NCT02481999.

Objective: Cannabidiol (CBD) is approved for treatment of Dravet syndrome (DS), Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS), and tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC).Several studies suggest antiseizure effects also beyond these three epilepsy syndromes. Methods:In a retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed the efficacy and tolerability of CBD in patients with epilepsy at 16 epilepsy centers. Results:The study cohort comprised 311 patients with epilepsy with a median age of 11.3 (0-72) years (235 children and adolescents, 76 adults). Therapy with CBD was off-label in 91.3% of cases due to age, epilepsy subtype, lack of adjunct therapy with clobazam, and/or higher dose applied. CBD titration regimens were slower than recommended, with good tolerability of higher doses particularly in children. Of all patients, 36.9% experienced a reduction in seizure frequency of >50%, independent of their epilepsy subtype or clobazam co-medication. The median observation period was 15.8 months. About one third of all patients discontinued therapy within the observation period due to adverse effects or lack of efficacy. Adverse effects were reported frequently (46.9%).Significance: Our study highlights that CBD has an antiseizure effect comparable to other antiseizure medications with a positive safety profile independent of the epilepsy subtype. Comedication with clobazam was not associated with a better outcome. Higher doses to achieve seizure frequency reduction were safe, particularly in children. These findings call for further trials for an extended approval of CBD for other epilepsy subtypes and for children <2 years of age.

IntroductionIn one third of all patients with epilepsy, seizure freedom is not achieved through anti-seizure medication (ASM). These patients have an increased risk of earlier death, poorer cognitive development, and reduced quality of life. Cenobamate (CNB) has recently been approved as a promising novel ASM drug for the treatment of adults with focal-onset epilepsy. However, there is little experience for its application in pediatric patients.MethodsIn a multicenter study we evaluated retrospectively the outcome of 16 pediatric patients treated “off label” with CNB.ResultsIn 16 patients with a mean age of 15.38 years, CNB was started at an age of 15.05 years due to DRE. Prior to initiation of therapy, an average of 10.56 (range 3–20) ASM were prescribed. At initiation, patients were taking 2.63 (range 1–4) ASM. CNB was increased by 0.47 ± 0.27mg/kg/d every 2 weeks with a mean maximum dosage of 3.1 mg/kg/d (range 0.89–7) and total daily dose of 182.81 mg (range 50–400 mg). Seizure freedom was achieved in 31.3% and a significant seizure reduction of &gt;50% in 37.5%. Adverse events occurred in 10 patients with fatigue/somnolence as the most common. CNB is taken with high adherence in all but three patients with a median follow-up of 168.5 daysConclusionCenobamate is an effective ASM for pediatric patients suffering from drug-resistant epilepsy. In addition to excellent seizure reduction or freedom, it is well-tolerated. Cenobamate should be considered as a novel treatment for DRE in pediatric patients.

Background Emergence-delirium is the most frequent brain dysfunction in children recovering from general anaesthesia, though the pathophysiological background remains unclear. The presented study analysed an association between emergence delirium and intraoperative Burst Suppression activity in the electroencephalogram, a period of very deep hypnosis during general anaesthesia. Methods In this prospective, observational cohort study at the Charité - university hospital in Berlin / Germany children aged 0.5 to 8 years, undergoing planned surgery, were included between September 2015 and February 2017. Intraoperative bi-frontal electroencephalograms were recorded. Occurrence and duration of Burst Suppression periods were visually analysed. Emergence delirium was assessed using the Pediatric Assessment of Emergence Delirium Score. Results From 97 children being analysed within this study, 40 children developed emergence delirium, and 57 children did not. Overall 52% of the children displayed intraoperative Burst Suppression periods; however, occurrence and duration of Burst Suppression (Emergence delirium group 55% / 261 + 462 s vs. Non-emergence delirium group 49% / 318 + 531 s) did not differ significantly between both groups. Conclusions Our data reveal no correlation between the occurrence and duration of intraoperative Burst Suppression activity and the incidence of emergence delirium. Burst Suppression occurrence is frequent; however, it does not seem to have an unfavourable impact on cerebral function at emergence from general anaesthesia in children. Trail registration NCT02481999, June 25, 2015. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-019-0819-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.