Rapid versus slow withdrawal of antiepileptic monotherapy in two-year seizure-free adults patients with epilepsy (RASLOW) study: A pragmatic multicentre, prospective, randomized, controlled study.

PURPOSE: To establish whether a slow or a rapid withdrawal of antiepileptic monotherapy influences relapse rate in seizure-free adults with epilepsy and calculates compliance and differences in the severity of relapses, based on the occurrence of status epilepticus, seizure-related injuries, and death. METHODS: This is a multicentre, prospective, randomized, open label, non-inferiority trial in people aged 16 + years who were seizure-free for more than 2 years. Patients were randomized to slow withdrawal (160 days) or rapid withdrawal (60 days) and were followed for 12 months. The primary outcome was the probability of a first seizure relapse within the 12-months follow-up. The secondary outcomes included the cumulative probability of relapse at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. A non-inferiority analysis was performed with non-inferiority margin of - 0.15 for the difference between the probabilities of seizure recurrence in slow versus rapid withdrawal. RESULTS: The sample comprised 48 patients, 25 randomized to slow withdrawal and 23 to rapid withdrawal. Median follow-up was 11.9 months. In the intention-to-treat population, 3 patients in the slow-withdrawal group and 1 in the rapid withdrawal group experienced seizure relapses. The corresponding probabilities of seizure recurrence were 0.12 for slow withdrawal and 0.04 for rapid withdrawal, giving a difference of 0.08 (95% CI - 0.12; 0.27), which is entirely above the non-inferiority margin. No patients developed status epilepticus and seizure-related injuries or died. Risks were similar in the Per-Protocol population. CONCLUSIONS: Seizure-relapse rate after drug discontinuation is lower than in other reports, without complications and unrelated to the duration of tapering.

The management of epilepsy in clinical practice: Do the timing and severity of the disease influence the priorities of patients and the caring physicians? Data from the EPINEEDS study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the priorities of patients with epilepsy and their caring physicians with reference to the timing and severity of the disease. METHODS: This is a national survey in which patients with epilepsy followed in 21 Italian epilepsy centers, and their caring physicians were asked to fill anonymous questionnaires to collect data on different aspects of the disease and their needs and priorities in its management. The collected information included demographics, clinical profile and diagnosis, treatment and outcome of epilepsy. The questions were designed to understand the expectations of the patients and their caring physicians and verify the degree of concordance between patient and doctor. The study population was divided in six prognostic categories: (1) Newly diagnosed epilepsy; (2) Absence of seizures for at least 2 years; (3) Absence of seizures for at least 1 year or occasional seizures; (4) Nondrug-resistant recurrent seizures; (5) drug-resistant seizures; (6) surgical candidate. RESULTS: Of the 787 patients enrolled, 432 were women and 355 men aged 15 to 88 years (median 41 years). Disease duration ranged from 6 months to 75 years. The sample included 53 patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy, 283 without seizures for at least 2 years, 162 seizure-free for at least 1 year or with occasional seizures, 123 with nondrug-resistant recurrent seizures, 128 with drug-resistant seizures, and 38 surgical candidates. Significant differences were found between patients and physicians in terms of priorities and needs with reference to the management of the disease. While physicians tend to prioritize the information on the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy depending on timing and severity, patients focus on the search of the cause, the side effects of drugs, and the effects of any new treatment on the control of seizures regardless of the prognostic category. In addition, physicians tend to undervalue the communication of specific information, like the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) or the existence of lay associations, which might be of special interest for selected categories of patients. SIGNIFICANCE: Differences between patients with epilepsy and their caring physicians in terms of needs and priorities and suboptimal communication call for the implementation of programs aimed at addressing the factors deemed most relevant by patients and caregivers for the management of the disease.

The management of epilepsy in clinical practice: Do the needs manifested by the patients correspond to the priorities of the caring physicians? Findings from the EPINEEDS Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the priorities of patients with epilepsy and caring physicians and the correspondence between these priorities. METHODS: In this multicenter cross-sectional study, patients with epilepsy attending 21 Italian epilepsy centers and their caring physicians filled anonymously questionnaires on the needs and priorities in the management of the disease. Included were questions on patients' demographics, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome of epilepsy. The concordance between patients and their physicians was assessed on various aspects of the diagnosis and care of the disease. Patients' satisfaction with communication, services, and patient-doctor relationship was also assessed. RESULTS: Included were 432 women and 355 men aged 15 to 88 years (median: 41 years). Disease duration ranged from 6 months to 75 years. A structural/metabolic etiology predominated (52.7%), followed by a (presumed) genetic etiology (33.0%). Seizure remission was present in 56.5% of cases. Comorbidities requiring chronic treatment were present in 27.5%, and comorbidities affecting self-sufficiency in 9.5%. Psychiatric comorbidity was present in 35.0%. Patients' priorities included discovery of the cause (89.1%), use of right drug (98.7%), use of a drug without chronic side effects (94.0%), and a life without restrictions (90.4%). Physicians' priorities included choice of right drug (83.5%) and use of drugs without chronic side effects (86.8%). Priorities varied with patients' age, sex, education, and occupation. Patient-doctor relationships were at least good in most cases. The information imparted was considered unsatisfactory by 21-44% of cases on seizure circumstances and complications, side effects of drugs, limitations of daily activities, and management of physiologic or pathologic conditions. Patients declared overall satisfaction, except for appointments (21.5%) and emergencies (30.8%). CONCLUSION: Patients and physicians' priorities in the management of epilepsy overlap only in part. Patients are satisfied with their caring physicians and less satisfied with communication and management of routine and emergency problems.

Trends in survival of ALS from a population-based registry.

Objective: To assess survival of ALS patients in general and in selected demographic and clinical subgroups comparing two periods (1998-2000 vs. 2008-2010). Methods: Newly diagnosed adults resident of Lombardy, Northern Italy from a population-based registry were included. Data were collected on age at diagnosis, sex, site of onset, diagnostic delay, and El-Escorial diagnostic category. Patients were followed until death or last observation. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox's proportional hazards models. Results: In 2008-2010 (267 patients), median survival was 2.4 years and 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 5-year survival rates were 79%, 56%, 41% and 24%. Longer survival was associated with male sex, younger age, spinal onset, and longer diagnostic delay. Multivariable analysis confirmed higher death in 65-69yr (HR 2.8; 95% CI 1.4-5.6), 70-74yr (HR 3.2; 95% CI 1.6-6.3) and 75 + yr (HR 6.9; 95% CI 3.5-13.8) categories, compared to ≤49yr, in females (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.02-1.8), compared to males, and in patients diagnosed after 6-12 months (HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.4-2.7), compared with longer diagnostic delay. In 1998-2000 (235 patients), median survival was 2.2 years. The 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 5-year survival rates were 77%, 53%, 38% and 20%. When adjusting for demographic and clinical variables, the HR for death in 2008-2010 versus 1998-2000 was 0.80 (95% CI 0.66-0.98). A significant increase of survival in 2008-2010 was found only in patients aged 50-59yr and 70-74yr at diagnosis. Conclusions: Survival of ALS has increased over time in the last decades, especially in middle aged and elderly patients. The benefits of comprehensive care in selected age groups might explain our findings.