Summary Objective Although many studies have attempted to describe treatment outcomes in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy, results are often limited by the adoption of nonhomogeneous criteria and different definitions of seizure freedom. We sought to evaluate treatment outcomes with a newly administered antiepileptic drug (AED) in a large population of adults with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy according to the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) outcome criteria. Methods This is a multicenter, observational, prospective study of 1053 patients with focal epilepsy diagnosed as drug‐resistant by the investigators. Patients were assessed at baseline and 6, 12, and 18 months, for up to a maximum of 34 months after introducing another AED into their treatment regimen. Drug resistance status and treatment outcomes were rated according to ILAE criteria by the investigators and by at least two independent members of an external expert panel (EP). Results A seizure‐free outcome after a newly administered AED according to ILAE criteria ranged from 11.8% after two failed drugs to 2.6% for more than six failures. Significantly fewer patients were rated by the EP as having a “treatment failure” as compared to the judgment of the investigator (46.7% vs 62.9%, P < 0.001), because many more patients were rated as “undetermined outcome” (45.6% vs 27.7%, P < 0.001); 19.3% of the recruited patients were not considered drug‐resistant by the EP. Significance This study validates the use of ILAE treatment outcome criteria in a real‐life setting, providing validated estimates of seizure freedom in patients with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy in relation to the number of previously failed AEDs. Fewer than one in 10 patients achieved seizure freedom on a newly introduced AED over the study period. Pseudo drug resistance could be identified in one of five cases.

Epilepsy is the most common comorbidity in patients with brain tumors. Study Aims: To define characteristics of brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) patients and identify patterns of care. Nationwide, multicenter retrospective cohort study. Medical records of BTRE patients seen from 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2011, followed for at least one month were examined. Information included age, sex, tumor type/treatments, epilepsy characteristics, antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Time to modify first AED due to inefficacy and/or toxicity was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify predictors of treatment outcome. Enrolled were 808 patients (447 men, 361 women) from 26 epilepsy centers. Follow-up ranged 1 to 423 months (median 18 months). 732 patients underwent surgery, 483 chemotherapy (CT), 508 radiotherapy. All patients were treated with AEDs. Levetiracetam was the most common drug. 377 patients (46.7%) were still on first drug at end of follow-up, 338 (41.8%) needed treatment modifications (uncontrolled seizures, 229; side effects, 101; poor compliance, 22). Treatment discontinuation for lack of efficacy was associated with younger age, chemotherapy, and center with <20 cases. Treatment discontinuation for side effects was associated with female sex, enzyme-inducing drugs and center with > 20 cases. About one-half of patients with BTRE were on first AED at end of follow-up. Levetiracetam was the most common drug. A non enzyme-inducing AED was followed by a lower risk of drug discontinuation for SE.

No abstract

According to current European Alteplase license, therapeutic-window for intravenous (IV) thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke has recently been extended to 4.5 h after symptoms onset. However, due to numerous contraindications, the portion of patients eligible for treatment still remains limited. Early neurological status after thrombolysis could identify more faithfully the impact of off-label Alteplase use that long-term functional outcome. We aimed to identify the impact of off-label thrombolysis and each off-label criterion on early clinical outcomes compared with the current European Alteplase license. We conducted an analysis on prospectively collected data of 500 consecutive thrombolysed patients. The primary outcome measures included major neurological improvement (NIHSS score decrease of ≤8 points from baseline or NIHSS score of 0) and neurological deterioration (NIHSS score increase of ≥4 points from baseline or death) at 24 h. We estimated the independent effect of off-label thrombolysis and each off-label criterion by calculating the odds ratio (OR) with 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome measure. As the reference, we used patients fully adhering to the current European Alteplase license. 237 (47.4%) patients were treated with IV thrombolysis beyond the current European Alteplase license. We did not find significant differences between off- and on-label thrombolysis on early clinical outcomes. No off-label criteria were associated with decreased rate of major neurological improvement compared with on-label thrombolysis. History of stroke and concomitant diabetes was the only off-label criterion associated with increased rate of neurological deterioration (OR 5.84, 95% CI 1.61-21.19; p = 0.024). Off-label thrombolysis may be less effective at 24 h than on-label Alteplase use in patients with previous stroke and concomitant diabetes. Instead, the impact of other off-label criteria on early clinical outcomes was not different compared with current European Alteplase license.

18p- syndrome from chromosomal deletion of the short arm of chromosome 18 shows a wide range of clinical manifestations. Mental retardation is the most frequent neurological complication; other neurological deficits are more rarely reported. Only one 18p- patient with focal dystonia at the lower limbs has been reported, while there have been no reported cases of generalized dystonia. We report a 27-year-old male with 18p- de novo complete deletion (karyotype 46,XY,18p-) who was affected by severe generalized dystonia, hypokinesia, mental retardation and dysmorphic features. The 18p- syndrome should be added to the list of genetic causes of secondary dystonia. A karyotype analysis should be considered in secondary dystonias, particularly when there are associated dysmorphic features and mental retardation.