Many brain insults and injuries are “epileptogenic”: they increase the risk of developing epilepsy. It is desirable to identify treatments that are “antiepileptogenic”: treatments that prevent the development of epilepsy, if administered after the occurrence of an epileptogenic insult. Current antiepileptic drugs are not antiepileptogenic, but evidence of antiepileptogenic efficacy is accumulating for a growing number of other compounds. From among these candidate compounds, statins are deserving of particular attention because statins are reported to be antiepileptogenic in more published studies and in a wider range of brain insults than any other individual or class of compounds. Although many studies report the antiepileptogenic effect of statins, it is unclear how many studies provide evidence that statins exhibit the following two essential features of a clinically viable antiepileptogenic drug: the drug must exert an antiepileptogenic effect even if it is initiated after the epileptogenic brain insult has already occurred, and the antiepileptogenic effect must endure even after the drug has been discontinued. In the current work, we interrogate published preclinical and clinical studies, to determine if statins fulfill these essential requirements. There are eight different statins in clinical use. To enable the clinical use of one of these statins for antiepileptogenesis, its antiepileptogenic effect will have to be established through future time‐ and resource‐intensive clinical trials. Therefore, it is desirable to review the published literature to determine which of the statins emerges as the most promising candidate for antiepileptogenic therapy. Hence, in the current work, we also collate and analyze published data—clinical and pre‐clinical, direct and indirect—that help to answer the question: Which statin is the most promising candidate to take forward into an antiepileptogenesis clinical trial?

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background Formal education of oncology is lacking in many undergraduate medical curricula. Mentoring schemes can expose participants to specific areas of medicine and may address the shortfalls in oncology education. Few mentoring schemes have been designed within the United Kingdom, especially within oncology. There is a need to understand reasons for mentor and mentee participation in such schemes and to identify ways to minimize barriers to engagement. Objective This study identifies motivations for participation in an oncology mentoring scheme and its benefits and limitations to both the mentee and the mentor. Methods The British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies launched a National Oncology Mentorship Scheme (NOMS) on September 1, 2021. Mentees (medical student or foundation doctor) were paired with mentors (specialty registrar or consultant), for 6 months of mentoring. In total, 86 mentors and 112 mentees were recruited to the scheme. The mentees and mentors were asked to meet at least 3 times during this period and suggestions were provided on the content of mentoring. Mentees and mentors were invited to complete a prescheme questionnaire, exploring motivations for involvement in the scheme, current experiences within oncology, and knowledge and interests in the field. At the end of the scheme, mentors and mentees were asked to complete a postscheme questionnaire exploring experiences and benefits or limitations of participation. Paired analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. For free text data, content analysis was applied to summarize the main themes in the data. Results Of the 66 (59%) mentees who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 41 (62%) were clinical, 21 (32%) preclinical medical students, and the remainder were junior doctors. For mentees, networking was the primary reason for joining the scheme (n=25, 38%). Mentees ranked experience of oncology at medical school at 3 on 10 (IQR 2-5). In this, 46 (53%) mentors completed the prescheme questionnaire, 35 (76%) were registrar level, and the remainder were consultant level (n=11). The most common reason for mentor participation was to increase awareness and interest in the field (n=29, 63%). Of those who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 23 (35%) mentees and 25 (54%) mentors completed the postscheme questionnaire. Knowledge in all areas of oncology assessed significantly increased during the scheme (P<.001). Most mentees (n=21, 91%) and mentors (n=18, 72%) felt they had benefited from the scheme. Mentees cited gaining insights into oncology as most beneficial; and mentors, opportunities to develop professionally. Whilst mentees did not report any barriers to participating in the scheme, mentors stated lack of time as the greatest barrier to mentoring. Conclusions British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies’ NOMS is expanding and is beneficial for mentees through increasing knowledge, providing exposure, and career advice in oncology. Mentors benefit from improving their mentoring skills and personal satisfaction.