Julia Höfler

Lacosamide as a new treatment option in status epilepticus.

Status epilepticus is among the most common neurologic emergencies, with a mortality rate of up to 20%. The most important therapeutic goal is fast, effective, and well‐tolerated cessation of status epilepticus. Intravenous phenytoin/fosphenytoin, phenobarbital, or valproate is the current standard treatment after failure of benzodiazepines. Lacosamide as a new antiepileptic drug has been available as an intravenous solution since 2009. To date, PubMed lists 19 studies (10 single case reports and 9 case series), reporting a total of 136 episodes of refractory status epilepticus (50% nonconvulsive status epilepticus, 31% focal status epilepticus, and 19% convulsive status epilepticus) treated with lacosamide. The most often used bolus dose was 200–400 mg over 3–5 min. The overall success rate was 56% (76/136). Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 25% (34/136) of patients: mild sedation in 25 cases, 1 patient with possible angioedema, 2 with allergic skin reaction, 4 with hypotension, and 1 with pruritus. One patient developed a third‐degree atrioventricular (AV) block and paroxysmal asystole. Overall, the rate of AEs was low. Current evidence on the use of intravenous lacosamide in acute seizures and status epilepticus is restricted to retrospective case reports and case series (class IV). Further prospective studies to inform clinicians are necessary.

Intravenous lacosamide in status epilepticus and seizure clusters

Status epilepticus (SE) and seizure clusters (SC) represent neurologic emergencies with a case fatality rate up to 34%, depending on cause and comorbidity. As SE becomes more refractory to treatment over time, appropriate medication is important. This study aimed to investigate efficacy and tolerability of intravenous (IV) lacosamide (LCM) in treatment of SC and SE. Data of patients with SE or SC who were treated with IV LCM between December 2009 and February 2011 in two Austrian centers were analyzed retrospectively. Clinical information was extracted from patients’ charts. Forty‐eight patients (26f/22m) aged median 62 years (range 17–95 years) were identified. Thirty‐five percent of patients (17 of 48) had SC and 65% (31 of 48) had SE. SE was nonconvulsive in 10 (32%), convulsive in 11 (36%), and focal in 10 (32%) patients. SE was acute symptomatic in six (20%) and remote symptomatic in 11 (35%) patients. Fourteen (45%) had preexisting epilepsy. Median initial bolus dose was 200 mg (range 200–400 mg) in patients with SE and 200 mg in patients with SC. Maximum infusion rate was 60 mg/min. Cessation was observed in 42 patients (88%). Success rate in patients with SE receiving LCM as first or second drug was 100% (8 of 8), as third drug 81% (11 of 15), and as fourth or later drug 75% (6 of 8). There were no side effects observed except for pruritus and skin rash in two patients. These data support use of IV LCM as a potential alternative to standard antiepileptic drugs for acute treatment of seizure emergency situations, although randomized controlled studies are needed.

Causes of status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) is the most extreme form of epilepsy. It describes a prolonged seizure that may occur in patients with previous epilepsy or in acute disorders of the central nervous system. It is one of the most common neurologic emergencies, with an incidence of up to 41 per 100,000 per year and an estimated mortality is 20%. The three major determinants of prognosis are the duration of SE, patient age, and the underlying cause. Common and easily recognized causes of SE include cerebrovascular disorders, brain trauma, infections, and low antiepileptic drug levels in patients with epilepsy. Less common causes present a clinical and diagnostic challenge, but are major determinants of prognosis. Among them, inflammatory causes and inborn errors of metabolism have gained wide interest; recent insights into these causes have contributed to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of SE and its appropriate treatment. This review focuses on the different etiologies of SE and emphasizes the importance of prompt recognition and treatment of the underlying causes.

Perampanel in patients with refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus in a neurological intensive care unit

INTRODUCTION In refractory status epilepticus (SE), because of subcellular maladaptive changes, GABAergic drugs are no longer effective, and the excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate (Glu) plays a major role in seizure perpetuation. Perampanel (PER, licensed since 09/2012) is the first orally active noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist for adjunctive treatment of refractory focal epilepsy. METHODS We analyzed treatment response, seizure outcome, and adverse effects of add-on treatment with perampanel in patients with refractory status epilepticus in the Neurological Intensive Care Unit (NICU), Salzburg, Austria between 09/2012 and 11/2014 by retrospective chart review. RESULTS Twelve patients (75% women) with refractory status epilepticus were treated with PER administered per nasogastric tube between 09/2012 and 11/2014. Median age was 75 years [range: 60-91]. The most frequent SE type was nonconvulsive SE (NCSE) with (5/12, 42%) and without coma (6/12, 50%). In seven patients (58%), SE arose de novo, with an acute symptomatic cause in five patients (42%). Cerebrovascular diseases (4/12, 33%) and cerebral tumors (4/12, 33%) were the most common etiologies. Perampanel was given after a median number of four antiepileptic drugs [range: 2-7] and a median time of 1.5 days [range: 0.8-18.3]. In one patient (8%), clinical improvement was observed within 24h and EEG improvement within 60 h after administration of PER, while in another patient (8%), clinical and EEG improvement was observed more than 48 h after administration. Median initial dose was 4 mg [range: 2-12; SD: 4.11], titrated up to a median of 12 mg [range: 4-12] in steps of 2 to 4 mg per day. No adverse effects were reported regarding cardiorespiratory changes or laboratory parameters. Outcomes after SE were moderate disability in five patients (42%), death in three patients (25%), and persistent vegetative state in two patients (17%). CONCLUSION Though glutamate plays a major role in seizure perpetuation, the noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist PER could only ameliorate seizure activity in a few patients with refractory SE. The long duration of SE before the administration of PER via nasogastric tube, as well as relatively low doses of PER, might be responsible for the modest result. Perampanel was well tolerated, and no adverse events were reported. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Status Epilepticus.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Salzburg EEG criteria for non-convulsive status epilepticus: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND Several EEG criteria have been proposed for diagnosis of non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), but none have been clinically validated. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the EEG criteria proposed by a panel of experts at the fourth London-Innsbruck Colloquium on Status Epilepticus in Salzburg, 2013 (henceforth called the Salzburg criteria). METHODS We did a retrospective, diagnostic accuracy study using EEG recordings from patients admitted for neurological symptoms or signs to three centres in two countries (Danish Epilepsy Centre, Dianalund, Denmark; Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; and Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria). Participants were included from the Danish centres if they were aged 4 months or older, and from the Austrian centre if aged 18 years or older. Participants were sorted into two groups: consecutive patients under clinical suspicion of having NCSE (the clinical validation group) or consecutive patients with abnormal EEG findings but no clinical suspicion of NCSE (the control group). Two raters blinded to all other patient data retrospectively analysed the EEG recordings and, using the Salzburg criteria, categorised patients as in NCSE or not in NCSE. By comparing with a reference standard inferred from all clinical and para-clinical data, therapeutic response, and the final outcome, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, overall diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative predictive values, and inter-rater agreement for the Salzburg criteria. The reference standard was inferred by two raters who were blinded to the scorings of the Salzburg criteria. FINDINGS We retrospectively reviewed EEG data from 220 patients. EEGs in the clinical validation group were recorded in 120 patients between Jan 1, and Feb 28, 2014 (Austria), and Aug 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2015 (Denmark). EEGs in the control group were recorded in 100 patients between Jan 13 and Jan 22, 2014 (Austria) and Jan 12 and Jan 26, 2015 (Denmark). According to the reference standard, 43 (36%) of the 120 patients in the validation group had NCSE. In the validation cohort sensitivity was 97·7% (95% CI 87·9-99·6) and specificity was 89·6% (80·8-94·6); overall accuracy was 92·5% (88·3-97·5). Positive predictive value was 84·0% (95% CI 74·1-91·5) and negative predictive value was 98·6% (94·4-100). Three people in the control group (n=100) fulfilled the Salzburg criteria and were therefore false positives (specificity 97·0%, 95% CI 91·5-99·0; sensitivity not calculable). Inter-rater agreement was high for both the Salzburg criteria (k=0·87) and for the reference standard (k=0·95). Therapeutic changes occurred significantly more often in the group of patients fulfilling Salzburg criteria (42 [84%] of 50 patients) than in those who did not (11 [16%] of 70; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION The Salzburg criteria for diagnosis of NCSE have high diagnostic accuracy and excellent inter-rater agreement, making them suitable for implementation in clinical practice. FUNDING None.

Pharmacologic treatment of status epilepticus

ABSTRACT Introduction: Status epilepticus (SE) requires rapid identification of its cause and urgent pharmacological treatment. Despite an estimated incidence of up to 61 per 100,000 per year, evidence from high-class clinical trials is only available for the early stages of SE. Areas covered: Following a four-stage approach of SE (early, established, refractory and super-refractory), we present pharmacological treatment options and their clinical utility. Expert opinion: Intravenous lorazepam and intramuscular midazolam appear as most effective treatments for early SE. In children, buccal midazolam has emerged as first-line non-intravenous drug with similar efficacy and safety to other intravenous or rectal benzodiazepines. In established SE intravenous antiepileptic drugs are in use. There are no double-blind, but six randomized open studies with valproate and two with levetiracetam. A meta-analysis found higher rates of seizure cessation with valproate 75.7% (95% CI 63.7–84.8) and phenobarbital 73.6%, (95% CI 58.3–84.8) than with levetiracetam (68.5%, 95% CI 56.2–78.7) or phenytoin (50.2%, 95% CI 34.2–66.1). Based on the favourable tolerability profile of levetiracetam and valproate, the authors prefer these drugs in established SE over phenytoin. Treatment options in refractory SE are intravenous anaesthetics. In super-refractory SE ketamine, magnesium, steroids and other drugs have been used with variable outcomes. At this stage therapeutic decisions are based on doctors’ preferences, patient factors such as age and comorbidity, and cause of SE, if identified.

Seizure outcome in 175 patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy – A long-term observational study

INTRODUCTION Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) is a genetic generalized epilepsy syndrome. Under appropriate antiepileptic drugs (AED) up to 85% of patients become seizure-free, but many may have a relapse after AED withdrawal. METHODS We retrospectively studied 242 patients with JME at the Department of Neurology, Medical University Innsbruck, Austria (1975-2006). We analyzed age at seizure onset, age at last follow up, seizure types, photosensitivity, seizure outcome and neuroimaging findings; inclusion criterion was a medical treatment period of >2 years; exclusion criteria were traumatic or infectious brain injury before the onset of JME and/or gross structural pathology on neuroimaging. RESULTS We identified 175 patients (111 women) with a median age at seizure onset of 15 years, (range 3-46) and a median age at follow-up (FU) of 38 years (range 14-87; median FU 8 years, range 2-38). Fourteen percent showed (24/175) photosensitivity on routine EEG. Seizure outcome: 62% (109/175) were seizure-free of myoclonic seizures (MS), generalized tonic clonic seizures (GTCS) and absence seizures (AS) for >1 year, and 53% (94/175) for >2 years, including 16 patients (9%) without AEDs. Thirty-one percent (54/175) were seizure-free between 2 and 5 years, 15% (26/175) between 6 and 10, and 8% (14/175) >10 years; 38% (66/175) were not seizure-free. Not seizure-free patients had more often MS, AS and GTCS within the first year of epilepsy than those who were seizure-free at last FU (11% vs. 3%, Chi(2)=4.679, df=1, p=0.043). Seizure-free patients had more often MS and GTCS as last seizure types in the year before becoming seizure-free (37% vs. 15%, p=0.003), whereas in not seizure-free group MS only and GTCS only persisted. CONCLUSIONS JME does not always need lifelong treatment, as a substantial minority of patients remain seizure-free without AEDs. AS, MS and GTCS at onset of the disease are indicators of poor long-term seizure control.

Current practices in long-term video-EEG monitoring services: A survey among partners of the E-PILEPSY pilot network of reference for refractory epilepsy and epilepsy surgery.

PURPOSE The European Union-funded E-PILEPSY network aims to improve awareness of, and accessibility to, epilepsy surgery across Europe. In this study we assessed current clinical practices in epilepsy monitoring units (EMUs) in the participating centers. METHOD A 60-item web-based survey was distributed to 25 centers (27 EMUs) of the E-PILEPSY network across 22 European countries. The questionnaire was designed to evaluate the characteristics of EMUs, including organizational aspects, admission, and observation of patients, procedures performed, safety issues, cost, and reimbursement. RESULTS Complete responses were received from all (100%) EMUs surveyed. Continuous observation of patients was performed in 22 (81%) EMUs during regular working hours, and in 17 EMUs (63%) outside of regular working hours. Fifteen (56%) EMUs requested a signed informed consent before admission. All EMUs performed tapering/withdrawal of antiepileptic drugs, 14 (52%) prior to admission to an EMU. Specific protocols on antiepileptic drugs (AED) tapering were available in four (15%) EMUs. Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) for the treatment of seizure clusters and status epilepticus were available in 16 (59%). Safety measures implemented by EMUs were: alarm seizure buttons in 21 (78%), restricted patients ambulation in 19 (70%), guard rails in 16 (59%), and specially designated bathrooms in 7 (26%). Average costs for one inpatient day in EMU ranged between 100 and 2200 Euros. CONCLUSION This study shows a considerable diversity in the organization and practice patterns across European epilepsy monitoring units. The collected data may contribute to the development and implementation of evidence-based recommended practices in LTM services across Europe.

Two-year real-world experience with perampanel in patients with refractory focal epilepsy: Austrian data

Background: The aim of this study was to analyse registry data of seizure outcome and adverse events (AEs) for perampanel as add-on therapy in patients with focal epilepsy since its approval in 2012 for adjunctive treatment of focal epilepsy in patients ⩾12 years. Method: A retrospective 2-year chart review of all patients receiving perampanel was carried out. Results: A total of 122 patients received perampanel [median treatment length: 20.1 (range: 3.4–26.8) months]; 71 (58%) remained on treatment at last follow up. Overall, 33 patients (27%) were seizure-free for ⩾3 months at last follow up; of these, eight were seizure free for ⩾3 times the longest interictal interval before perampanel therapy; 18 (15%) had reduced seizure frequency ⩾50%. A total of 58 (47%) had an AE and 34 (28%) withdrew from treatment because of AEs. AEs included dizziness (33%), fatigue (12%), psychiatric symptoms (8%), cognitive deficits (7%), speech problems (5%), nausea (4%) and gait problems (4%). AEs subsided in 17/18 patients (94%) following a 2 mg dose reduction. A total of 43 (35%) took a concomitant enzyme inducer. Patients not taking enzyme inducers were more likely to be seizure free (p = 0.002); there were no other between-group differences. Conclusions: Perampanel was well tolerated and improved seizure control in 42% of patients (50– 100% reduction), with higher rates in those not receiving a concomitant enzyme inducer. AEs, particularly dizziness, were common but often disappeared with a slight dose reduction. The results are consistent with those from randomized controlled trials.

Perampanel for the treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy

ABSTRACT Introduction: The non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) – receptor antagonist perampanel (PER) was approved in 2015 for treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (pGTCS). The aim of this narrative review is to summarize available data on pharmacological properties, efficacy and tolerability of PER in pGTCs. Areas covered: Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov, conference proceedings of the ILAE congresses and the most recent conference proceedings of the American Epilepsy Society (2013 to 2015). Expert opinion: A placebo-controlled clinical phase III study including 164 patients (≥ 12 years) with pGTCS in idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGE) demonstrated efficacy of PER in reducing pGTCS with good tolerability profile, and without aggravating absence seizures or myoclonic seizures. Dizziness, the main adverse event (AE), can be avoided by bedtime administration. Psychiatric AEs ranging from mild depression to aggression and suicidal attempts should be especially monitored in patients with a history of psychiatric disorders. Co-administration of enzyme inducing antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) might decrease PER plasma levels and make dose adjustment necessary. A reduced efficacy of progesterone-containing oral contraceptives should be considered when administering PER to young women. There is lack of evidence on PER treatment in pregnancy. Although no teratogenic effects were observed in animal models, PER is not recommended for women of childbearing age without contraception.