Search

Introduction: Fenfluramine (FFA) is an amphetamine derivative that promotes the release and blocks the neuronal reuptake of serotonin. Initially introduced as an appetite suppressant, FFA also showed antiseizure properties. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of FFA for the treatment of seizures in patients with epilepsy. Methods: We systematically searched (in week 3 of June 2022) MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry. Randomized, double- or single-blinded, placebo-controlled studies of FFA in patients with epilepsy and uncontrolled seizures were identified. Efficacy outcomes included the proportions of patients with ≥ 50% and 100% reductions in baseline seizure frequency during the treatment period. Tolerability outcomes included the proportions of patients who withdrew from treatment for any reason and suffered adverse events (AEs). The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The risk ratio (RR) along with the 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated for each outcome. Results: Three trials were identified and a total of 469 Dravet syndrome (DS) and Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) subjects were randomized. All three trials were judged to be at low risk of biases. In patients with DS, the RRs for ≥ 50% and 100% reductions in convulsive seizure frequency for the FFA group compared to placebo were 5.61 (95% CI 2.73–11.54) and 4.71 (95% CI 0.57–39.30), respectively. In patients with LGS, the corresponding RRs for ≥ 50% and 100% reductions in drop seizure frequency were 2.58 (95% CI 1.33–5.02) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.031–7.81), respectively. The drug was withdrawn for any reason in 10.1% and 5.8% of patients receiving FFA and placebo, respectively (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.89–3.59). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 5.4% and 1.2% of FFA- and pl

Over the last months, due to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, containment measures have led to important social restriction. Healthcare systems have faced a complete rearrangement of resources and spaces, with the creation of wards devoted to COVID-19 patients. In this context, patients affected by chronic neurological diseases, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), are at risk to be lost at follow-up, leading to a higher risk of morbidity and mortality. Telemedicine may allow meet the needs of these patients. In this commentary, we briefly discuss the digital tools to remotely monitor and manage ALS patients. Focusing on detecting disease progression and preventing life-threatening conditions, we propose a toolset able to improve ALS management during this unprecedented situation.

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the priorities of patients with epilepsy and their caring physicians with reference to the timing and severity of the disease. Methods: This is a national survey in which patients with epilepsy followed in 21 Italian epilepsy centers, and their caring physicians were asked to fill anonymous questionnaires to collect data on different aspects of the disease and their needs and priorities in its management. The collected information included demographics, clinical profile and diagnosis, treatment and outcome of epilepsy. The questions were designed to understand the expectations of the patients and their caring physicians and verify the degree of concordance between patient and doctor. The study population was divided in six prognostic categories: (1) Newly diagnosed epilepsy; (2) Absence of seizures for at least 2 years; (3) Absence of seizures for at least 1 year or occasional seizures; (4) Nondrug-resistant recurrent seizures; (5) drug-resistant seizures; (6) surgical candidate. Results: Of the 787 patients enrolled, 432 were women and 355 men aged 15 to 88 years (median 41 years). Disease duration ranged from 6 months to 75 years. The sample included 53 patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy, 283 without seizures for at least 2 years, 162 seizure-free for at least 1 year or with occasional seizures, 123 with nondrug-resistant recurrent seizures, 128 with drug-resistant seizures, and 38 surgical candidates. Significant differences were found between patients and physicians in terms of priorities and needs with reference to the management of the disease. While physicians tend to prioritize the information on the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy depending on timing and severity, patients focus on the search of the cause, the side effects of drugs, and the effects of any new treatment on the control of seizures regardless of the prognostic category. In addition, physicians tend to undervalue the communication of

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the priorities of patients with epilepsy and caring physicians and the correspondence between these priorities. Methods: In this multicenter cross-sectional study, patients with epilepsy attending 21 Italian epilepsy centers and their caring physicians filled anonymously questionnaires on the needs and priorities in the management of the disease. Included were questions on patients' demographics, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome of epilepsy. The concordance between patients and their physicians was assessed on various aspects of the diagnosis and care of the disease. Patients' satisfaction with communication, services, and patient–doctor relationship was also assessed. Results: Included were 432 women and 355 men aged 15 to 88 years (median: 41 years). Disease duration ranged from 6 months to 75 years. A structural/metabolic etiology predominated (52.7%), followed by a (presumed) genetic etiology (33.0%). Seizure remission was present in 56.5% of cases. Comorbidities requiring chronic treatment were present in 27.5%, and comorbidities affecting self-sufficiency in 9.5%. Psychiatric comorbidity was present in 35.0%. Patients' priorities included discovery of the cause (89.1%), use of right drug (98.7%), use of a drug without chronic side effects (94.0%), and a life without restrictions (90.4%). Physicians' priorities included choice of right drug (83.5%) and use of drugs without chronic side effects (86.8%). Priorities varied with patients' age, sex, education, and occupation. Patient–doctor relationships were at least good in most cases. The information imparted was considered unsatisfactory by 21–44% of cases on seizure circumstances and complications, side effects of drugs, limitations of daily activities, and management of physiologic or pathologic conditions. Patients declared overall satisfaction, except for appointments (21.5%) and emergencies (30.8%). Conclusion: Patients and physicians' priorities in the mana

BACKGROUND: A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a standardised list of outcomes that should be reported as a minimum in all clinical trials. In epilepsy, the choice of outcomes varies widely among existing studies, particularly in clinical trials. This diminishes opportunities for informed decision-making, contributes to research waste and is a barrier to integrating findings in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Furthermore, the outcomes currently being measured may not reflect what is important to people with epilepsy. Therefore, we aim to develop a COS specific to clinical effectiveness research for adults with epilepsy using Delphi consensus methodology. METHODS: The EPSET Study will comprise of three phases and follow the core methodological principles as outlined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Phase 1 will include two focused literature reviews to identify candidate outcomes from the qualitative literature and current outcome measurement practice in phase III and phase IV clinical trials. Phase 2 aims to achieve international consensus to define which outcomes should be measured as a minimum in future trials, using a Delphi process including an online consensus meeting involving key stakeholders. Phase 3 will involve dissemination of the ratified COS to facilitate uptake in future trials and the planning of further research to identify the most appropriate measurement instruments to use to capture the COS in research practice. DISCUSSION: Harmonising outcome measurement across future clinical trials should ensure that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and health services, and allow for more meaningful results to be obtained. CORE OUTCOME SET REGISTRATION: COMET Initiative as study 118 .

OBJECTIVES: This International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Report: (a) summarizes the literature about "driving and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES)"; (b) presents the views of international experts; and (c) proposes an approach to assessing the ability of persons with PNES (PwPNES) to drive. METHODS: Phase 1: Systematic literature review. Phase 2: Collection of international expert opinion using SurveyMonkey®. Experts included the members of the ILAE PNES Task Force and individuals with relevant publications since 2000. Phase 3: Joint analysis of the findings and refinement of conclusions by all participants using email. As an ILAE Report, the resulting text was reviewed by the Psychiatry Commission, the ILAE Task Force on Driving Guidelines, and Executive Committee. RESULTS: Eight studies identified by the systematic review process failed to provide a firm evidence base for PNES-related driving regulations, but suggest that most health professionals think restrictions are appropriate. Twenty-six experts responded to the survey. Most held the view that decisions about driving privileges should consider individual patient and PNES characteristics and take account of whether permits are sought for private or commercial driving. Most felt that those with active PNES should not be allowed to drive unless certain criteria were met and that PNES should be thought of as "active" if the last psychogenic seizure had occurred within 6 months. SIGNIFICANCE: Recommendations on whether PwPNES can drive should be made at the individual patient level. Until future research has determined the risk of accidents in PwPNES a proposed algorithm may guide decisions about driving advice.