Evaluation of a clinical tool for early etiology identification in status epilepticus

Long-term observation and mortality of children with nodding syndrome in western Uganda, 1994 - 2018

PURPOSE

To assess long-term mortality and causes of death in children with nodding syndrome, an epileptic disorder of sub-Sahara Africa.

METHODS

Ten children with nodding syndrome were followed over 24 years. The mortality rate was determined as the number of deaths per 1000 person-years of observation. The standard mortality ratio (SMR) was calculated as the number of observed deaths divided by the number of expected deaths in the general population. Patients were started on phenobarbital and treatment response was monitored during the first 20 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

During an observation period of 89.8 person-years, eight patients had died, one patient was found alive, and one patient had been lost to follow-up. This corresponded to a mortality rate of 89.1 deaths per 1000 person-years and a SMR of 21.4 (95 % CI 6.6-36.2). Five deaths were related to status epilepticus, in two cases occurring after inadvertent drug withdrawal. All patients responded on phenobarbital with a reduction of seizure frequency but only four reached a seizure-free period of at least 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This long-term follow-up demonstrated high mortality in patients with nodding syndrome. Anti-seizure treatment with phenobarbital was of moderate efficacy. Abrupt interruption of phenobarbital was found leading to seizure aggravation, status epilepticus, and death. Our findings point out the importance of securing continuity of treatment access once anti-seizure therapy is included in health services in resource-poor settings. More rigorous observations and controlled studies are needed to improve the therapeutic options for nodding syndrome.

Lacosamide extended-release capsules are bioequivalent to lacosamide immediate-release tablets: Pharmacokinetic observations and simulations

OBJECTIVES

Assess the bioequivalence of lacosamide extended-release (XR) capsules and immediate-release (IR) tablets and answer real-world clinical questions regarding the use of lacosamide XR.

METHODS

An open-label, randomized, two-treatment, two-sequence, oral comparative bioavailability study was conducted to assess the bioequivalence of two lacosamide formulations. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive lacosamide XR capsules (400 mg once-daily) or IR tablets (200 mg twice-daily) in 1 of 2 sequences over 7-day periods. Primary outcome was the area under the lacosamide concentration-time curve over 24 h at steady-state (AUC0-τ,ss). Secondary outcomes were maximum (Cmax,ss) and minimum concentrations at steady-state (Cmin,ss). Bioequivalence was established when 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for geometric least square means ratios (GLSMs) were between 80% and 125%. Adverse events (AEs) and other safety outcomes were also assessed. Pharmacokinetic simulations, including adherent and partially adherent dosing scenarios with XR and IR formulations, modeled the clinical use of lacosamide XR.

RESULTS

Thirty-five healthy adult males were enrolled in the bioequivalence study. After 7 days of study drug, mean AUC0-τ,ss, Cmax,ss, and Cmin,ss values were similar between XR and IR formulations; all 90% CIs for GLSMs were between 80% and 125%. AEs were mild and no serious AEs or other clinically significant safety findings were observed. Pharmacokinetic simulations suggested that partial adherence affected formulations similarly; and the best strategy for switching formulations was to take the morning lacosamide IR dose followed by the evening lacosamide XR dose, as this resulted in the most consistent lacosamide plasma concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily lacosamide XR capsules were bioequivalent to twice-daily lacosamide IR tablets. Pharmacokinetic simulations indicated lacosamide XR and IR formulations were similarly affected by partial adherence, though once-daily dosing with lacosamide XR may offer clinical advantages, and formulations can be easily switched. These results support the use of lacosamide XR capsules as a once-daily alternative to lacosamide IR tablets.

Status epilepticus: what's new for the intensivist

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Status epilepticus (SE) is a common neurologic emergency affecting about 36.1/100 000 person-years that frequently requires intensive care unit (ICU) admission. There have been advances in our understanding of epidemiology, pathophysiology, and EEG monitoring of SE, and there have been large-scale treatment trials, discussed in this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent changes in the definitions of SE have helped guide management protocols and we have much better predictors of outcome. Observational studies have confirmed the efficacy of benzodiazepines and large treatment trials indicate that all routinely used second line treatments (i.e., levetiracetam, valproate and fosphenytoin) are equally effective. Better understanding of the pathophysiology has indicated that nonanti-seizure medications aimed at underlying pathological processes should perhaps be considered in the treatment of SE; already immunosuppressant treatments are being more widely used in particular for new onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) and Febrile infection-related epilepsy syndrome (FIRES) that sometimes revealed autoimmune or paraneoplastic encephalitis. Growing evidence for ICU EEG monitoring and major advances in automated analysis of the EEG could help intensivist to assess the control of electrographic seizures.

SUMMARY

Research into the morbi-mortality of SE has highlighted the potential devastating effects of this condition, emphasizing the need for rapid and aggressive treatment, with particular attention to cardiorespiratory and neurological complications. Although we now have a good evidence-base for the initial status epilepticus management, the best treatments for the later stages are still unclear and clinical trials of potentially disease-modifying therapies are long overdue.

Status epilepticus in the ICU

Status epilepticus (SE) is a common medical emergency associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Management that follows published guidelines is best suited to improve outcomes, with the most severe cases frequently being managed in the intensive care unit (ICU). Diagnosis of convulsive SE can be made without electroencephalography (EEG), but EEG is required to reliably diagnose nonconvulsive SE. Rapidly narrowing down underlying causes for SE is crucial, as this may guide additional management steps. Causes may range from underlying epilepsy to acute brain injuries such as trauma, cardiac arrest, stroke, and infections. Initial management consists of rapid administration of benzodiazepines and one of the following non-sedating intravenous antiseizure medications (ASM): (fos-)phenytoin, levetiracetam, or valproate; other ASM are increasingly used, such as lacosamide or brivaracetam. SE that continues despite these medications is called refractory, and most commonly treated with continuous infusions of midazolam or propofol. Alternatives include further non-sedating ASM and non-pharmacologic approaches. SE that reemerges after weaning or continues despite management with propofol or midazolam is labeled super-refractory SE. At this step, management may include non-sedating or sedating compounds including ketamine and barbiturates. Continuous video EEG is necessary for the management of refractory and super-refractory SE, as these are almost always nonconvulsive. If possible, management of the underlying cause of seizures is crucial particularly for patients with autoimmune encephalitis. Short-term mortality ranges from 10 to 15% after SE and is primarily related to increasing age, underlying etiology, and medical comorbidities. Refractoriness of treatment is clearly related to outcome with mortality rising from 10% in responsive cases, to 25% in refractory, and nearly 40% in super-refractory SE.

Adherence to anti-seizure medications in the Swedish Prospective Regional Epilepsy Database and Biobank for Individualized Clinical Treatment (PREDICT)

The aim of this study was to describe the extent of, and risk factors for, non-adherence to anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in adult people with epilepsy (PWE) in Sweden. A cross-sectional multi-centre study was performed of PWEs in western Sweden, with data from medical records, and a questionnaire filled in by the participants including self-reports on how often ASM doses had been forgotten during the past year. Participants were categorized into adherent if they forgot at 0-1 occasion, and non-adherent if they forgot at 2-10 or >10 occasions. Demographic and clinical factors were compared by Chi2- or Fisher's test and a logistic regression model was used to find risk factors for non-adherence. In the cohort of 416 PWE aged median 43, IQR 29-62 years, 398 patients were prescribed ASM treatment at inclusion, and 39 % (n = 154) were in the non-adherent group. Significant factors in the multivariable analysis were: younger age, seizure freedom the past year, valproate treatment and experiencing side effects. The rate of self-reported non-adherence was high, illustrating a need for continuous focus on fundamental aspects of epilepsy care. The identified risk factors could enable quality improvement projects and patient education to be directed to those at risk of non-adherence.

The clinical analysis of new-onset status epilepticus

OBJECTIVE

To investigate and analyze the etiology and prognosis of patients with new-onset status epilepticus (NOSE).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of all adult patients (≧16 years old) who were admitted to Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital between January 2018 and December 2020 with status epilepticus (SE) and no prior epilepsy history.

RESULTS

We collected data from 85 patients, aged from 16 to 90 years, of whom 49 were male and 36 were female. Fifty-five of these cases (64.7%) were younger than 60 years of age. Acute symptomatic SE was mostly seen in the NOSE (53.9%), followed by unknown SE (25.9%), progressive SE (11.8%), and remote SE (9.4%). The differences in the etiology of NOSE between age groups were statistically significant (P < .05). For the young, the main etiology remained unknown (36.3%), followed by autoimmune-related SE (16.4%); in the elderly, the primary etiology was central nervous system (CNS) infection (23.3%), followed by cerebrovascular disease (20%), and intracranial tumors (20%). Normal imaging was mostly seen in young people with NOSE (P < .001). Regarding outcome parameters and risk factors in patients with NOSE, adverse outcome was associated with age (OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 0.108-0.758, P = .012), co-infection (OR = 4.5, 95% CI = 0.083-0.599, P = .003), and tracheal intubation (OR = 6.318, 95% CI = 0.060-0.204, P = .011).

SIGNIFICANCE

In our cohort, intracranial tumors, CNS infections, and cerebrovascular disease were the predominant causes of NOSE in the elderly, while autoimmune encephalitis was the largest recognized cause of NOSE in young patients. In addition, imaging varies with age. According to the data, preventing infections may enhance patient prognosis because greater infection rates are connected with less favorable results. Meanwhile, age and mechanical ventilation are related to the prognosis of NOSE.

Timing matters: there are significant differences in short-term outcomes between two time points of status epilepticus

Background

In 2015, the International League Against Epilepsy proposed a new conceptual definition of status epilepticus (SE) with two operational dimensions (t1 and t2) to guide emergency treatment. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical characteristics and prognoses of patients at these two different time points.

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of consecutive adults diagnosed with SE. In case of convulsive SE, t1 is 5 min and t2 is 30 min, whereas in case of focal SE with impaired consciousness, t1 is 10 min, t2 is 60 min. Data on clinical characteristics, including age, gender, history of prior seizures, neuroimaging, semiology, duration, and etiology of SE, were collected. The primary outcome was mortality, with seizure recurrence as a secondary measure, and functional status as tertiary outcome of enrolled patients at 3 months after SE onset.

Results

We screened one hundred patients with SE, with a median age of 66 years and 61% were male. Fifty-six (56.0%) patients reached t1 of SE, while 44 (44.0%) reached t2 of SE. Convulsive SE (52.0%, n = 52) was more common than focal SE with impaired consciousness (48.0%, n = 48). Status epilepticus secondary to an acute symptomatic process was the most common (50%, n = 50). Patients meeting t2 of SE demonstrated a remarkably increased risk of mortality (unadjusted analysis-RR 3.606, 95%CI 1.552–8.376, p = 0.003; adjusted analysis-RR 2.924, 95%CI 1.221–7.003, p = 0.016) and unfavorable functional status (unadjusted analysis-RR 1.803, 95%CI 1.280–2.539, p = 0.001; adjusted analysis-RR 1.664, 95%CI 1.184–2.340, p = 0.003) at 3 months compared to those who only reached t1 of SE. Patients reaching t2 of SE were more likely to experience seizure recurrence, however, there was no significant difference between the two cohorts.

Conclusions

Our study provides strong support for the new definition of SE. Patients meeting t2 of SE tend to have a remarkably increased risk of mortality and unfavorable functional outcomes compared to those who only reached t1 of SE. Furthermore, patients were likely to experience seizure recurrence after undergoing an episode of SE. Physicians must be educated about prompt recognition and appropriate management of SE.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-022-02868-y.

Status epilepticus: review on diagnosis, monitoring and treatment

Status epilepticus (SE) is a frequent neurological emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. According to the new ILAE 2015 definition, SE results either from the failure of the mechanisms responsible for seizure termination or initiation, leading to abnormally prolonged seizures. The definition has different time points for convulsive, focal and absence SE. Time is brain. There are changes in synaptic receptors leading to a more proconvulsant state and increased risk of brain lesion and sequelae with long duration. Management of SE must include three pillars: stop seizures, stabilize patients to avoid secondary lesions and treat underlying causes. Convulsive SE is defined after 5 minutes and is a major emergency. Benzodiazepines are the initial treatment, and should be given fast and an adequate dose. Phenytoin/fosphenytoin, levetiracetam and valproic acid are evidence choices for second line treatment. If SE persists, anesthetic drugs are probably the best option for third line treatment, despite lack of evidence. Midazolam is usually the best initial choice and barbiturates should be considered for refractory cases. Nonconvulsive status epilepticus has a similar initial approach, with benzodiazepines and second line intravenous (IV) agents, but after that, aggressiveness should be balanced considering risk of lesion due to seizures and medical complications caused by aggressive treatment. Usually, the best approach is the use of sequential IV antiepileptic drugs (oral/tube are options if IV options are not available). EEG monitoring is crucial for diagnosis of nonconvulsive SE, after initial control of convulsive SE and treatment control. Institutional protocols are advised to improve care.

Status epilepticus suspected autoimmune: Neuronal surface antibodies and main clinical features

OBJECTIVES

Status epilepticus (SE) can be associated with neuronal surface antibodies (NS-Abs) but NS-Ab detection rate remains unknown in patients with SE of unclear etiology at symptom presentation but suspected of having an autoimmune etiology (SE suspected autoimmune). We aimed to determine the NS-Ab detection rate and the clinical features that predict the presence of NS-Abs in patients with SE suspected autoimmune.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical information of 137 patients with SE suspected autoimmune who underwent testing for NS-Abs between January 2007 and September 2020. NS-Abs were examined in both serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) obtained at symptom onset with established assays. We classified brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings into unremarkable, autoimmune limbic encephalitis (ALE) (bilateral abnormalities highly restricted to the medial temporal lobes), ALE-Plus (ALE pattern and additional extramedial temporal lobe abnormalities), multifocal cortico-subcortical (MCS), or other pattern. We compared the clinical features between patients with and without NS-Abs.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients (32.1%) had NS-Abs, including 35 N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) (one with concurrent γ-aminobutyric acid B receptor [GABAbR] and α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor [AMPAR]), 5 γ-aminobutyric acid A receptor (GABAaR), 2 leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1(LGI1), 1 GABAbR, and 1 unknown antigens. Compared with NS-Ab-negative patients, NS-Ab-positive patients were more likely to have a preceding headache (56.8% vs 26.7%), preceding psychobehavioral or memory alterations (65.9% vs 20.4%), involuntary movements (79.5% vs 16.1%), CSF pleocytosis (81.8% vs 62.0%), elevated immunoglobulin G (IgG) index (45.2% vs 15.6%), oligoclonal bands (51.5% vs 9.5%), tumor (47.7% vs 8.6%), and higher APE2 score (median of 9 vs 7), and they were less likely to have an ALE-Plus pattern (2.3% vs 23.7%). However, preceding fever and ALE or MCS pattern were not different between the two groups of patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

When an autoimmune etiology was suspected, there was a relatively high likelihood (one of three patients) of identifying NS-Abs. Some clinical features (preceding symptoms, inflammatory CSF) predict a higher likelihood of finding NS-Ab positivity, but the ALE-Plus MRI pattern is more likely suggestive of NS-Ab negativity.

Forgetting to take antiseizure medications is associated with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, as revealed by a cross-sectional study

Objectives

To evaluate the effects of nonadherence to antiseizure medications (ASMs) and clinical characteristics on seizure control, we employed a prospective cohort cross-sectional study using self-reports and medical records of patients with epilepsy (PWEs).

Methods

Eight hundred and fifty-five PWEs taking ASMs were enrolled from fourteen collaborative outpatient clinics from January 2018 to March 2019. Questions from the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale were used as adherence self-reports. If a PWE’s questionnaire indicated that they had missed doses of their ASMs, outpatient physicians asked them directly about the details of their compliance, including the timing of intentionally or unintentionally missed doses. The association between lack of seizure control and utilization outcomes, such as missed doses, demographics, and clinical characteristics of the PWEs, were assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

Multivariate analysis revealed that forgetting to take ASMs was associated with lack of seizure control and the existence of focal to bilateral tonic–clonic seizures. Dementia, younger age, use of three or more antiepileptic agents, and living in a one-person household were associated with the risk of forgetting to take ASMs.

Significance

For PWEs with poor drug management or a high incidence of missed doses of ASMs, efforts to improve adherence could facilitate better seizure control and decrease focal to bilateral tonic–clonic propagation.

Epileptic Seizures in Critically Ill Patients: Diagnosis, Management, and Outcomes

Epileptic seizures in critically ill patients represent a major source of concern, because they are associated with significant mortality and morbidity rates. Despite recent advances that have enabled a better understanding of the global epidemiology of this entity, epileptic seizures in critically ill patients remain associated with a high degree of uncertainty and numerous questions remain unanswered. The present Special Issue aims to invite authors to contribute original research articles as well as review articles related to all aspects of epileptic seizures in critically ill patients, diagnosis, management, and outcomes.

Recommandations Formalisées d’Experts SRLF/SFMU : Prise en charge des états de mal épileptiques en préhospitalier, en structure d’urgence et en réanimation dans les 48 premières heures (A l’exclusion du nouveau-né et du nourrisson)

La Société de réanimation de langue française et la Société française de médecine d’urgence ont décidé d’élaborer de nouvelles recommandations sur la prise en charge de l’état mal épileptique (EME) avec l’ambition de répondre le plus possible aux nombreuses questions pratiques que soulèvent les EME : diagnostic, enquête étiologique, traitement non spécifique et spécifique. Vingt-cinq experts ont analysé la littérature scientifique et formulé des recommandations selon la méthodologie GRADE. Les experts se sont accordés sur 96 recommandations. Les recommandations avec le niveau de preuve le plus fort ne concernent que l’EME tonico-clonique généralisé (EMTCG) : l’usage des benzodiazépines en première ligne (clonazépam en intraveineux direct ou midazolam en intramusculaire) est recommandé, répété 5 min après la première injection (à l’exception du midazolam) en cas de persistance clinique. En cas de persistance 5 min après cette seconde injection, il est proposé d’administrer la seconde ligne thérapeutique : valproate de sodium, (fos-)phénytoïne, phénobarbital ou lévétiracétam. La persistance avérée de convulsions 30 min après le début de l’administration du traitement de deuxième ligne signe l’EMETCG réfractaire. Il est alors proposé de recourir à un coma thérapeutique au moyen d’un agent anesthésique intraveineux de type midazolam ou propofol. Des recommandations spécifiques à l’enfant et aux autres EME sont aussi énoncées.

Etiological assessment of status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) is a potentially serious condition that can affect vital and functional prognosis and requires urgent treatment. Etiology is a determining factor in the patient's functional outcome and in almost half of all cases justifies specific treatment to stop progression. Therefore, identifying and addressing the cause of SE is a key priority in SE management. However, the etiology can be difficult to identify among acute and remote causes, which can also be multiple and interrelated. The most common etiologies are the discontinuation of antiepileptic medication in patients with a prior history of epilepsy, and acute brain aggression in cases of new onset SE (cerebrovascular pathologies are the most common). The list of remaining possible etiologies includes heterogeneous pathological contexts. Refractory SE and especially New-Onset Refractory Status Epilepticus (NORSE) lead to an extension of the etiological assessment in the search for encephalitis of autoimmune or infectious origin in adults and in children, as well as a genetic pathology in children in particular. This is an overview of current knowledge of SE etiologies and a pragmatic approach for carrying out an etiological assessment based on the following steps: - Which etiological orientation is identified according to the field and clinical presentation?; - Which etiologies to look for in an inaugural SE?; - Which first-line assessment should be carried out? The place of the biological, EEG and imaging assessment is discussed; - Which etiologies to look for in case of refractory SE?

Cerebrospinal fluid and blood biomarkers of status epilepticus

Status epilepticus is a condition resulting either from the failure of the mechanisms responsible for seizure termination or from the initiation of mechanisms that lead to abnormally prolonged seizures and require urgent administration of antiepileptic drugs. Refractory status epilepticus requires anesthetics drugs and may lead to brain injury with molecular and cellular alterations (eg, inflammation, and neuronal and astroglial injury) that could induce neurologic sequels and further development of epilepsy. Outcome scores based on demographic, clinical, and electroencephalography (EEG) condition are available, allowing prediction of the risk of mortality, but the severity of brain injury in survivors is poorly evaluated. New biomarkers are needed to predict with higher accuracy the outcome of patients admitted with status in an intensive care unit. Here, we summarize the findings of studies from patients and animal models of status epilepticus. Specific protein markers can be detected in the cerebrospinal fluid and the blood. One of the first described markers of neuronal death is the neuron-specific enolase. Gliosis resulting from inflammatory responses after status can be detected through the increase of S100-beta, or some cytokines, like the High Mobility Group Box 1. Other proteins, like progranulin may reflect the neuroprotective mechanisms resulting from the brain adaptation to excitotoxicity. These new biomarkers aim to prospectively identify the severity and development of disability, and subsequent epilepsy of patients with status. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each biomarker, by evaluating their brain specificity, stability in the fluids, and sensitivity to external interferences, such as hemolysis. Finally, we emphasize the need for further development and validation of such biomarkers in order to better assess patients with severe status epilepticus.

Refractory epilepsy and nonadherence to drug treatment

In patients with epilepsy, nonadherence to agreed antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment may result in seizure relapse, and at worst sudden unexpected death. The aim of this study was to examine the extent of both unintentional and intentional nonadherence among Norwegian patients with refractory epilepsy and try to identify possible risk factors. At the National Centre for Epilepsy in Norway, 333 consecutive adult in- and outpatients with refractory epilepsy participated in an anonymous survey about adherence to drug treatment. Twenty-two percentages admitted that they sometimes or often forgot to take their drugs as scheduled, and 19% reported that they, rarely, sometimes or often intentionally did not follow the AED treatment plan agreed upon with their physician. Young age and depression were significantly correlated with unintentional nonadherence. Intentional nonadherence was associated with young age (36 years or younger). We found nonadherence not to be associated with any specific AED. In conclusion, about one-fifth of patients with refractory epilepsy admitted that they did not adhere to the agreed drug treatment plan, either intentionally or unintentionally. Measures to reduce nonadherence in this patient group may improve seizure control and should be tailored to address both unintentional and intentional lack of adherence.

Nonconvulsive seizures and nonconvulsive status epilepticus in the neuro ICU should or should not be treated aggressively: A debate

This article presents a "debate" about the appropriate level of aggressiveness of treatment for nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), held at the International Congress of Clinical Neurophysiology in Washington D.C. on 4 May 2018. The proposition for discussion was "Nonconvulsive seizures and status epilepticus in the intensive care unit should be treated aggressively." Dr. Andrea O. Rossetti from Lausanne, Switzerland, spoke in support of the proposition and Dr. Lawrence J. Hirsch from New Haven, Connecticut, discussed reasons for rejecting the proposal. Dr. Frank W. Drislane from Boston, Massachusetts, was asked by the conference organizers to add comments and perspective.

Immunity and inflammation in status epilepticus and its sequelae: possibilities for therapeutic application

Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening neurological emergency often refractory to available treatment options. It is a very heterogeneous condition in terms of clinical presentation and causes, which besides genetic, vascular and other structural causes also include CNS or severe systemic infections, sudden withdrawal from benzodiazepines or anticonvulsants and rare autoimmune etiologies. Treatment of SE is essentially based on expert opinions and antiepileptic drug treatment per se seems to have no major impact on prognosis. There is, therefore, urgent need of novel therapies that rely upon a better understanding of the basic mechanisms underlying this clinical condition. Accumulating evidence in animal models highlights that inflammation ensuing in the brain during SE may play a determinant role in ongoing seizures and their long-term detrimental consequences, independent of an infection or auto-immune cause; this evidence encourages reconsideration of the treatment flow in SE patients.

Status epilepticus of inflammatory etiology: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Inflammation-related epilepsy is increasingly recognized; however, studies on status epilepticus (SE) are very infrequent. We therefore aimed to determine the frequency of inflammatory etiologies in adult SE, and to assess related demographic features and outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective registry of adult patients with SE treated in our center, from January 2008 to June 2014, excluding postanoxic causes. We classified SE episodes into 3 etiologic categories: infectious, autoimmune, and noninflammatory. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed regarding their relationship to etiologies and functional outcome.

RESULTS

Among the 570 SE consecutive episodes, 33 (6%) were inflammatory (2.5% autoimmune; 3.3% infectious), without any change in frequency over the study period. Inflammatory SE episodes involved younger patients (mean age 53 vs 61 years, p = 0.015) and were more often refractory to initial antiepileptic treatment (58% vs 38%, odds ratio = 2.19, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-4.47, p = 0.041), despite similar clinical outcome. Subgroup analysis showed that, compared with infectious SE episodes, autoimmune SE involved younger adults (mean age 44 vs 60 years, p = 0.017) and was associated with lower morbidity (return to baseline conditions in 71% vs 32%, odds ratio = 5.41, 95% confidence interval = 1.19-24.52, p = 0.043) without any difference in mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing awareness, inflammatory SE etiologies were relatively rare; their occurrence in younger individuals and higher refractoriness to treatment did not have any effect on outcome. Autoimmune SE episodes also occurred in younger patients, but tended to have better outcomes in survivors than infectious SE.

Treatment non-adherence as a trigger for status epilepticus: An observational, retrospective study based on therapeutic drug monitoring

PURPOSE

To investigate the role of non-adherence to antiepileptic drug treatment as a trigger for status epilepticus (SE).

METHODS

124 consecutive admissions for SE in patients with established epilepsy were studied. Those who had had therapeutic drug monitoring at admission were identified. Non-adherence was defined as a serum concentration/dose ratio at admission of <75% of the patient's own trough control value.

RESULTS

In 64 cases serum concentration/dose ratios at admission were available for comparison with morning trough values. Treatment non-adherence was identified in a total of 24 (38%), 50% in children, 32% in patients 16-59 years and in 44% above 60. Missed medication had been reported in only two of these patients. No cases with confirmed non-adherence had a fatal outcome (p=0.05). No significant differences between non-adherent and adherent admissions concerning demographic factors or epilepsy and SE characteristics were found.

CONCLUSION

Antiepileptic drug non-adherence is a common cause of SE across all ages, but is not always identified due to the first history-based information often being elusive. Prompt and reliable recognition of non-adherence is imperative for correct management. This is the first study to demonstrate the extent of non-adherence by therapeutic drug monitoring in SE.