A real-world comparison among third-generation antiseizure medications: Results from the COMPARE study.

OBJECTIVE: There are few comparative data on the third-generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). We aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE). Efficacy and tolerability were compared as secondary objectives. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study collected data from 22 Italian neurology/epilepsy centers. All adult PWE who started add-on treatment with one of the studied ASMs between January 2018 and October 2021 were included. Retention rate was established as effectiveness measure and described using Kaplan-Meier curves and the best fitting survival model. The responder status and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were used to evaluate efficacy and safety, respectively. The odds of AEs and drug efficacy were estimated by two multilevel logistic models. RESULTS: A total of 960 patients (52.92% females, median age = 43 years) met the inclusion criteria. They mainly suffered from structural epilepsy (52.29%) with monthly (46.2%) focal seizures (69.58%). Compared with LCM, all the studied ASMs had a higher dropout risk, statistically significant in the BRV levetiracetam (LEV)-naïve (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-3.29) and PER groups (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.06-2.55). Women were at higher risk of discontinuing ESL (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 1.71-16.61), as well as PER-treated patients with unknown epilepsy etiology versus those with structural etiology (HR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.05-2.88). BRV with prior LEV therapy showed lower odds of efficacy (odds ratio [OR] = .08, 95% CI = .01-.48) versus LCM, whereas a higher efficacy was observed in women treated with BRV and LEV-naïve (OR = 10.32, 95% CI = 1.55-68.78) versus men. PER (OR = 6.93, 95% CI = 3.32-14.44) and BRV in LEV-naïve patients (OR = 6.80, 95% CI = 2.64-17.52) had a higher chance of AEs than LCM. SIGNIFICANCE: Comparative evidence from real-world studies may help clinicians to tailor treatments according to patients' demographic and clinical characteristics.

First-line levetiracetam versus enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication in glioma patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to directly compare the effectiveness of first-line monotherapy levetiracetam (LEV) versus enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications (EIASMs) in glioma patients. METHODS: In this nationwide retrospective observational cohort study, Grade 2-4 glioma patients were included, with a maximum duration of follow-up of 36 months. Primary outcome was antiseizure medication (ASM) treatment failure for any reason, and secondary outcomes were treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures and due to adverse effects. For estimation of the association between ASM treatment and ASM treatment failure, multivariate cause-specific cox proportional hazard models were estimated, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: In the original cohort, a total of 808 brain tumor patients with epilepsy were included, of whom 109 glioma patients were prescribed first-line LEV and 183 glioma patients first-line EIASMs. The EIASM group had a significantly higher risk of treatment failure for any reason compared to LEV (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20-2.75, p = .005). Treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures did not differ significantly between EIASMs and LEV (aHR = 1.32, 95% CI = .78-2.25, p = .300), but treatment failure due to adverse effects differed significantly (aHR = 4.87, 95% CI = 1.89-12.55, p = .001). SIGNIFICANCE: In this study, it was demonstrated that LEV had a significantly better effectiveness (i.e., less ASM treatment failure for any reason or due to adverse effects) compared to EIASMs, supporting the current neuro-oncology guideline recommendations to avoid EIASMs in glioma patients.

Eribulin in brain metastases of breast cancer: outcomes of the EBRAIM prospective observational trial.

Background: Eribulin shows some activity in controlling brain metastasis in breast cancer. Methods: This observational, multicenter study evaluated brain disease control rates, survival and safety in patients with brain metastatic breast cancer treated with eribulin in clinical practice. Results: A total of 34 patients were enrolled (mean age 49 years, 91% with visceral metastases) and 29 were evaluable for brain disease. Fourteen achieved disease control and showed a longer time without progression: 10 months (95% CI: 2.3-17.7) versus 4 months (95% CI: 3.3-4.7) in the control group (p = 0.029). Patients with clinical benefits at 6 months had longer survival. Leukopenia and neutropenia were the most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities. Conclusion: Eribulin confirms its effectiveness in patients with brain metastatic breast cancer. Further studies on larger cohorts are needed to confirm the results.

Effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide as add-on therapy in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy: Results from a prospective, noninterventional study in European clinical practice (VIBES).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of lacosamide added to one or two antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the treatment of patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE), and to evaluate patients' global impression of change and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, noninterventional study with a 6-month observation period (EP0045; NCT02276053). Eligible patients (≥16 years old) had active BTRE secondary to low-grade glioma (World Health Organization grade 1 and 2) and were receiving treatment with one or two AEDs at baseline. Lacosamide was initiated by the treating physician in the course of routine clinical practice. Primary outcomes were 50% responders (≥50% reduction in focal seizure frequency from baseline) and Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at month 6. Secondary outcomes included seizure-free status and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at month 6, change in QoL (5-Level EuroQol-5 Dimension Quality of Life Assessment) and symptom outcomes (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor) from baseline to month 6, and Kaplan-Meier estimated 6-month retention on lacosamide. Safety variables included adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: Patients were recruited from 24 sites in Europe. Ninety-three patients received lacosamide (mean [standard deviation] age = 44.5 [14.7] years; 50 [53.8%] male; median baseline focal seizure frequency = five seizures/28 days [range = 1-280]), of whom 79 (84.9%) completed the study. At 6 months, 66 of 86 (76.7%) patients were 50% responders and 30 of 86 (34.9%) were seizure-free. Improvements on PGIC were reported by 49 of 76 (64.5%) patients. Based on CGIC, 52 of 81 (64.2%) patients improved. QoL and symptoms outcome measures remained stable. Kaplan-Meier estimated 6-month retention rate was 86.0% (N = 93). Fifteen (16.1%) patients reported ADRs; four (4.3%) had ADRs leading to discontinuation (N = 93). SIGNIFICANCE: Results of this prospective, noninterventional study suggest that add-on lacosamide is effective and generally well tolerated in patients with BTRE.

Multimodal pathway for brain tumor-related epilepsy patients: Observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Brain tumor-related epilepsy patients (BTRE) have a complex profile due to the simultaneous presence of two pathologies: brain tumor and epilepsy. That illness and their treatments could induce physical, cognitive, emotional disturbances, and possible social isolation, with detrimental effect on patients' quality of life (QoL). Aim of this observational pilot study is to evaluate whether a multimodal rehabilitation pathway (MRP) consisting of epileptological follow-up, neurocognitive training, emotional support, and social support could produce an improvement in perceived quality of life of 33 patients with BTRE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Basal (T0) and 6 month (T1) evaluation with epileptological, neuropsychological, psychological state (Symptom checklist-SCL-90), social (Social questionnaire schedule-SQS), and QoL assessment (QOLIE 31-P). MRP consisted in epileptological follow-up, supportive meeting groups, social assistance; patients with cognitive deficits could also obtain a 12-week neurocognitive training. RESULTS: We observed at T1 significant improvements in mean seizure/month (P = .02), verbal memory (word list immediate recall, P = .01; word list delayed recall P = .003), social aspects with regard to assistencial network's efficacy (SQS network P = .001) and quality of social relations (SQS socialization P < .0001). QOLIE 31-P showed a significant improvement in cognitive scale (P = .04) and a significant decrease in cognitive related distress (P = .04). No psychopathological symptoms were detected. CONCLUSION: After 6 months, MRP produced significant improvements in seizure control, cognitive performances, quality of social relations, patients' perception to be supported and patients' perceived quality of life related to cognitive efficacy. Future randomized trial with longer follow-up is needed to further evaluate the impact of this kind of pathway on patients' QoL.

A survey on clinical pathways of patients with epilepsy and cerebrovascular diseases or brain tumors.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with seizures and epilepsies comorbid with cerebrovascular disorders (CVDs) or brain tumors (BTs) are managed by different specialists, including neurologists with expertise in epilepsy (epileptologists), CVDs, and neuro-oncology, as well as neurologists without special expertise (general neurologists), and also emergency room physicians (EPs), intensive care physicians, and neurosurgeons. It has never been studied how these specialists interact for the treatment of seizures or epilepsy in these patients. METHODS: A survey was used to investigate how patients with such comorbidities are managed in hospitals in Italy. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-eight specialists from hospitals in all parts of Italy filled in a questionnaire. Epileptologists were in charge of treatment of epilepsy in about 50% of cases while acute seizures were treated mainly by general neurologists (52% of cases). Diagnostic, therapeutic, and assistance pathways (PDTAs) for CVD and BT epilepsies were declared by physicians in about half of the hospitals while in about a quarter, there were only informal agreements and, in the remaining hospitals, there were no agreements between specialists. CVD neurologists, specialists in internal medicine, and EP were most often in charge of treatment of epilepsy comorbid with CVD. General neurologists, neuro-oncologists, and neurosurgeons were included in teams that manage BT epilepsies while epileptologists were included only in a small percentage of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical decisions on epilepsy or seizures in patients with such comorbidities are often handled by different specialists. A new team culture and PDTAs are needed to guarantee high standards of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

Correction to: Phase II study of weekly carboplatin in pretreated adult malignant gliomas.

In the original article, the names of authors Mariantonia Carosi and Tatiana Koudriavtseva were incorrectly captured, and author Francesco Cognetti's affiliation was incorrect. The information is correctly shown here.

Phase II study of weekly carboplatin in pretreated adult malignant gliomas.

PURPOSE: Patients with relapse of recurrent glioma have a poor outcome and limited treatment options. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical benefit and tolerability of weekly intravenous administration of carboplatin-based monotherapy in adult glioma patients who had progressed from previous chemotherapy lines based on temozolomide and nitrosoureas. METHODS: This was a single-arm, phase II study. Eligibility criteria included progressive or recurrent glioma after radiotherapy and chemotherapy-based treatments and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) > 60. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (median age 43.5 years) were enrolled to receive weekly carboplatin monotherapy in an intravenous method of administration. The median duration of response was 7.3 months with an overall disease control rate of 31.3%. Median progression-free survival was 2.3 months while overall survival was 5.5 months. Pre-treatment with corticosteroids (i.e. dexamethasone) was associated to clinical benefit in 43.8% of patients. Patients achieving clinical benefit exhibited a longer progression-free survival (4.6 vs. 1.5 months; p > 0.001) and overall survival (7.9 vs. 3.2 months; p = 0.041) compared with those not achieving clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that single agent, weekly, intravenous administration of carboplatin may have a role in patients with recurrent glioma and suggest that pre-treatment with corticosteroids may confer survival benefit.

A multicenter real-world study of bevacizumab in heavily pretreated malignant gliomas: clinical benefit is a plausible end point?

Aim: This multicenter, retrospective study evaluates the clinical benefit (CB) of bevacizumab, alone or in combination, in recurrent gliomas (RG). Patients & methods: The CB was measured as a reduction of corticosteroid dosage and an improvement ≥20 points in the Karnofsky Performance Status lasting ≥3 months. Results: We collected data of 197 RG patients. A CB was observed in 120, patients without significant differences between patients treated with bevacizumab alone or in combination. The rate of patients who achieved a CB and free from progression at 1 year was 21.5 versus 1.4% in patients who did not report CB. Conclusion: The majority of RG patients treated with bevacizumab reported CB. Moreover, patients with CB showed improved survival.

Management of epilepsy in brain tumors.

Epilepsy in brain tumors (BTE) may require medical attention for a variety of unique concerns: epileptic seizures, possible serious adverse effects of antineoplastic and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), physical disability, and/or neurocognitive disturbances correlated to tumor site. Guidelines for the management of tumor-related epilepsies are lacking. Treatment is not standardized, and overall management might differ according to different specialists. The aim of this document was to provide directives on the procedures to be adopted for a correct diagnostic-therapeutic path of the patient with BTE, evaluating indications, risks, and benefits. A board comprising neurologists, epileptologists, neurophysiologists, neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, neuro-oncologists, neuropsychologists, and patients' representatives was formed. The board converted diagnostic and therapeutic problems into seventeen questions. A literature search was performed in September-October 2017, and a total of 7827 unique records were retrieved, of which 148 constituted the core literature. There is no evidence that histological type or localization of the brain tumor affects the response to an AED. The board recommended to avoid enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs because of their interference with antitumoral drugs and consider as first-choice newer generation drugs (among them, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and topiramate). Valproic acid should also be considered. Both short-term and long-term prophylaxes are not recommended in primary and metastatic brain tumors. Management of seizures in patients with BTE should be multidisciplinary. The panel evidenced conflicting or lacking data regarding the role of EEG, the choice of therapeutic strategy, and timing to withdraw AEDs and recommended high-quality long-term studies to standardize BTE care.

Perampanel in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy in real-life clinical practice: a retrospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy occurs in 35-70% of patients with gliomas; glutamate plays a central role via AMPA-receptor activation, which is involved both in seizure activity and tumor growth. We conducted a retrospective study on brain tumor-related epilepsy patients (BTRE) treated with perampanel in add-on (PER) for 12 months, to evaluate efficacy and tollerability, according to real-life clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of eleven patients (9 males, mean age 54 years) with glioma and epilepsy treated with PER in add-on, for inadequate seizure control or adverse events (AEs) from previous antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) therapy, were reviewed. Data collected included: tumor history, molecular factors, systemic therapy, type and number of seizures and concomitant AEDs, and AEs. RESULTS: After 12 months of PER therapy, five patients were seizure-free, 4 had a seizure reduction ≥50% and the seizure frequency was unchanged in 2 patients. Responder rate was 81.8%. Two patients reported AEs; PER dose was reduced only in the one case. The final median dose of PER was 7.3 mg/day. We didn't find statistically significant differences in the comparison between mean values pre, mean values post and the average of decreasing number of seizures related to: histology, presence/absence of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, progression disease, KPS, IDH1, MGMT. DISCUSSION: Despite the limitations due to small number of patients in a retrospective study, the high rate of responder and seizure-free patients suggest that PER could be a therapeutic option in BTRE. Prospective controlled studies are needed to confirm our data.

Quality of life, mood and seizure control in patients with brain tumor related epilepsy treated with lacosamide as add-on therapy: A prospective explorative study with a historical control group.

OBJECTIVE: Brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) is often drug resistant and patients can be forced to take polytherapy that can adversely affect their quality of life (QoL). Lacosamide (LCM) is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) used as adjunctive therapy in patients with partial seizures with or without secondary generalization, with a favorable pharmacokinetic profile that seems to be effective and well tolerated. Therefore it represents a possible therapeutic choice for patients with BTRE. We propose a prospective study with a historical control group to evaluate the effect of LCM as add-on therapy on seizure control and quality of life in patients with BTRE. This study has been designed to test the superiority of Lacosamide over Levetiracetam as an add-on. We compared a prospective cohort of 25 patients treated with Lacosamide with a historical control group (n=19) treated with Levetiracetam as an add-on. METHODS: We recruited 25 adult patients (M 18, F 7; mean age 41.9) affected by BTRE with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures treated with AED polytherapy. We added LCM as an add-on. Patients were evaluated at baseline, after 3months and at 6months. This population has been compared with a historical control group of 19 BTRE adult patients (M 13, F 6; median age 48.0, range: 28-70) with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures treated with LEV as add-on. The patients underwent QoL, mood and adverse events tests (Adverse Event Profile-AEP) and evaluation of seizure frequency. RESULTS: Twelve patients had high grade gliomas, and thirteen had low grade gliomas. During follow-up, thirteen patients underwent chemotherapy, three radiotherapy and five patients had disease progression. Nine patients had simple partial seizures, eight had complex partial seizures, and eight had secondary generalized seizures. Fifteen patients were in monotherapy and ten in polytherapy with AEDs. LCM was added up to reach the maximum dosage of 400mg/die (mean final dose 300mg/die). Four patients dropped out due to poor compliance and 1 for inefficacy. In the historical control group treated with LEV (mean final dose 2000mg/die) 12 patients had high-grade gliomas, and 7 had low grade gliomas. Thirteen patients were in monotherapy and 6 in polytherapy with AEDs. In the 22 patients evaluable of 25 patients treated with LCM, we observed at final follow-up 7 patients seizure free, 12 with a significant reduction of seizures≥50%, 2 stable and 1 patient with number of seizures increased. Mean seizure frequency at baseline compared with baseline period: the mean number of seizures significantly decreased from baseline (9.4) to final follow-up (1.2) (P=0.005). The Responder Rate was 86.4%. Comparing responder rate of 22 evaluable patients with LCM with responder rate of 19 patients with LEV we didn't observe significant differences (p=0.31). In our patients treated with LCM we didn't observe significant difference at 3 and 6months in QoL tests results; we observe a significant reduction in the mean score of Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and Barthel Index (BI) between baseline and 6months of follow-up (KPS p=0.003; BI p=0.007). No clinical side effects were observed. CONCLUSION: Comparing the LCM with the historical group treated with LEV in add-on, we observed that LCM seems to have a higher clinical efficacy than LEV. In our patients, we did not observe any significant changes in QoL tests, indicating stability in all quality of life domains explored, despite the objective worsening in their functional status. Although this is a small series with a relatively short follow-up, our data indicates that LCM in add-on in patients with BTRE appears to be as effective as LEV in add-on, without impact on mood and quality of life.

Cognitive rehabilitation training in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy and cognitive deficits: a pilot study.

The aim of this pilot observational study was to evaluate effect of cognitive rehabilitation training (RehabTr) on cognitive performances in patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) and cognitive disturbances. Medical inclusion criteria: patients (M/F) ≥ 18 years ≤ 75 with symptomatic seizures due to primary brain tumors or brain metastases in stable treatment with antiepileptic drugs; previous surgical resection or biopsy; >70 Karnofsky Performance Status; stable oncological disease. Eligible patients recruited from 100 consecutive patients with BTRE at first visit to our Center from 2011 to 2012. All recruited patients were administered battery of neuropsychological tests exploring various cognitive domains. Patients considered to have a neuropsychological deficit were those with at least one test score for a given domain indicative of impairment. Thirty patients out of 100 showed cognitive deficits, and were offered participation in RehabTr, of which 16 accepted (5 low grade glioma, 4 high grade glioma, 2 glioblastoma, 2 meningioma and 3 metastases) and 14 declined for various reasons. The RehabTr consisted of one weekly individual session of 1 h, for a total of 10 weeks, carried out by a trained psychologist. The functions trained were: memory, attention, visuo-spatial functions, language and reasoning by means of Training NeuroPsicologico (TNP(®)) software. To evaluate the effect of the RehabTr, the same battery of tests was administered directly after cognitive rehabilitation (T1), and at six-month follow-up (T2). Statistical analysis with Student T test for paired data showed that short-term verbal memory, episodic memory, fluency and long term visuo-spatial memory improved immediately after the T1 and remained stable at T2. At final follow-up all patients showed an improvement in at least one domain that had been lower than normal at baseline. Our results demonstrated a positive effect of rehabilitative training at different times, and, for these reasons, should encourage future research in this area with large, randomized clinical trials that evaluate the impact of a cognitive rehabilitation in patients with BTRE and cognitive deficits.

Taking care of patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy: results from an Italian survey.

UNLABELLED: To date, no data have been published in literature regarding either a "model" or systematic approach to caring for patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE). In Italy, there are numerous dedicated centers for epilepsy. STUDY AIMS: to investigate how many BTRE patients were followed by these specialized centers, independent of histological grade; to have a national snapshot of the range of care issues concerning these patients, with surveys completed by Italian centers adhering to the Italian League Against Epilepsy (LICE) study group for BTRE. Each participating Italian center received a survey requesting: description of organizational structure/service model for diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy; number of patients followed (from 1/2010 to 12/2011); services offered, within the same institution or in close proximity; degree of access to colleagues from other disciplines for discussion of cases, with indication of departments/areas of specialization were sought. Thirty out of the 35 centers adhering to LICE study group completed the survey indicating total of 2,528 patients with BTRE had been treated with 940 new patients/year. Data regarding the care model, service offerings, referral sources were collected. This study is a first collaborative project of epilepsy centers throughout Italy, aimed at collecting data on a national scale. Results indicate: (1) 2,528 patients had been followed by participating centers and account for 21 % of estimated patients with BTRE in Italy (2) difficulties in organizing meetings with other specialists (e.g. for discussion of cases/patient briefings); (3) need for multidisciplinary integration with other specialists as a priority area for intervention.

Weight of epilepsy in brain tumor patients.

About 20-40% of patients with brain tumor have seizures; all of whom must be treated with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) that can cause side effects which may influence quality of life (QoL). However, little data are available regarding the weight of epilepsy on QoL in brain tumor (BT) patients, despite the fact that epilepsy is considered the most important risk factor for long-term disability in this patient population. Aim of this study is to explore the weight of epilepsy in BT patients, and to identify which factors might contribute to their epilepsy burden, as expressed by them only at their first visit in a specialized epilepsy center, in order to have a snapshot for that moment in their care cycle. We reviewed medical charts and results from a battery of tests (routinely given at our outpatient center), administered to 100 consecutive BTRE patients at their first visit, followed from 2007 to 2010. Our results reveal: (1) neurological performances and global neurocognitive status were not influenced by factors related to neoplastic disease or to epilepsy (2) side effects, cognitive deficits, and QoL concerns, as well as patients' perception of these, were significantly related to polytherapy, especially in patients who had been taking AEDs for a period longer that 6 months (3) the seizure number did not influence patients' QoL. We found that the weight of epilepsy in BTRE patients was related to AED therapy. Our study highlights the fact that epilepsy in our patients adds a significant burden, and suggests the need to give the proper attention to patients' concerns regarding the challenges that this pathology might present. Nevertheless, future studies could be designed with a follow-up period and with a patient stratification in order to better understand the weight of epilepsy for these patients.

Perampanel for Treatment of People with a Range of Epilepsy Aetiologies in Clinical Practice: Evidence from the PERMIT Extension Study.

INTRODUCTION: It is important to assess the effectiveness of an antiseizure medication in treating different epilepsy aetiologies to optimise individualised therapeutic approaches. Data from the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) Extension study were used to assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used to treat individuals with a range of epilepsy aetiologies in clinical practice. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was conducted of PERMIT Extension data from individuals with a known aetiology. Retention was assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months. Effectiveness was assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included responder rate (≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit). Safety/tolerability was assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: PERMIT Extension included 1945 individuals with structural aetiology, 1012 with genetic aetiology, 93 with an infectious aetiology, and 26 with an immune aetiology. Retention rates at 12 months were 61.1% (structural), 65.9% (genetic), 56.8% (infectious) and 56.5% (immune). At the last visit, responder rates (total seizures) were 43.3% (structural), 68.3% (genetic), 37.0% (infectious) and 20.0% (immune), and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 15.8%, 46.5%, 11.1% and 5.0%, respectively. AE incidence rates were 58.0% (structural), 46.5% (genetic), 51.1% (infectious) and 65.0% (immune), and corresponding rates of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months were 18.9%, 16.4%, 18.5% and 21.7%, respectively. The types of AEs reported were generally consistent across aetiology subgroups, with no idiosyncratic AEs emerging. CONCLUSION: Although PER was effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat individuals with a range of epilepsy aetiologies in clinical practice, variability in its effectiveness and tolerability across the subgroups indicates that PER may be particularly useful for individuals with specific epilepsy aetiologies.

Epilepsy in the end-of-life phase in patients with high-grade gliomas.

Epilepsy is common in patients with brain tumors. Patients presenting seizures as the first sign of a malignant glioma are at increased risk of recurrent seizures despite treatment with antiepileptic drugs. However, little is known about the incidence of epilepsy in the last stage of disease and in the end-of-life phase of brain tumor patients. We retrospectively analyzed the incidence of seizures in the last months of life in a series of patients affected by high-grade gliomas who were assisted at home during the whole course of the disease until death. A total of 157 patients were available for analysis. Of these patients, 58 (36.9 %) presented seizures in the last month before death. The risk of seizures in the end-of-life phase is higher in patients presenting previous history of epilepsy, particularly in patients with late-onset epilepsy. Out of the 58 patients presenting seizures in the last month of life, 86.2 % had previously had seizures and 13.8 % were seizure free. Most patients may encounter swallowing difficulties in taking anticonvulsants orally due to dysphagia and disturbances of consciousness, thus anticonvulsant treatment needs to be modified in advance. Loss of seizure control in the end-of-life phase may influence the quality of life of patients and their caregivers.

Epilepsy and brain tumors: Two sides of the same coin.

Epilepsy is the most common symptom in patients with brain tumors. The shared genetic, molecular, and cellular mechanisms between tumorigenesis and epileptogenesis represent 'two sides of the same coin'. These include augmented neuronal excitatory transmission, impaired inhibitory transmission, genetic mutations in the BRAF, IDH, and PIK3CA genes, inflammation, hemodynamic impairments, and astrocyte dysfunction, which are still largely unknown. Low-grade developmental brain tumors are those most commonly associated with epilepsy. Given this strict relationship, drugs able to target both seizures and tumors would be of extreme clinical usefulness. In this regard, anti-seizure medications (ASMs) are optimal candidates as they have well-characterized effects and safety profiles, do not increase the risk of developing cancer, and already offer well-defined seizure control. The most important ASMs showing preclinical and clinical efficacy are brivaracetam, lacosamide, perampanel, and especially valproic acid and levetiracetam. However, the data quality is low or limited to preclinical studies, and results are sometimes conflicting. Future trials with a prospective, randomized, and controlled design accounting for different prognostic factors will help clarify the role of these ASMs and the clinical setting in which they might be used. In conclusion, brain tumor-related epilepsies are clear examples of how close, multidisciplinary collaborations among investigators with different expertise are warranted for pursuing scientific knowledge and, more importantly, for the well-being of patients needing targeted and effective therapies.

The broad-spectrum activity of perampanel: state of the art and future perspective of AMPA antagonism beyond epilepsy.

Glutamate is the brain's main excitatory neurotransmitter. Glutamatergic neurons primarily compose basic neuronal networks, especially in the cortex. An imbalance of excitatory and inhibitory activities may result in epilepsy or other neurological and psychiatric conditions. Among glutamate receptors, AMPA receptors are the predominant mediator of glutamate-induced excitatory neurotransmission and dictate synaptic efficiency and plasticity by their numbers and/or properties. Therefore, they appear to be a major drug target for modulating several brain functions. Perampanel (PER) is a highly selective, noncompetitive AMPA antagonist approved in several countries worldwide for treating different types of seizures in various epileptic conditions. However, recent data show that PER can potentially address many other conditions within epilepsy and beyond. From this perspective, this review aims to examine the new preclinical and clinical studies-especially those produced from 2017 onwards-on AMPA antagonism and PER in conditions such as mesial temporal lobe epilepsy, idiopathic and genetic generalized epilepsy, brain tumor-related epilepsy, status epilepticus, rare epileptic syndromes, stroke, sleep, epilepsy-related migraine, cognitive impairment, autism, dementia, and other neurodegenerative diseases, as well as provide suggestions on future research agenda aimed at probing the possibility of treating these conditions with PER and/or other AMPA receptor antagonists.

Tissue factor as a potential coagulative/vascular marker in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Objectives: Recent studies supported coagulation involvement in multiple sclerosis, an inflammatory-demyelinating and degenerative disease of the central nervous system. The main objectives of this observational study were to identify the most specific pro-coagulative/vascular factors for multiple sclerosis pathogenesis and to correlate them with brain hemodynamic abnormalities. Methods: We compared i) serum/plasma levels of complement(C)/coagulation/vascular factors, viral/microbiological assays, fat-soluble vitamins and lymphocyte count among people with multiple sclerosis sampled in a clinical remission (n=30; 23F/7M, 40 ± 8.14 years) or a relapse (n=30; 24F/6M, age 41 ± 10.74 years) and age/sex-matched controls (n=30; 23F/7M, 40 ± 8.38 years); ii) brain hemodynamic metrics at dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced 3T-MRI during relapse and remission, and iii) laboratory data with MRI perfusion metrics and clinical features of people with multiple sclerosis. Two models by Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis were performed using two groups as input: (1) multiple sclerosis vs. controls, and (2) relapsing vs. remitting multiple sclerosis. Results: Compared to controls, multiple sclerosis patients had a higher Body-Mass-Index, Protein-C and activated-C9; and a lower activated-C4. Levels of Tissue-Factor, Tie-2 and P-Selectin/CD62P were lower in relapse compared to remission and HC, whereas Angiopoietin-I was higher in relapsing vs. remitting multiple sclerosis. A lower number of total lymphocytes was found in relapsing multiple sclerosis vs. remitting multiple sclerosis and controls. Cerebral-Blood-Volume was lower in normal-appearing white matter and left caudatum while Cerebral-Blood-Flow was inferior in bilateral putamen in relapsing versus remitting multiple sclerosis. The mean-transit-time of gadolinium-enhancing lesions negatively correlated with Tissue-Factor. The top-5 discriminating variables for model (1) were: EBV-EBNA-1 IgG, Body-Mass-Index, Protein-C, activated-C4 and Tissue-Factor whereas for model (2) were: Tissue-Factor, Angiopoietin-I, MCHC, Vitamin A and T-CD3. Conclusion: Tissue-factor was one of the top-5 variables in the models discriminating either multiple sclerosis from controls or multiple sclerosis relapse from remission and correlated with mean-transit-time of gadolinium-enhancing lesions. Tissue-factor appears a promising pro-coagulative/vascular biomarker and a possible therapeutic target in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04380220.