Predictors of post-stroke delirium incidence and duration: Results of a prospective observational study using high-frequency delirium screening.

BACKGROUND: Post-stroke delirium (PSD) is a modifiable predictor for worse outcome in stroke. Knowledge of its risk factors would facilitate clinical management of affected patients, but recently updated national guidelines consider available evidence insufficient. AIMS: The study aimed to establish risk factors for PSD incidence and duration using high-frequency screening. METHODS: We prospectively investigated patients with ischemic stroke admitted within 24 h. Patients were screened twice daily for the presence of PSD throughout the treatment period. Sociodemographic, treatment-related, and neuroimaging characteristics were evaluated as predictors of either PSD incidence (odds ratios (OR)) or duration (PSD days/unit of the predictor, b), using logistic and linear regression models, respectively. RESULTS: PSD occurred in 55/141 patients (age = 73.8 ± 10.4 years, 61 female, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) = 6.4 ± 6.5). Age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.10), b = 0.08 (95% CI = 0.04-0.13)), and male gender (b = 0.99 (95% CI = 0.05-1.93)) were significant non-modifiable risk factors. In a multivariable model adjusted for age and gender, presence of pain (OR < sub > mvar = 1.75 (95% CI = 1.12-2.74)), urinary catheter (OR < sub > mvar = 3.16 (95% CI = 1.10-9.14)) and post-stroke infection (PSI; OR < sub > mvar = 4.43 (95% CI = 1.09-18.01)) were predictors of PSD incidence. PSD duration was impacted by presence of pain (b < sub > mvar = 0.49 (95% CI = 0.19-0.81)), urinary catheter (b < sub > mvar = 1.03 (95% CI = 0.01-2.07)), intravenous line (b < sub > mvar = 0.36 (95% CI = 0.16-0.57)), and PSI (b < sub > mvar = 1.60 (95% CI = 0.42-2.78)). PSD (OR = 3.53 (95% CI = 1.48-5.57)) and PSI (OR = 5.29 (95% CI = 2.92-7.66)) independently predicted inferior NIHSS at discharge. Insular and basal ganglia lesions increased the PSD risk about four- to eight-fold. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This study identified modifiable risk factors, the management of which might reduce the negative impact PSD has on outcome.

Course and Recognition of Poststroke Delirium: A Prospective Noninferiority Trial of Delirium Screening Tools.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Poststroke delirium (PSD) is an independent predictor of unfavorable outcome. Despite its individual and socioeconomic burden, its frequency, clinical course, and routine detection remain unresolved. This study aimed to assess psychometric properties of established delirium screening tools and investigate the natural course of PSD. METHODS: This study investigated patients presenting with high-risk transient ischemic attacks or ischemic stroke within 24 hours during a 3-month period. Twice-daily screenings for PSD were done using the confusion assessment method, nursing delirium scale, and rapid delirium assessment, and evaluated for noninferiority against Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria. We investigated demographic and stroke characteristics as predictors of PSD, neurological deficits as predictors of false screening results, and conducted a simulation study to estimate the best timing to identify PSD. RESULTS: We enrolled 141 patients (73.8±10.4 years of age, 61 female) with a mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 6.4±6.5. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition based PSD incidence was 39%, which manifested within 24 hours in 25% and 72 hours in almost all cases. The confusion assessment method was the only screening tool noninferior to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ratings providing a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 80%. Age (odds ratio, 1.07 [1.02-1.13] per year, P=0.004) and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (odds ratio, 1.24 [1.15-1.34] per point, P<0.001) were predictors of PSD. False-positive screening results were associated with stroke-induced disorientation (odds ratio, 6.1 [3.2-11.61], P<0.001) and neglect (odds ratio, 2.17 [1.22-3.87], P=0.008). Simulations revealed that one in 4 cases is missed with less than daily screenings. CONCLUSIONS: PSD is a common complication of stroke and transient ischemic attack. Detection is challenged by confounding effects such as focal neurological deficits and the necessity for at least daily screenings. Future studies are required to investigate implementation of these findings in clinical routine. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03930719.

First clinical postmarketing experiences in the treatment of epilepsies with brivaracetam: a retrospective observational multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: Brivaracetam (BRV) is the latest approved antiepileptic drug and acts as a synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of BRV in the clinical setting. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational multicentre study. SETTING: We retrospectively collected clinical data of patients who received BRV in 10 epilepsy centres using a questionnaire that was answered by the reporting neurologist. PARTICIPANTS: Data of 615 epilepsy patients treated with BRV were included in the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy regarding seizure frequency and tolerability of BRV were evaluated. Descriptive statistics complemented by X2 contingency tests and effect sizes were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 44% of the patients had a decreased, 38% a stable and 18% an increased seizure frequency. 17% of patients achieved seizure freedom after initiation of BRV. The seizure frequency decreased in 63% of 19 patients with BRV monotherapy. 27% reported adverse effects, but only 10% of patients with monotherapy. Brivaracetam was significantly more often associated with decreased seizure frequency in levetiracetam (LEV) naïve patients (p=0.012), but BRV also led to a decreased seizure frequency in 42% of patients who had been treated with LEV before, including 17% of patients who were completely seizure free. Adverse effects under LEV improved in 62% and deteriorated in 2% of patients after the switch to BRV. At latest follow-up (mean±SD = 26.3±6.5 months), 68% were still on BRV. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that results of the phase III studies on BRV match data from real life clinical settings. Brivaracetam seems to be a useful alternative in patients who have suffered adverse effects while taking LEV.

Efficacy, Retention, and Tolerability of Brivaracetam in Patients With Epileptic Encephalopathies: A Multicenter Cohort Study From Germany.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in a severely drug refractory cohort of patients with epileptic encephalopathies (EE). Method: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients treated with EE who began treatment with BRV in an enrolling epilepsy center between 2016 and 2017. Results: Forty-four patients (27 male [61%], mean age 29 years, range 6 to 62) were treated with BRV. The retention rate was 65% at 3 months, 52% at 6 months and 41% at 12 months. A mean retention time of 5 months resulted in a cumulative exposure to BRV of 310 months. Three patients were seizure free during the baseline. At 3 months, 20 (45%, 20/44 as per intention-to-treat analysis considering all patients that started BRV including three who were seizure free during baseline) were either seizure free (n = 4; 9%, three of them already seizure-free at baseline) or reported at least 25% (n = 4; 9%) or 50% (n = 12; 27%) reduction in seizures. An increase in seizure frequency was reported in two (5%) patients, while there was no change in the seizure frequency of the other patients. A 50% long-term responder rate was apparent in 19 patients (43%), with two (5%) free from seizures for more than six months and in nine patients (20%, with one [2 %] free from seizures) for more than 12 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events were predominantly of psychobehavioural nature and were observed in 16%. Significance: In this retrospective analysis the rate of patients with a 50% seizure reduction under BRV proofed to be similar to those seen in regulatory trials for focal epilepsies. BRV appears to be safe and relatively well tolerated in EE and might be considered in patients with psychobehavioral adverse events while on levetiracetam.

Use of brivaracetam in genetic generalized epilepsies and for acute, intravenous treatment of absence status epilepticus.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate effectiveness, retention, and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in genetic generalized epilepsies (GGE) in clinical practice. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients that started BRV in 2016 and 2017. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients (mean age = 29.8, range = 9-90 years, 41 female [67%]) were treated with BRV. They were difficult to control, with 2.4 failed antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the past, taking 1.9 AEDs on average at baseline. The length of exposure to BRV ranged from 7 days to 24 months, with a mean retention time of 7.9 months, resulting in a total exposure time to BRV of 483 months. The retention rate was 82% at 3 months and 69% at 6 months. Efficacy at 3 months was 36% (50% responder rate), with 25% seizure-free for 3 months. Patients with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy showed a responder rate of 60%, with 40% being free of any seizures. Long-term 50% responder rate was present in 17 patients (28%; 11 seizure-free [18%]) for >6 months and in 14 patients (23%; 10 seizure-free [16%]) for >12 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 26% of the patients, with the most common being somnolence, ataxia, and psychobehavioral adverse events. Use of intravenous BRV with bolus injection of 200-300 mg in two females with absence status epilepticus was well tolerated, but did not result in cessation of status epilepticus. SIGNIFICANCE: Use of BRV in GGE is well tolerated, and 50% responder rates are similar to those observed in the regulatory trials for focal epilepsies. An immediate switch from levetiracetam (LEV) to BRV at a ratio of 15:1 is feasible. The occurrence of psychobehavioral adverse events seems less prominent than under LEV, and a switch to BRV can be considered in patients with LEV-induced adverse events.

Postmarketing experience with brivaracetam in the treatment of epilepsies: A multicenter cohort study from Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors predicting efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruiting all patients who started BRV between February and November 2016 with observation time between 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: Of a total of 262 patients (mean age 40, range 5-81 years, 129 male) treated with BRV, 227 (87%) were diagnosed to have focal, 19 (7%) idiopathic generalized and 8 (3%) symptomatic generalized epilepsy, whereas 8 (3%) were unclassified. The length of exposure to BRV ranged from 1 day to 12 months, with a median retention time of 6.1 months, resulting in a total exposure time to BRV of 1,504 months. The retention rate was 79.4% at 3 months and 75.8% at 6 months. Efficacy at 3 months was 41.2% (50% responder rate) with 14.9% seizure-free for 3 months and, at 6 months, 40.5% with 15.3% seizure-free. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 37.8% of the patients, with the most common being somnolence, dizziness, and behavioral adverse events (BAEs). BAE that presented under previous levetiracetam (LEV) treatment improved upon switch to BRV in 57.1% (20/35) and LEV-induced somnolence improved in 70.8% (17/24). Patients with BAE on LEV were more likely to develop BAE on BRV (odds ratio [OR] 3.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53-7.95). SIGNIFICANCE: BRV in broad clinical postmarketing use is a well-tolerated anticonvulsant drug with 50% responder rates, similar to those observed in the regulatory trials, even though 90% of the patients included had previously been exposed to LEV. An immediate switch from LEV to BRV at a ratio of 10:1 to 15:1 is feasible. The only independent significant predictor of efficacy was the start of BRV in patients not currently taking LEV. The occurrence of BAE during previous LEV exposure predicted poor psychobehavioral tolerability of BRV treatment. A switch to BRV can be considered in patients with LEV-induced BAE.

Dalfampridine effects on cognition, fatigue, and dexterity.

OBJECTIVES: Dalfampridine exerts beneficial effects on walking ability in a subgroup of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). These patients are termed "responders". Here, we investigated whether the responder status with respect to mobility measures would determine whether dalfampridine treatment exerts a beneficial effect on other MS symptoms. We therefore assessed walking ability, upper limb function, cognition, fatigue, visual evoked potentials (VEPs), depression, and quality of life in patients before and after dalfampridine treatment. METHODS: Patients with MS and impaired mobility were recruited. Maximal walking distance, timed 25 Foot Walk, nine hole peg test, paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), fatigue severity scale (FSS), VEPs, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), EuroQol five dimensional questionnaire, and quality of life visual analogue scale were determined before and after 12-14 days of dalfampridine treatment. Repeated measures analysis of variance was applied to determine the effect of dalfampridine treatment. RESULTS: Of the 34 patients who completed the study, 22 patients were responders and 12 patients nonresponders, according to their performance in mobility measures. Treatment effects for the entire patient cohort were observed for PASAT (p = .029) and BDI (p = .032). Belonging to the responder cohort did not predict the response to treatment in these tests. For the FSS, response to dalfampridine treatment was dependent on the responder status (p = .001) while no effects in the total patient cohort were observed (p = .680). Other neurological functions remained unaltered. For VEP latencies, no significant improvements were detected. CONCLUSION: In this study, we observed beneficial effects of dalfampridine on cognition, depression, and fatigue. These effects were not limited to patients who responded to dalfampridine with improved mobility measures. These findings underscore the need to assess the beneficial effects of dalfampridine on neurological deficits in MS patients in additional randomized clinical trials.