Perampanel for the treatment of patients with myoclonic seizures in clinical practice: Evidence from the PERMIT study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of perampanel (PER) in treating myoclonic seizures in clinical practice, using data from the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study. METHODS: PERMIT was a pooled analysis of 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which patients with focal and generalised epilepsy were treated with PER. This post-hoc analysis included patients with myoclonic seizures at baseline. Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months; effectiveness was additionally assessed at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit). Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. RESULTS: 156 patients had myoclonic seizures (59.0% female; mean age, 32.1 years; idiopathic generalised epilepsy, 89.1%; Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy, 63.1%; monthly median myoclonic seizure frequency [interquartile range], 1.7 [1.0-10.0]; mean [standard deviation] prior antiseizure medications, 2.9 [2.6]). Retention was assessed for 133 patients (mean time, 12.1 months), effectiveness for 142, and safety/tolerability for 156. Responder and seizure freedom rates were, respectively, 89.5% and 68.8% at 12 months, and 85.9% and 63.4% at the last visit. Incidence of AEs was 46.8%, the most frequent being dizziness/vertigo (19.2%), irritability (18.6%) and somnolence (9.6%). AEs led to discontinuation of 14.0% of patients over 12 months. CONCLUSION: PER was associated with reduction in myoclonic seizure frequency in patients with myoclonic seizures treated in everyday clinical practice.

A comparison of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between short and conventional stem hip replacements: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Short stem hip replacements may allow preservation of proximal bone stock and minimise soft tissue disruption, easing future revision surgery. However patient satisfaction with these implants must be determined before widespread use. We aimed to compare patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) between short and conventional stem hip replacements. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines for studies comparing short and conventional stem hip replacements with validated PROMs. Meta-analyses were performed for studies reporting Harris Hip and WOMAC scores. Study bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: 24 studies, incorporating 2593 total hip replacements were included for qualitative analysis. 17 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Of the 7 excluded, 1 study reported the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and 2 others reported the Oxford Hip score. All three showed no difference between the stems. A meta-analysis of 17 studies reporting Harris hip scores showed no statistically significant difference between short and conventional stems (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.20-0.07, p = 0.35). 6 studies reported WOMAC scores with higher scores indicating worse outcome. No difference was seen between the two groups (SMD 0.21, 95%CI, -0.01-0.42, p = 0.06). 4 studies reported higher WOMAC scores as better. Once again, a meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the stems (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.07-0.63, p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review showed no difference in PROMs between short and conventional stem total hip replacements. This is in keeping with previous evidence but is a more comprehensive analysis. Short stems may have an important role in younger individuals as they allow preservation of proximal femoral bone, minimal access surgery and are amenable to abnormal anatomy. The current literature is hindered by non-uniform methodologies and outcome assessments across studies. Further, standardised, high quality evidence is required before widespread changes in practice.