Refine
Document Type
- Article (23)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (23)
Keywords
- Epilepsy (7)
- Seizure (5)
- epilepsy (5)
- Dravet syndrome (3)
- fenfluramine (3)
- levetiracetam (3)
- seizure (3)
- Cannabidiol (2)
- Clinical Global Impression of Change (2)
- Costs (2)
Background and purpose: Transient splenial oedema, also known as reversible splenial lesion syndrome (RESLES), is a rare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) finding that presents as a round or ovoid focal oedema in the posterior corpus callosum, and is associated with a wide range of clinical conditions. The aetiology of RESLES is not fully clear. We aimed to investigate conflicting pathophysiological hypotheses by measuring local glucose metabolism in patients with RESLES.
Methods: We retrospectively analysed patients with RESLES after reductions in antiseizure medications during in-hospital video electroencephalography monitoring. We measured local glucose uptake using positron emission tomography/computed tomography and compared matched cohorts of patients with and without MRI evidence of RESLES using nonparametric tests.
Results: Local glucose metabolism in the splenium of seven patients with RESLES was not significantly different from the glucose metabolism of the seven patients in the matched cohort. This was true using both regular and normalized standardized glucose uptake value calculation methods (p = 0.902 and p = 0.535, respectively).
Conclusion: We found no evidence of local glucose hypometabolism in RESLES, which supports previous pathophysiological considerations that suggest that RESLES is an intercellular, intramyelinic oedema rather than a typical intracellular cytotoxic oedema, which is not reversible.
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.
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.
A systematic review on the burden of illness in individuals with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC)
(2020)
Objective: This review will summarize current knowledge on the burden of illness (BOI) in tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), a multisystem genetic disorder manifesting with hamartomas throughout the body, including mainly the kidneys, brain, skin, eyes, heart, and lungs.
Methods: We performed a systematic analysis of the available literature on BOI in TSC according to the PRISMA guidelines. All studies irrespective of participant age that reported on individual and societal measures of disease burden (e.g. health care resource use, costs, quality of life) were included.
Results: We identified 33 studies reporting BOI in TSC patients. Most studies (21) reported health care resource use, while 14 studies reported quality of life and 10 studies mentioned costs associated with TSC. Only eight research papers reported caregiver BOI. Substantial BOI occurs from most manifestations of the disorder, particularly from pharmacoresistant epilepsy, neuropsychiatric, renal and skin manifestations. While less frequent, pulmonary complications also lead to a high individual BOI. The range for the mean annual direct costs varied widely between 424 and 98,008 International Dollar purchasing power parities (PPP-$). Brain surgery, end-stage renal disease with dialysis, and pulmonary complications all incur particularly high costs. There is a dearth of information regarding indirect costs in TSC. Mortality overall is increased compared to general population; and most TSC related deaths occur as a result of complications from seizures as well as renal complications. Long term studies report mortality between 4.8 and 8.3% for a follow-up of 8 to 17.4 years.
Conclusions: TSC patients and their caregivers have a high burden of illness, and TSC patients incur high costs in health care systems. At the same time, the provision of inadequate treatment that does not adhere to published guidelines is common and centralized TSC care is received by no more than half of individuals who need it, especially adults. Further studies focusing on the cost effectiveness and BOI outcomes of coordinated TSC care as well as of new treatment options such as mTOR inhibitors are necessary.
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.
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.
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.
Introduction: Dravet syndrome (DS), a prototypic developmental and genetic epileptic encephalopathy (DEE), is characterized by an early onset of treatment-refractory seizures, together with impairments in motor control, behavior, and cognition. Even with multiple conventional anti-epileptic drugs, seizures remain poorly controlled, and there has been a considerable unmet need for effective and tolerable treatments. Areas covered: This targeted literature review aims to highlight recent changes to the therapeutic landscape for DS by summarizing the most up-to-date, evidence-based research, including pivotal data from the clinical development of stiripentol, cannabidiol, and fenfluramine, which are important milestones for DS treatment, together with the latest findings of other pharmacotherapies in development. In phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials stiripentol, cannabidiol, and fenfluramine have shown clinically relevant reductions in convulsive seizure frequency, and are generally well tolerated. Stiripentol was associated with responder rates (greater than 50% reduction in convulsive seizure frequency) of 67%-71%, when added to valproic acid and clobazam; cannabidiol was associated with responder rates of 43%-49% (48%-63% in conjunction with clobazam), and fenfluramine of 54%-68% across studies. Therapies in development include soticlestat, ataluren, verapamil, and clemizole, with strategies to treat the underlying cause of DS, including gene therapy and antisense oligonucleotides beginning to emerge from preclinical studies. Expert opinion: Despite the challenges of drug development in rare diseases, this is an exciting time for the treatment of DS, with the promise of new efficacious and well-tolerated therapies, which may pave the way for treatment advances in other DEEs.
Dravet syndrome is a severe developmental and epileptic encephalopathy characterised by refractory seizures and cognitive dysfunction. The treatment is challenging, not least because the seizures are highly drug resistant, requiring multiple anti-seizure medications (ASMs), while some ASMs can exacerbate seizures. Initial treatments include the broad-spectrum ASMs valproate (VPA), and clobazam (CLB) in some regions; however, they are generally insufficient to control seizures. With this in mind, three adjunct ASMs have been approved specifically for the treatment of seizures in patients with Dravet syndrome: stiripentol (STP) in 2007 in the European Union and 2018 in the USA, cannabidiol (CBD) in 2018/2019 (in combination with CLB in the European Union) and fenfluramine (FFA) in 2020. These “add-on” therapies (mostly to VPA/CLB) are used as escalation therapies, with the choice dependent on availability in different countries, patient characteristics and caregiver preferences. Topiramate is also frequently used, with evidence of efficacy in Dravet syndrome, and there is anecdotal evidence of efficacy with bromide, which is frequently used in Germany and Japan. With a growing treatment landscape for Dravet syndrome, there can be practical challenges for clinicians, particularly with issues associated with polypharmacy. This practical guide provides an overview of these main ASMs including their indications/contraindications, mechanism of action, efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, dosage requirements, and laboratory and clinical parameters to be evaluated. Standard laboratory and clinical parameters include blood counts, liver function tests, serum concentrations of ASMs, monitoring the growth of children, as well as weight loss and acceleration of behavioural problems. Regular cardiac monitoring is also important with FFA as it has previously been associated with cases of cardiac valve disease when used in adults at high doses (up to 120 mg/day) in combination with phentermine as a therapy for obesity. Importantly, no signs of heart valve disease have been documented to date at the low doses used in patients with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies. In addition, potential drug–drug interactions and their consequences are a key consideration in everyday practice. Interactions that potentially require dosage adjustments to alleviate adverse events include the following: STP + CLB resulting in increased plasma concentrations of CLB and its active metabolite norclobazam may increase somnolence, and an interaction with STP and VPA may increase gastrointestinal adverse events. Cannabidiol has a bi-directional interaction with CLB producing an increase in plasma concentrations of 7-OH-CBD and norclobazam resulting in the potential for increased somnolence and sedation. In addition, CBD is associated with elevations of liver transaminases particularly in patients taking concomitant VPA. The interaction between FFA and STP requires a dose reduction of FFA. Furthermore, concomitant administration of VPA with topiramate has been associated with encephalopathy and/or hyperammonaemia. Finally, we briefly describe other ASMs used in Dravet syndrome, and current key clinical trials.