Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (2) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (2)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (2)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (2)
Schlagworte
- antiepileptic drug (2) (entfernen)
Institut
- Medizin (2)
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.
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.