Divergence Between Clinical Trial Evidence and Actual Practice in Use of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) proved that short-term (21-90 days) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces the risk of early ischemic recurrences after a noncardioembolic minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) without substantially increasing the hemorrhagic risk. We aimed at understanding whether and how real-world use of DAPT differs from RCTs. METHODS: READAPT (Real-Life Study on Short-Term Dual Antiplatelet Treatment in Patients With Ischemic Stroke or TIA) is a prospective cohort study including >18-year-old patients treated with DAPT after a noncardioembolic minor ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA from 51 Italian centers. The study comprises a 90-day follow-up from symptom onset. In the present work, we reported descriptive statistics of baseline data of patients recruited up to July 31, 2022, and proportions of patients who would have been excluded from RCTs. We compared categorical data through the χ² test. RESULTS: We evaluated 1070 patients, who had 72 (interquartile range, 62-79) years median age, were mostly Caucasian (1045; 97.7%), and were men (711; 66.4%). Among the 726 (67.9%) patients with ischemic stroke, 226 (31.1%) did not meet the RCT inclusion criteria because of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score >3 and 50 (6.9%) because of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score >5. Among the 344 (32.1%) patients with TIA, 69 (19.7%) did not meet the RCT criteria because of age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of TIA, presence of diabetes score <4 and 252 (74.7%) because of age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of TIA, presence of diabetes score <6 and no symptomatic arterial stenosis. Additionally, 144 (13.5%) patients would have been excluded because of revascularization procedures. Three hundred forty-five patients (32.2%) did not follow the RCT procedures because of late (>24 hours) DAPT initiation; 776 (72.5%) and 676 (63.2%) patients did not take loading doses of aspirin and clopidogrel, respectively. Overall, 84 (7.8%) patients met the RCT inclusion/exclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The real-world use of DAPT is broader than RCTs. Most patients did not meet the RCT criteria because of the severity of ischemic stroke, lower risk of TIA, late DAPT start, or lack of antiplatelet loading dose. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT05476081.

Models of care in emergency neurology: from the Neuro Fast Track to the emergency neurologist-a position paper of the Italian Association for Emergency Neurology (ANEU).

I n the context of an adequate health care organization, the figure of the neurologist as an emergency operator (in the emergency room-ER-and/or in a dedicated outpatient clinic) is crucial for an effective functional connection with the territory (and therefore with general practitioners), a reduction in inappropriate ER accesses, specific diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to neurological emergencies in the ER and a reduction in nonspecific or even unnecessary instrumental investigations. In this position paper of the Italian Association of Emergency Neurology (ANEU: Associazione Neurologia dell'Emergenza Urgenza), these issues are addressed, and two important organizational solutions are proposed: 1) The Neuro Fast Track, as an outpatient organization approach strongly linked to general practitioners and non-neurological specialists and dedicated to cases with deferrable urgency (to be assessed within 72 h) 2) The identification of an emergency neurologist, who is engaged in ER assessments as a consultant and involved in the management of the semi-intensive care unit of the emergency neurology and the stroke unit according to an appropriate rotation, as well as in consultations for patients with neurological emergencies in inpatient wards The possibility of computerizing the screening of patients with deferrable urgency in the Neuro Fast Track is described. A dedicated app represents an important tool that can facilitate the identification of patients for whom deferred assessment is appropriate, the scheduling of neurological examinations and reductions in the booking time through a more rapid approach to specialist assessment and subsequent investigations.

Perampanel in post-stroke epilepsy: Clinical practice data from the PERampanel as Only Concomitant antiseizure medication (PEROC) study.

INTRODUCTION: Post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) is one of the most common causes of acquired epilepsy. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence regarding the clinical profile of antiseizure medications (ASMs) in PSE. This study aims to evaluate the 12-month effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) used as only add-on treatment in patients with PSE in a real-world setting. METHODS: We performed a subgroup analysis of PSE patients included in a previous retrospective, longitudinal, multicentre observational study on adults. Treatment discontinuation, seizure frequency and adverse events were collected at 3, 6 and 12 months. Sub-analyses by early (≤1 previous ASM) or late PER add-on were also conducted. RESULTS: Our analysis included 56 individuals with PSE, characterized by varying initial treatment modalities and timeframes relative to disease onset. We found notable retention rates (92.8%, 83.7%, and 69% at 3, 6, and 12 months), with treatment withdrawal mainly due to poor tolerability. One year after PER introduction, seizure frequency significantly reduced, with a responder rate (≥50% reduction) of 83.9% and a seizure-free rate of 51.6%. Adverse events occurred in 25 (46.3%) patients, mainly dizziness, irritability, and behavioural disorders. No major statistical differences were found between early (30 patients, 53.6%) and late add-on groups, except for a higher 6-month responder rate in the early add-on group. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive PER was effective and well-tolerated in patients with PSE in a real-world setting. Perampanel demonstrated good efficacy and safety as both early and late add-on treatment, making it a compelling option for this unique patient population.

Perampanel as only add-on epilepsy treatment in elderly: A subgroup analysis of real-world data from retrospective, multicenter, observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Drug management of epilepsy in the elderly presents unique but data on this population are scarce. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) used as only add-on to a background anti-seizure medication (ASM) in the elderly in a real-world setting. METHODS: We performed a subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥65 years included in a previous 12-month multicenter study on adults. Treatment discontinuation, seizure frequency, and adverse events were recorded at 3, 6 and 12 months after PER introduction. Sub-analyses by early (≤1 previous ASM) or late PER add-on were also conducted. RESULTS: The sample included 65 subjects (mean age: 75.7 ± 7.2 years), with mainly focal (73.8%) epilepsy. The mean PER daily dose was ≈4 mg during all follow-up. Retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 90.5%, 89.6%, and 79.4%ly. The baseline median normalized per 28-day seizure number significantly decreased at 3-, 6- and 12-month visits. One year after PER introduction, the responder rate (≥50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency) was 89.7%, with a seizure freedom rate of 72.4%. Adverse events occurred in 22 (34.9%) patients with dizziness and irritability being the most frequent. No major differences between early (41 patients, 63.1%), and late add-on groups were observed. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive PER was effective and well-tolerated when used as only add-on treatment in elderly people with epilepsy in clinical practice, thus representing a suitable therapeutic option in this age category.

Effectiveness of Perampanel as the Only Add-on: Retrospective, Multicenter, Observational Real Life Study on epilepsy patients.

OBJECTIVE: Perampanel (PER) is indicated as adjunctive antiseizure medication (ASM) in adolescents and adults with epilepsy. Data from clinical trials show good efficacy and tolerability, while limited information is available on the routine clinical use of PER, especially when used as only add-on treatment. METHODS: we performed an observational, retrospective, multicenter study on people with focal or generalized epilepsy aged >12 years, consecutively recruited from 52 Italian epilepsy centers. All patients received PER as the only add-on treatment to a background ASM according to standard clinical practice. Retention rate, seizure frequency and adverse events were recorded at 3, 6 and 12 months after PER introduction. Sub-analyses by early or late use of PER and by concomitant ASM were also conducted. RESULTS: 503 patients were included (age 36.5±19.9 years). Eighty-one per cent had focal epilepsy. Overall, the retention rate was very high in the whole group (89% at 12 months) according with efficacy measures. No major differences were observed in the sub-analyses, although patients who used PER as early add-on, as compared with late add-on, more often reached early seizure freedom at 3 months follow-up (66% vs. 53%, p=0.05). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 25%, far less commonly than in PER randomized trials. SIGNIFICANCE: this study confirms the good efficacy and safety of PER for focal or generalized epilepsy in real-life conditions. We provide robust data about its effectiveness as only add-on treatment even in patients with a long-standing history of epilepsy and previously treated with many ASMs.