Search

Objective: Cenobamate is a recently approved antiseizure medication that proved to be safe and effective in randomized controlled trials. However, little is known about its impact on some areas frequently affected by epilepsy. For this reason, we explored the effects of cenobamate on cognitive performance, as well as on negative affectivity and quality of life in a sample of patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy. Methods: Two prospective cohort studies were carried out. In Study 1, 32 patients (22 men and 10 women) underwent a baseline (T0) and a short‐term (T1) neuropsychological assessment after 3 months of cenobamate administration. In Study 2, 22 patients (16 men and 6 women) from the T1 sample also underwent a baseline and a follow‐up evaluation (T2) 6 months after T0. Results: No significant differences were found in cognitive variables, negative affectivity, and quality of life either in Study 1 or Study 2. Similarly, based on the reliable change index, it was found that most patients showed no changes in these variables. Significance: These results suggest that cenobamate is a safe antiseizure medication in terms of cognition, negative affectivity, or quality of life since no adverse events have been found after 3 and 6 months of treatment. Plain Language Summary: Cenobamate is a new antiseizure medication. In patients with epilepsy, cenobamate seems to not affect cognition, anxiety, depression, or quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate perampanel (PER) when used under real‐world conditions to treat people with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) included in the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study. Methods: The multinational, retrospective, pooled analysis PERMIT explored the use of PER in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice across 17 countries. This subgroup analysis included PERMIT participants with IGE. Time points for retention and effectiveness measurements were 3, 6, and 12 months (last observation carried forward, defined as "last visit," was also applied to effectiveness). Effectiveness was evaluated by seizure type (total seizures, generalized tonic–clonic seizures [GTCS], myoclonic seizures, absence seizures) and included ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom rate (defined as no seizures since at least the previous visit). Safety/tolerability was monitored throughout PER treatment and evaluated by documenting the incidence of adverse events (AEs), including psychiatric AEs and those leading to treatment discontinuation. Results: The Full Analysis Set included 544 people with IGE (51.9% women, mean age = 33.3 years, mean epilepsy duration = 18.1 years). At 3, 6, and 12 months, 92.4%, 85.5%, and 77.3% of participants were retained on PER treatment, respectively (Retention Population, n = 497). At the last visit, responder and seizure freedom rates were, respectively, 74.2% and 54.6% (total seizures), 81.2% and 61.5% (GTCS), 85.7% and 66.0% (myoclonic seizures), and 90.5% and 81.0% (absence seizures) (Effectiveness Population, n = 467). AEs occurred in 42.9% of patients and included irritability (9.6%), dizziness/vertigo (9.2%), and somnolence (6.3%) (Tolerability Population, n = 520). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs was 12.4% over 12 months. Significance: This subgroup analysis of the PERMIT study demonstrated the effectiveness and good tolerability of PER in people with IGE when administered under everyday clinical practice conditions. These findings are in line with clinical trial evidence, supporting PER's use as broad‐spectrum antiseizure medication for the treatment of IGE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess the effectiveness, overall tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as an initial or early monotherapy treatment of adult patients with focal epilepsy under real-world practice conditions. We focused on real-world longitudinal studies that included or separately reported the results of at least one of the efficacy outcomes of interest. A DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used with the presentation of the 95% confidence intervals of the estimate 5 studies met our selection criteria and were included in the quantitative synthesis. All studies were observational and uncontrolled studies, and all but one were retrospective studies. The pooled proportion of patients who were seizure-free for the entire study period was 64.6% (95% CI, 45.7 to 79.8) at month 6 and 56.6% (95% CI, 50.2 to 62.8) at month 12. Pooled retention rates were 95.0% (95% CI, 90.3 to 97.5) at 6 months and 83.6% (95% CI, 73.9 to 90.1) at 12 months. The pooled proportion of patients who reported at least one adverse event was 27.2% (95% CI, 21.7 to 33.6), and the pooled proportion of patients who discontinued ESL due to adverse events was 8.9% (95% CI 6.2 to 12.6). Our results suggest that initial or early monotherapy with ESL is effective and well-tolerated for the management of adult patients with focal epilepsy in clinical practice, with results that are at least similar to those reported in the pivotal randomized clinical trial of ESL monotherapy. No new safety signals with ESL have been identified in this systematic review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The PERMIT study is the largest pooled analysis of perampanel (PER) clinical practice data conducted to date. Methods: This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT investigated the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of PER when used as early add-on therapy (after failure of one or two previous antiseizure medications) in comparison with late add-on therapy (after failure of three ormore previous antiseizuremedications). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness was assessed by seizure type (total seizures, focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS]) and assessments included seizure freedom rate and responder rate. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. Results: The Full Analysis Set included 1184 and 2861 PWE treated with PER as early and late add-on therapy, respectively. Compared to the late add-on subgroup, the early add-on subgroup was characterized by later mean age at epilepsy onset, shorter mean duration of epilepsy, lower rates of intellectual disability and psychiatric comorbidity, and lower frequency of seizures per month, suggesting a less severe form of epilepsy in this subgroup. After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in the early versus late add-on subgroup (67.7% vs. 62.4%; p=0.004). At the last visit, responder rates in the early versus late add-on subgroup were significantly higher for total seizures (68.2% vs. 39.3%; p < 0.001), focal seizures (65.0% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.001) and GTCS (83.7% vs. 67.2%; p < 0.001), as were seizure freedom rates (total seizures, 35.9% vs. 11.9% [p < 0.001]; focal seizures, 29.4% vs. 8.7% [p < 0.001]; GTCS, 69.0% vs. 48.1% [p < 0.001]). Incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the early versus late add-on subgroup (42.1% vs. 54.7%; p < 0.001), as was the rate of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months (15.0% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.031). Discussion: This study demonstrated that PER was effective and generally well tolerated when initiated as early or late add-on therapy, but it was significantly more effective and better tolerated when initiated early. These findings support PER's use as a broad-spectrum, early add-on therapy for use in PWE with focal and generalized seizures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To investigate the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used as monotherapy to treat focal or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice, using data from the PERMIT study. Methods. PERMIT was a pooled analysis of 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which people with focal and generalized epilepsy were treated with PER. This post hoc analysis included people with epilepsy (PWE) from PERMIT who were treated with PER monotherapy at baseline. Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months. Effectiveness assessments included ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit). Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. Results. Overall, 268 PWE were treated with PER monotherapy at baseline. Retention was assessed for 168 PWE, effectiveness for 183 PWE, and safety and tolerability for 197 PWE. Retention rates were 91.1%, 87.3%, and 73.3% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. At 12 months, responder rates were 84.2% overall, 82.9% in PWE with only focal-onset seizures at baseline, and 88.0% in those with only generalized-onset seizures at baseline; corresponding freedom rates were 62.9%, 57.7%, and 80.0%, respectively. AEs were reported for 45.2% of PWE. The most frequently reported AEs (≥5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (16.8%), irritability (11.2%), somnolence (9.1%), and depression (6.6%). Over 12 months, 13.7% discontinued due to AEs. Conclusions. PER was effective when used as monotherapy in clinical practice, particularly in those with generalized-onset seizures, and was generally well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We conducted a post hoc analysis of two randomized controlled trials, GWPCARE1 (NCT02091375) and GWPCARE2 (NCT02224703), to estimate the time to onset of cannabidiol (CBD) treatment effects (seizure reduction and adverse events [AEs]) in patients with Dravet syndrome (DS). Methods: Patients received either plant‐derived highly purified CBD (Epidiolex in the United States; 100 mg/ml oral solution) 10 mg/kg/day (CBD10; GWPCARE2) or 20 mg/kg/day (CBD20; GWPCARE1&2), or matching placebo for 14 weeks. Treatment started at 2.5 mg/kg/day, reached 10 mg/kg/day on Day 7, and went up to 20 mg/kg/day on Day 11 during the 14‐day titration period. Percentage change from baseline in convulsive seizure frequency was calculated by cumulative day (i.e., including all previous days). Time to onset and resolution of AEs were also evaluated. Results: Overall, 124 patients received placebo and 194 received CBD (CBD10, n = 64; CBD20, n = 130). Mean age was 9.5 years (range = 2.2–18.9). Patients had discontinued a median of four antiepileptic drugs (range = 0–26) and were currently taking a median of three (range = 1–5). Differences in convulsive seizure reduction between placebo and CBD emerged during titration and became nominally significant by Day 12 for CBD20 (p =.02) and Day 13 for CBD10 (p =.03). Additionally, differences in the 50% responder rate between placebo and CBD became apparent during titration. Onset of the first reported AE occurred during the titration period in 48.4% of placebo patients and 54.1% of CBD patients. The three most common AEs of somnolence, decreased appetite, and diarrhea resolved within 4 weeks of onset in the majority of CBD‐treated patients (56.3%–72.9%). Significance: The therapeutic effect of CBD in DS may start within 2 weeks of treatment in some patients. Although AEs lasted longer for CBD than placebo, most resolved within the 14‐week study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate time to onset of cannabidiol (CBD) treatment effect (seizure reduction and adverse events [AEs]), we conducted post hoc analyses of data from two randomized, placebo‐controlled, Phase 3 trials, GWPCARE3 (NCT02224560) and GWPCARE4 (NCT02224690), of patients with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome. Methods: Patients received plant‐derived pharmaceutical formulation of highly purified CBD (Epidiolex, 100 mg/ml oral solution) at 10 mg/kg/day (CBD10; GWPCARE3) or 20 mg/kg/day (CBD20; both trials) or placebo for 14 weeks. Treatment started at 2.5 mg/kg/day for all groups and reached 10 mg/kg/day on Day 7 and 20 mg/kg/day (CBD20 and matching placebo only) on Day 11. Percentage change from baseline in drop seizure frequency was calculated by cumulative day (i.e., including all previous days). Time to onset and resolution of AEs were evaluated. Results: Overall, 235 patients received CBD (CBD10 [GWPCARE3 only], n = 67; CBD20 [pooled GWPCARE3&4], n = 168) and 161 received placebo. Mean (range) age was 15.3 years (2.6–48.0). Patients had previously discontinued a median (range) of six (0–28) antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and were currently taking a median of three (0–5) AEDs. Differences in drop seizure reduction between placebo and CBD emerged during the titration period and became nominally significant by Day 6 (p =.008) for pooled CBD treatment groups. Separation between placebo and CBD in ≥50% responder rate emerged by Day 6. Onset of the first reported AE occurred during the titration period in 45% of patients (CBD10, 46%; CBD20, 52%; placebo, 38%). In patients with AEs, resolution occurred within 4 weeks of onset in 53% of placebo and 39% of CBD patients and by end of study in 63% of placebo and 61% of CBD patients. Significance: Treatment effect (efficacy and AEs) of CBD may occur within 1 week of starting treatment. Although AEs lasted longer for CBD than placebo, most resolved within the 14‐week period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• New epilepsy definition is considered to treatment decision-making process. • There was not enough evidence on antiseizure monotherapy in all clinical situations. • We present an expert consensus guideline recommendation for the treatment of epilepsy. • Type of epilepsy, age, sex, childbearing potential, and comorbidities are considered. Following publication in 2014 of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) official report changing the definition of epilepsy, a number of questions remain unresolved in regard to deciding when to start treatment and to the choice of a particular antiseizure medication (ASM). This study uses a Delphi method to update consensus among a panel of experts on the initiation of epilepsy treatment in order to provide insight regarding those questions. The study was undertaken in four phases. Firstly, a multi-center steering committee met to review relevant bibliography and to draft a questionnaire. Secondly, a panel of neurologists specialized in epilepsy was selected and convened. Thirdly, an online survey was carried out in two rounds. Fourthly, the final results were discussed at a face-to-face meeting of the steering committee to draw conclusions. The final questionnaire focused on three independent sections: the decision to commence ASM in different clinical situations, the choice of initial monotherapy depending on the type of epilepsy and the patient's age/sex (including childbearing potential), and the choice of initial monotherapy depending on comorbidity. In these two latter sections, fourteen ASMs approved for monotherapy use by the EMA and available in Spain were considered. Regarding the decision as to when to commence treatment, the results show agreement exists to initiate treatment following a first generalized tonic-clonic seizure or a focal seizure if the electroencephalography (EEG) reveals epileptiform activity, if the MRI reveals a lesion, or when it occurs in elderly patients. With respect to the choice of initial monotherapy depending on the type of epilepsy and the patient's age/sex profile, it is agreed to avoid valproic acid (VPA) in women with childbearing potential, with levetiracetam (LEV) and lamotrigine (LTG) being the preferable options in generalized epilepsy. In focal epilepsy, the options are broader, particularly in men, and include the most recent ASMs approved for monotherapy. In the elderly, LEV, lacosamide (LCM), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) and LTG are considered the most suitable drugs for initiating treatment. With regard to comorbidities, the recommendation is to avoid enzyme inducing ASMs, with LEV, the most recent ASMs approved for monotherapy and LTG being the preferred options. In conclusion, as the ILAE definition states, there are different situations that lead to treatment initiation after a first seizure. When choosing the first ASM, the type of epilepsy, childbearing potential and drug–drug interaction are key factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition, efficacy, growth, safety, and tolerability in adolescents with inadequately controlled partial seizures. Methods Study 235, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, Phase II study with an open-label extension phase ( NCT01161524 ), was primarily designed to assess the effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition. Patients (aged ≥ 12 to < 18 years) had a diagnosis of epilepsy with inadequately controlled partial seizures, with or without secondary generalization, despite receiving 1–3 antiepileptic drugs. During the double-blind phase, adjunctive perampanel or placebo was administered over a 6-week titration period and a 13-week maintenance period up to 12 mg/day. During the extension phase, all patients received perampanel. Data from the extension phase are presented here. Study endpoints included change from baseline in Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) measures of cognition, seizure frequency, growth, development, the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and laboratory values. Results A total of 114 patients entered the extension phase (prior double-blind treatment: placebo, n = 41; perampanel, n = 73). Perampanel had no effect on the CDR system global cognition score, continuity of attention, quality of episodic memory, quality of working memory, or speed of memory but was associated with a significant decline in power of attention at end of treatment compared with baseline ( p = 0.03). There were no effects on language skills or manual dexterity from baseline to end of treatment. At Weeks 40–52, median reduction in seizure frequency was 74.1%, and 50% responder rate was 66.0%. There were no clinically relevant effects of perampanel on growth or development at end of treatment compared with baseline. Overall, 84.2% of patients experienced at least one TEAE and 70.2% experienced at least one treatment-related TEAE. The most common TEAEs were dizziness (29.8%) and somnolence (19.3%). The TEAEs resulted in the discontinuation of treatment in 6.1% of patients. Conclusions In keeping with the 19-week double-blind phase, long-term adjunctive treatment with perampanel did not have any significant overall effects on the CDR system global cognition score in adolescent patients with inadequately controlled partial seizures. Similar trends were observed across the individual CDR system domains. Adjunctive perampanel showed sustained long-term seizure control and had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that observed in prior clinical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic factors contribute to the aetiology of epilepsy in >50% of cases, and information on the use of antiseizure medications in people with specific aetiologies will help guide treatment decisions. The PERMIT Extension study pooled data from two real-world studies (PERMIT and PROVE) to investigate the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used to treat people with focal and generalised epilepsy in everyday clinical practice. This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT Extension explored the use of PER when used to treat individuals presumed to have epilepsy with a genetic aetiology. Assessments included retention rate (evaluated at 3, 6 and 12 months), effectiveness (responder and seizure freedom rates; evaluated at 3, 6, 12 months and the last visit [last observation carried forward) and tolerability (adverse events [AEs]). Of the 6822 people with epilepsy included in PERMIT Extension, 1012 were presumed to have a genetic aetiology. The most common genetic aetiologies were idiopathic generalised epilepsy (IGE; 58.2%), tuberous sclerosis (1.1%), Dravet syndrome (0.8%) and genetic epilepsy with febrile seizures plus (GEFS+; 0.5%). Retention rates at 3, 6 and 12 months in the total genetic aetiology population were 89.3%, 79.7% and 65.9%, respectively. In the total genetic aetiology population, responder rates at 12 months and the last visit were 74.8% and 68.3%, respectively, and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 48.9% and 46.5%, respectively. For the specific aetiology subgroups, responder rates at 12 months and the last visit were, respectively: 90.4% and 84.4% (IGE), 100% and 57.1% (tuberous sclerosis), 100% and 71.4% (Dravet syndrome), and 33.3% and 20.0% (GEFS+). Corresponding seizure freedom rates were, respectively: 73.1% and 64.6% (IGE), 33.3% and 22.2% (tuberous sclerosis), 20.0% and 28.6% (Dravet syndrome), and 0% and 0% (GEFS+). The incidence of AEs was 46.5% for the total genetic aetiology population, 48.8% for IGE, 27.3% for tuberous sclerosis, 62.5% for Dravet syndrome, and 20% for GEFS+. Tolerability findings were consistent with PER's known safety profile. PER was effective and generally well tolerated when used in individuals with a presumed genetic epilepsy aetiology in clinical practice. PER was effective across a wide range of genetic aetiologies. • Perampanel was evaluated in people with epilepsy with different genetic aetiologies. • At 12 months, 75% of participants responded to treatment and 49% were seizure free. • Perampanel was effective across a wide range of genetic aetiologies. • Perampanel was generally well tolerated with no new or unexpected adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Perampanel was assessed in 6,822 people with epilepsy treated in clinical practice. • At 12 months, 59% of participants responded to treatment and 24% were seizure free. • No new or unexpected adverse events were observed following long-term treatment. • Perampanel was effective and generally well tolerated regardless of age category. • Perampanel's effectiveness and tolerability were best in subjects aged ≥65 years. To assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE) treated in everyday clinical practice for focal and generalized seizures, both in the total cohort and by age group. The PERMIT Extension study was a pooled analysis of data from PWE included in two large previous clinical practice studies (PERMIT and PROVE). Retention was assessed over 12 months. Effectiveness was assessed based on total seizures and by seizure type (focal and generalized) after 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment and at final follow-up (last observation carried forward; "last visit"); assessments included responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the previous visit). Safety/tolerability was assessed throughout PER treatment by evaluating adverse events (AEs). All assessments were conducted for the total population and by age category (<12, ≥12 to <18, ≥18 to <65, and ≥65 years at baseline). Full Analysis Set included 6,822 PWE (51.1% female; mean age, 36.9 years; mean duration of epilepsy 21.4 years) with 6,433, 4,648, and 6,233 PWE assessed for retention, effectiveness, and safety/tolerability, respectively. The majority of PWE (81.1%) were aged 18–64 at baseline, with 4.5% aged <12 years, 8.4% aged 12–17 years, and 5.9% aged ≥65 years. In the overall population, retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 88.0%, 77.6%, and 61.4%, respectively; responder rates at 12 months were 58.5% for total seizures, 54.6% for focal seizures, and 77.7% for generalized seizures, and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 23.6%, 19.0%, and 51.3%, respectively. PER was effective regardless of age category, although effectiveness was greatest in PWE aged ≥65 years, for both focal and generalized seizures. In the overall population, the incidence of AEs was 49.2% and the most frequent AEs (≥5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (13.4%), somnolence (8.8%), irritability (7.3%), and behavioral disorders (5.3%); AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 18.3% of PWE over 12 months. The incidence of AEs and the discontinuation rate due to AEs increased with increasing age (55.0% and 23.9%, respectively, in PWE aged ≥65 years). In this study, the largest pooled analysis of PER clinical practice data conducted to date, PER was shown to be effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat people with focal or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice, regardless of age category. No new or unexpected side effects emerged following long-term use in the real-world setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This post hoc analysis of six randomized, double-blind, Phase II and III studies evaluated efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel (2–12 mg/day) in adolescent patients (aged ≥ 12 to ≤ 17 years) with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures, with or without secondarily generalized (SG) seizures, or primary generalized tonic–clonic (PGTC) seizures. Adolescent patients from Studies 304 (NCT00699972), 305 (NCT00699582), 306 (NCT00700310), 335 (NCT01618695), 235 (NCT01161524), and 332 (NCT01393743) were included. Efficacy assessments (split by seizure type) included median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline and seizure-freedom rates. Safety assessments (all seizure types combined) included monitoring of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The Safety Analysis Set included 372 adolescent patients (placebo, n = 114; perampanel, n = 258); the Full Analysis Set included 346 patients with partial-onset seizures (placebo, n = 103; perampanel, n = 243), of whom 125 experienced SG seizures during baseline (placebo, n = 37; perampanel, n = 88), and 22 with PGTC seizures (placebo, n = 9; perampanel, n = 13). Compared with placebo, perampanel 8 and 12 mg/day conferred greater median percent reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days for partial-onset seizures (18.0% vs 35.9% and 53.8% [both P < 0.01]) and SG seizures (24.4% vs 72.8% [ P < 0.001] and 57.8% [ P < 0.01]), and greater seizure-freedom rates (partial-onset: 7.8% vs 13.2% and 11.8% [not statistically significant]; SG: 8.1% vs 40.7% [ P < 0.001] and 41.7% [ P < 0.01]). For PGTC seizures, and compared with placebo, perampanel 8 mg/day was also associated with greater median percent reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days (29.8% vs 88.0%) and greater seizure-freedom rates (11.1% vs 23.1%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 76 (66.7%) placebo- and 192 (74.4%) perampanel-treated patients (most common: dizziness, somnolence, headache, and nasopharyngitis). Serious TEAEs occurred in 5 (4.4%) placebo- and 11 (4.3%) perampanel-treated patients. Adjunctive perampanel was efficacious and generally well tolerated in adolescent patients with partial-onset, SG, or PGTC seizures and represents a potentially beneficial treatment option for adolescents with uncontrolled epilepsy. • Post hoc analysis of adjunctive perampanel in adolescents (aged ≥ 12 to ≤ 17 years) • Perampanel was efficacious for partial-onset and PGTC seizures vs placebo. • Perampanel was generally well tolerated in adolescent patients. • Perampanel may be a suitable treatment option for adolescent patients with epilepsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]