Search

Although international guidelines exist, the clinical heterogeneity of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) and the increasing availability of new and repurposed drugs (e.g., fenfluramine and cannabidiol) requires a practical guide to patient management in the clinical context. We report the results of a consensus survey among 42 Italian experts in the diagnosis and treatment of LGS.The consensus procedure followed a modified Delphi approach. Statements were formulated, based on the most recent published evidence and the clinicians' personal experience, then discussed, and agreed upon by the experts through a two-round voting procedure. Approval of a statement was reached with an average score ≥7.Thirteen statements dealing with three main topics (i.e., clinical diagnosis and prognosis, impact on the Quality of Life (QoL), and treatment strategies) were generated. Six statements achieved a level of agreement sufficient for approval on the first voting round. Following the discussion and a few consequent amendments, most of the statements increased their level of agreement and all 13 were approved.Overall, the statements draw a slightly more benign picture of this rare and severe disease, highlighting the possibility of remission - albeit modest -, an apparent trend towards lower mortality, and the availability of several effective drugs, to which greater accessibility would be hoped for. Valproate remains a major therapeutic option in LGS patients although lamotrigine, rufinamide, topiramate, cannabidiol, and clobazam are popular therapeutic options in Italy, allowing for a tailor-made antiseizure therapy.

During the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinicians are increasingly involved in the observation of possible neurological complications due to the infection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1]. Among neurologic emergencies, new onset seizures and status epilepticus in non-epileptic patients are up to now, infrequently reported [2]. We hereby report a case of New Onset Refractory Status Epilepticus (NORSE) [3] in a patient with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis and concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Purpose To evaluate the concordance between the EEG diagnosis of non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) made by the treating physician and the application of the Salzburg Consensus Criteria (SCC) on consecutive urgent EEG requested for acute alteration of consciousness not otherwise explained. Methods Retrospective evaluation of all urgent EEGs acquired between January 1st and March 31st 2018 in adolescents and adult patients (≥14 years old). The ‘reference’ was the neurologist who first evaluated the patient and reported the corresponding EEG diagnosis. All were blind to the SCC. All included EEG were evaluated and classified by three neurologists trained in the application of SCC blind to the clinical diagnosis. Results 181 consecutive EEGs entered the study. The treating clinician diagnosed a NCSE in 17 cases (9%). According to the SCC, 12 EEGs were classified as Definite NCSE (7%), 71 (39 %) as Possible NCSE, and 98 (54 %) as no NCSE. A perfect concordance was found for the Definite- and No-NCSE categories, while only 5 patients with a Possible-NCSE were diagnosed by the treating clinician as having NCSE. It is relevant to note that aamong the 66 patients with a Possible NCSE not diagnosed as SE by the treating clinician, only two presented an evolution toward a definite SE. Conclusion SCC have optimal performances for the ‘Definite NCSE’, and to exclude the presence of a NCSE. Conversely, the Possible NCSE category is still a a grey land of debate that could potentially include many different conditions.

Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency, characterized by high short-term morbidity and mortality. We evaluated and compared two scores that have been developed to evaluate status epilepticus prognosis: STESS (Status Epilepticus Severity Score) and EMSE (Epidemiology based Mortality score in Status Epilepticus).A prospective observational study was performed on consecutive patients with SE admitted between September 2013 and August 2015. Demographics, clinical variables, STESS-3 and -4, and EMSE-64 scores were calculated for each patient at baseline. SE drug response, 30-day mortality and morbidity were the outcomes measure.162 episodes of SE were observed: 69% had a STESS ≥3; 34% had a STESS ≥4; 51% patients had an EMSE ≥64. The 30-days mortality was 31.5%: EMSE-64 showed greater negative predictive value (NPV) (97.5%), positive predictive value (PPV) (59.8%) and accuracy in the prediction of death than STESS-3 and STESS-4 (p0.001). At 30 days, the clinical condition had deteriorated in 59% of the cases: EMSE-64 showed greater NPV (71.3%), PPV (87.8%) and accuracy than STESS-3 and STESS-4 (p0.001) in the prediction of this outcome. In 23% of all cases, status epilepticus proved refractory to non-anaesthetic treatment. All three scales showed a high NPV (EMSE-64: 87.3%; STESS-4: 89.4%; STESS-3: 87.5%) but a low PPV (EMSE-64: 40.9%; STESS-4: 52.9%; STESS-3: 32%) for the prediction of refractoriness to first and second line drugs. This means that accuracy for the prediction of refractoriness was equally poor for all scales.EMSE-64 appears superior to STESS-3 and STESS-4 in the prediction of 30-days mortality and morbidity. All scales showed poor accuracy in the prediction of response to first and second line antiepileptic drugs. At present, there are no reliable scores capable of predicting treatment responsiveness.