and urinary tract disorders (53%), and psychiatric disorders (51%). Genetic variations in TSC2 were reported in 46% of patients, whereas 14% were reported in TSC1. Mean total direct health care costs were EUR 4949 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) EUR 4088–5863, median EUR 2062] per patient over three months. Medication costs represented the largest direct cost category (54% of total direct costs, mean EUR 2658), with mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors representing the largest share (47%, EUR 2309). The cost of anti-seizure drugs (ASDs) accounted for a mean of only EUR 260 (5%). Inpatient costs (21%, EUR 1027) and ancillary therapy costs (8%, EUR 407) were also important direct cost components. The mean nursing care-level costs were EUR 1163 (95% CI EUR 1027–1314, median EUR 1635) over three months. Total indirect costs totaled a mean of EUR 2813 (95% CI EUR 2221–3394, median EUR 215) for mothers and EUR 372 (95% CI EUR 193–586, median EUR 0) for fathers. Multiple regression analyses revealed polytherapy with two or more ASDs and the use of mTOR inhibitors as independent cost-driving factors of total direct costs. Disability and psychiatric disease were independent cost-driving factors for total indirect costs as well as for nursing care-level costs. Conclusions: This study revealed substantial direct (including medication), nursing care-level, and indirect costs associated with TSC over three months, highlighting the spectrum of organ manifestations and their treatment needs in the German healthcare setting.
Hintergrund
In Anbetracht ihres bedeutenden Potenzials zur Verbesserung der medizinischen Versorgung wird Telemedizin weiterhin zu wenig genutzt. Trotz einiger erfolgreicher Pilotprojekte in den vergangenen Jahren ist insbesondere über die Hindernisse der Etablierung und Verstetigung von Telemedizin wenig bekannt. Diese Studie hatte das Ziel, die Einstellung niedergelassener Neurologen hinsichtlich der Nutzung von Telemedizin in der Epileptologie und resultierende Hinderungsgründe zu verstehen. Gleichzeitig werden mögliche Lösungsansätze präsentiert.
Methoden
Mithilfe eines individuell erstellten 14-Item-Fragebogens befragten wir prospektiv alle Neurologen, die zuvor die Teilnahme an einem transregionalen Telemedizinpilotprojekt im Bereich der Epileptologie abgelehnt oder keine Rückmeldung gegeben hatten, zu Gründen für und gegen den generellen Einsatz von bzw. die Teilnahme an Telemedizin.
Ergebnisse
Von 58 kontaktierten Neurologen antworteten 33 (57 %). Die häufigsten Gründe für die fehlende Nutzung der Telemedizin waren ein vermuteter Zeitmangel oder ein vermuteter zu großer organisatorischer Aufwand (49 %). Zudem wurden Bedenken bezüglich der technischen Ausstattung (30 %) und eine Präferenz für alternative Wege der intersektoralen Kommunikation (30 %) angegeben. Befürchtete Probleme in Bezug auf die Kostenerstattung für telemedizinische Leistungen waren für 27 % ein Hindernis. Neurologen in ländlichen Gebieten waren signifikant häufiger bereit, zunächst eine telemedizinische Konsultation anzufordern, bevor sie eine Überweisung ausstellen (p = 0,006).
Schlussfolgerungen
Die flächendeckende Etablierung von Telemedizinstrukturen ist immer noch durch Hindernisse erschwert, die meist im organisatorischen Bereich liegen. Die bestehenden Herausforderungen im Gesundheitswesen in ländlichen Gebieten sind eine besondere Chance für die Implementierung von Telemedizin. Die meisten Probleme der Telemedizin können gelöst werden, sollten aber bereits bei der Konzeptionierung von Projekten mitbedacht werden, um ihre Verstetigung zu erleichtern.
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: 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.
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.
Background: Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is a monogenetic, multisystem disorder characterized by benign growths due to TSC1 or TSC2 mutations. This German multicenter study estimated the costs and related cost drivers associated with organ manifestations in adults with TSC.
Methods: A validated, three-month, retrospective questionnaire assessed the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, organ manifestations, direct, indirect, out-of-pocket (OOP), and nursing care-level costs among adult individuals with TSC throughout Germany from a societal perspective (costing year: 2019).
Results: We enrolled 192 adults with TSC (mean age: 33.4 ± 12.7 years; range: 18–78 years, 51.6% [n = 99] women). Reported TSC disease manifestations included skin (94.8%) and kidney and urinary tract (74%) disorders, epilepsy (72.9%), structural brain defects (67.2%), psychiatric disorders (50.5%), heart and circulatory system disorders (50.5%), and lymphangioleiomyomatosis (11.5%). TSC1 and TSC2 mutations were reported in 16.7% and 25% of respondents, respectively. Mean direct health care costs totaled EUR 6452 (median EUR 1920; 95% confidence interval [CI] EUR 5533–7422) per patient over three months. Medication costs represented the major direct cost category (77% of total direct costs; mean EUR 4953), and mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors represented the largest share (68%, EUR 4358). Mean antiseizure drug (ASD) costs were only EUR 415 (6%). Inpatient costs (8%, EUR 518) and outpatient treatment costs (7%; EUR 467) were important further direct cost components. The mean care grade allowance as an approximator of informal nursing care costs was EUR 929 (median EUR 0; 95% CI EUR 780–1083) over three months. Mean indirect costs totaled EUR 3174 (median EUR 0; 95% CI EUR 2503–3840) among working-age individuals (< 67 years in Germany). Multiple regression analyses revealed mTOR inhibitor use and persistent seizures as independent cost-driving factors for total direct costs. Older age and disability were independent cost-driving factors for total indirect costs, whereas epilepsy, psychiatric disease, and disability were independent cost-driving factors for nursing care costs.
Conclusions: This three-month study revealed substantial direct healthcare, indirect healthcare, and medication costs associated with TSC in Germany. This study highlights the spectrum of organ manifestations and their associated treatment needs in the German healthcare setting. Trial registration: DRKS, DRKS00016045. Registered 01 March 2019, http://www.drks.de/DRKS00016045.
Objective: To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of generalized convulsive seizure (GCS)-related fractures and injuries during video-EEG monitoring.
Methods: We analyzed all GCSs in patients undergoing video-EEG-monitoring between 2007 and 2019 at epilepsy centers in Frankfurt and Marburg in relation to injuries, falls and accidents associated with GCSs. Data were gathered using video material, EEG material, and a standardized reporting form.
Results: A total of 626 GCSs from 411 patients (mean age: 33.6 years; range 3–74 years; 45.0% female) were analyzed. Severe adverse events (SAEs) such as fractures, joint luxation, corneal erosion, and teeth loosening were observed in 13 patients resulting in a risk of 2.1% per GCS (95% CI 1.2–3.4%) and 3.2% per patient (95% CI 1.8–5.2%). Except for a nasal fracture due to a fall onto the face, no SAEs were caused by falls, and all occurred in patients lying in bed without evidence of external trauma. In seven patients, vertebral body compression fractures were confirmed by imaging. This resulted in a risk of 1.1% per GCS (95% CI 0.5–2.2%) and 1.7% per patient (95% CI 0.8–3.3%). These fractures occurred within the tonic phase of a GCS and were accompanied by a characteristic cracking noise. All affected patients reported back pain spontaneously, and an increase in pain on percussion of the affected spine section.
Conclusions: GCSs are associated with a substantial risk of fractures and shoulder dislocations that are not associated with falls. GCSs accompanied by audible cracking, and resulting in back pain, should prompt clinical and imaging evaluations.
Hintergrund: Die Analyse krankheitsspezifischer Kosten gewinnt in einem zunehmend ökonomisch ausgerichteten Gesundheitssystem an Relevanz, wobei vor allem chronische Erkrankungen aufgrund der langen Krankheitsdauer sowie häufiger Hospitalisierung und Arztbesuche von besonderem Interesse sind. Epilepsien stellen eine häufige neurologische Erkrankung dar, welche mit paroxysmal auftretenden epileptischen Anfällen und häufig hiermit assoziierten Verletzungen einhergeht und alle Altersgruppen betrifft.
Ziel: Ziel der Arbeit ist die Aufarbeitung der stationären Behandlungskosten anfallsbedingter Verletzungen sowie die Analyse hinsichtlich relevanter kostenverursachender Faktoren. Mittels alternativer Kalkulation der Versorgungskosten soll zusätzlich der Frage nach potenziellen Vergütungsproblemen im aktuellen DRG-System („diagnosis related groups“) nachgegangen werden.
Methoden: Grundlage dieser monozentrischen, retrospektiven Analyse ist der tatsächliche Erlös der stationären Behandlung von 62 Patienten, die zwischen 01/2010 und 01/2018 im Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt aufgrund von Verletzungen im Rahmen epileptischer Anfälle erfolgte. Die Analyse potenzieller kostenverursachender Faktoren bezog sich auf relevante soziodemographische und klinische Aspekte, die alternative Kalkulation der Versorgungskosten wurde mit gängigen gesundheitsökonomischen Methoden durchgeführt.
Ergebnisse: Der mittlere DRG-Erlös betrug 7408 € (±8993 €, Median 5086 €, Spanne 563–44.519 €), die mittleren kalkulierten Kosten 9423 € (±11.113 €, 5626 €, Spanne 587–49.830 €). Als signifikant kostenverursachender Faktor konnte eine Liegedauer ≥7 Tage (p = 0,014) identifiziert werden. Aufgrund des signifikanten Unterschieds (p < 0,001) zwischen Erlös und kalkulierten Kosten erfolgte eine Analyse nach Faktoren für potenzielle Vergütungsprobleme, welche für eine Aufenthaltsdauer von ≥7 Tagen (p = 0,014) sowie für eine Behandlung auf Intensivstation (p = 0,019) signifikant verblieb.
Schlussfolgerung: Die stationären Versorgungskosten von Patienten mit Frakturen aufgrund epileptischer Anfälle sind hoch und daher gesundheitsökonomisch relevant. Generell scheint die auf Fallpauschalen basierende Vergütung nach G‑DRG die tatsächlichen Kosten zu decken, bei Patienten mit einer langen Liegedauer oder einen Aufenthalt auf Intensivstation können jedoch Vergütungsprobleme bestehen.
Objective: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal midazolam (in‐MDZ) as first‐line inhospital therapy in patients with status epilepticus (SE) during continuous EEG recording.
Methods: Data on medical history, etiology and semiology of SE, anticonvulsive medication usage, efficacy and safety of in‐MDZ were retrospectively reviewed between 2015 and 2018. Time to end of SE regarding the administration of in‐MDZ and ß‐band effects were analyzed on EEG and with frequency analysis.
Results: In total, 42 patients (mean age: 52.7 ± 22.7 years; 23 females) were treated with a median dose of 5 mg of in‐MDZ (range: 2.5–15 mg, mean: 6.4 mg, SD: 2.6) for SE. The majority of the patients suffered from nonconvulsive SE (n = 24; 55.8%). In total, 24 (57.1%) patients were responders, as SE stopped following the administration of in‐MDZ without any other drugs being given. On average, SE ceased on EEG at 05:05 (minutes:seconds) after the application of in‐MDZ (median: 04:56; range: 00:29–14:53; SD:03:13). Frequency analysis showed an increased ß‐band on EEG after the application of in‐MDZ at 04:07 on average (median: 03:50; range: 02:20–05:40; SD: 01:09). Adverse events were recorded in six patients (14.3%), with nasal irritations present in five (11.9%) and prolonged sedation occurring in one (2.6%) patient.
Conclusions: This pharmaco‐EEG–based study showed that in‐MDZ is effective and well‐tolerated for the acute treatment of SE. EEG and clinical effects of in‐MDZ administration occurred within 04:07 and 5:05 on average. Intranasal midazolam appears to be an easily applicable and rapidly effective alternative to buccal or intramuscular application as first‐line treatment if an intravenous route is not available.
Introduction: This study was designed to evaluate risk factors and incidence of epilepsy-related injuries and accidents (ERIA) at an outpatient clinic of a German epilepsy center providing healthcare to a mixed urban and rural population of over one million inhabitants.
Methods: Data acquisition was performed between 10/2013 and 09/2014 using a validated patient questionnaire on socioeconomic status, course of epilepsy, quality of life (QoL), depression, injuries and accidents associated with seizures or inadequate periictal patterns of behavior concerning a period of 3 months. Univariate analysis, multiple testing and regression analysis were performed to identify possible variables associated with ERIA.
Results: A total of 292 patients (mean age 40.8 years, range 18–86; 55% female) were enrolled and analyzed. Focal epilepsy was diagnosed in 75% of the patients. The majority was on an antiepileptic drug (AEDs) polytherapy (mean number of AEDs: 1.65). Overall, 41 patients (14.0%) suffered from epilepsy-related injuries and accidents in a 3-month period. Besides lacerations (n = 18, 6.2%), abrasions and bruises (n = 9, 3.1%), fractures (n = 6, 2.2%) and burns (n = 3, 1.0%), 17 mild injuries (5.8%) were reported. In 20 (6.8% of the total cohort) cases, urgent medical treatment with hospitalization was necessary. Epilepsy-related injuries and accidents were related to active epilepsy, occurrence of generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) and drug-refractory course as well as reported ictal falls, ictal loss of consciousness and abnormal peri-ictal behavior in the medical history. In addition, patients with ERIA had significantly higher depression rates and lower QoL.
Conclusion: ERIA and their consequences should be given more attention and standardized assessment for ERIA should be performed in every outpatient visit.
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.