Brain Tumour Related Epilepsy (BTRE) has a significant impact on Quality of Life with implications for driving, employment, and social activities. Management of BTRE is complex due to the higher incidence of drug resistance and the potential for interaction between anti-cancer therapy and anti-seizure medications (ASMs). Neurologists, neurosurgeons, oncologists, palliative care physicians and clinical nurse specialists treating these patients would benefit from up-to-date clinical guidelines. We aim to review the current literature and to outline specific recommendations for the optimal treatment of BTRE, encompassing both Primary Brain Tumours (PBT) and Brain Metastases (BM). A comprehensive search of the literature since 2000 on BTRE was carried out in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMCARE. A broad search strategy was used, and the evidence evaluated and graded based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence.Seizure frequency varies between 10-40% in patients with Brain Metastases (BM) and from 30% (high-grade gliomas) to 90% (low-grade gliomas) in patients with PBT. In patients with BM, risk factors include number of BM and melanoma histology. In patients with PBT, BTRE is more common in patients with lower grade histology, frontal and temporal tumours, presence of an IDH mutation and cortical infiltration.All patients with BTRE should be treated with ASMs. Non-enzyme inducing ASMs are recommended as first line treatment for BTRE, but up to 50% of patients with BTRE due to PBT remain resistant. There is no proven benefit for the use of prophylactic ASMs, although there are no randomised trials testing newer agents. Surgical and oncological treatments i.e. radiotherapy and chemotherapy improve BTRE. Vagus Nerve Stimulation has been used with partial success.The review highlights the relative dearth of high-quality evidence for the management of BTRE and provides a framework for further studies aiming to improve seizure control, quality of life, and indications for ASMs.

We read with great interest the findings of Qian et al 1 on how different online teaching styles may facilitate improved COVID 19 knowledge acquisition and commend the authors on their exploration of flipped classroom and case-based learning.The COVID19 pandemic demanded a new approach to teaching be adopted and propelled forward the use of online teaching platforms and technology to make up for a lack of clinical teaching. As fifth-year medical students at a UK medical school, who have recently completed a year of COVID19 teaching, we would like to add insights into which teaching models were most effective.The findings by Qian et al suggest that a flipped classroom model with microlearning and case-based learning may lead to greater knowledge gain and higher scores on knowledge tests compared to traditional teaching methods. There is already good evidence to support the use of flipped classrooms. Analysis of 28 comparative studies by Hew and Lo found flipped classroom models lead to a significant improvement in student learning compared to traditional classrooms 2 and our experience echoes this.However, in this study, case-based discussions were still teacher led. We suggest that greater improvement in learning may be achieved by having students present cases and prepare questions for their peers and teachers to respond to. This approach would facilitate consolidation of the cases students were exposed to throughout the pandemic in a constructive and safe classroom environment. A systematic review by Tai et al suggests that the use of peer assisted learning holds benefits for students, including development of communication and professional skills 4 . Therefore, future studies may benefit from incorporating the role of peer teaching into the flipped classroom model.In addition, the study design chosen by Qian et al introduces three teaching models but does not allow the individual effect of each teaching style to be explored. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain if the benefits in knowledge acquisition are due to the flipped classroom model, micro-learning or case-based learning. This is important because although case-based learning is enjoyed by students, Thistlethwaite et al found it to have inconclusive efficacy. 3

Aims Brain Tumour Related Epilepsy (BTRE) has a significant impact on Quality of Life with implications for driving, employment and social and domestic activities. Management of BTRE is complex due to the higher incidence of pharmacoresistance and the potential for interaction between anti-cancer therapy and anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs). Neurologists, oncologists, palliative care physicians and clinical nurse specialists treating these patients would benefit from up-to-date clinical guidelines. We aim to review the current evidence to adapt current NICE guidelines for Epilepsy and to outline specific recommendations for the optimal treatment of BTRE, encompassing both primary and metastatic brain tumours. Method A comprehensive search of the literature from the past 20 years on BTRE was carried out in three databases: Embase, Medline and EMCARE. A broad search strategy was used and the evidence was evaluated and graded based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Results All patients with BTRE should be treated with AEDs. There is no proven benefit for the use of prophylactic AEDs, although there are no randomised trials testing newer agents. Seizure frequency varies between 10-40% (Class 2a evidence) in patients with Brain Metastases (BM) and from 30% (high-grade gliomas) to 90% (low-grade gliomas) (Class 2a evidence) in patients with Primary Brain Tumours (PBT). In patients with BM, risk factors include number of BM and melanoma histology (Class 2b evidence). In patients with PBT, risk factors include frontal and temporal location, oligodendroglial histology, IDH mutation and cortical infiltration (Class 2b evidence). There is a low incidence of seizures (13%) after stereotactic radiosurgery for BM (Class 2b evidence). Non-enzyme inducing AEDs are recommended as first line treatment for BTRE, but up to 50% of patients with BTRE due to PBT remain resistant (Class 2b evidence). Conclusion The review has highlighted the relative dearth of high quality evidence for the management of BTRE, and provides a framework for further studies aiming to improve seizure control, quality of life, and indications for AEDs.

Chronic pain conditions are prevalent and cause a significant burden of disease. Intravenous lidocaine infusions have been reported to have an analgesic effect in patients with chronic neuropathic pain, but there is limited data supporting the efficacy of lidocaine across other chronic pain phenotypes. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a single infusion of intravenous lidocaine for pain relief and the impact on quality of life. We evaluated data from 74 patients with chronic pain who were treated with intravenous lidocaine at a specialist pain centre. Participants completed a questionnaire consisting of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Short Form and additional EQ-5D quality of life metrics, before treatment and at follow-up. Data comparing pain severity did not demonstrate a statistically significant change after treatment when averaged across the entire patient cohort (6.15–5.88, p = .106), irrespective of gender or pain phenotype. Scores for pain interference showed statistically significant reductions following treatment (7.05–6.41, p = .023), which may have been driven through improvements in sleep (7.41–6.35, p = .001); however, these reductions are not clinically significant. The patient cohort was stratified into responders and non-responders based on >30% improvement in response to an overall impression of pain reduction question following treatment. In the ‘responder’ cohort, pain intensity scores showed a statistically significant reduction post-infusion (6.18–5.49, p = .0135), but no change was apparent for non-responders (6.07–6.09, p = .920). There were no differences between responders and non-responders for pain sub-types in our study. This study found no difference in pain outcomes in a cohort of patients with chronic pain, a mean of 63 days following a single lidocaine infusion. However, a specific subgroup of responders may show slight improvements in some pain outcomes that may warrant further exploration.