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.

People with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and their caregivers: what matters most?

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to collect the perspectives and values of people affected by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and their carers to offer clinicians, researchers and policymakers aspects which are precious in prioritising future research questions and reshaping care service organisations in a participatory approach. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study using ALS Umbria, the electronic database in Italy. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven patients and 33 carers who agreed to participate in the study were divided into six focus groups by 'status' (patient or carer) and by four severity levels of 'burden of disease'. METHODS: A semiquantitative analysis was undertaken. Each recorded group discussion was transcribed into text file and independently read by two psychologists and two ALS specialists to blindly identify needs, emotions and medical issues, which are the key semantic meanings expressed. Any disagreement in interpretation was resolved through consultation among authors. RESULTS: Carers pronounced significantly more words related to patient's disease burden they cared. 40% of subjects expressed the need for 'assistance', regardless of the disease burden. 'Anger' alone represented more than 1/4 of all expressed emotions and was more common in patients than in carers (73% vs 36%, p=0.077). The most frequent medical issue expressed by 1/3 of participants was 'difficulty in communication'. CONCLUSION: This study has given voice to the expectations of those affected by the burden of ALS. 'Welfare assistance', 'anger management' and resolution of 'difficulties in communication' represent issues that need to be analysed in a common prioritised research agenda with sensible and shared outcome measures to implement patient-centred medicine.

Is it worth it, or possible, to measure what matters to patients with epilepsy and their caregivers?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to collect perspectives, ideas, and values of people affected by epilepsy and their carer to include them in new research in this area. DESIGN: This is a semiquantitative study analyzing needs, emotions, and medical issues emerging from focus groups with patients and carers divided in three severity levels of disease. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were 25 patients and 36 carers attending outpatients' service of tertiary epilepsy center in Umbria, Italy. RESULTS: Assistance was the need expressed by more than 40% of the participants followed by experience-sharing, knowledge, control, clarity, and security. The only significant effect in logistic regression analysis after adjusting for severity was the patients' expressed need for "experience-sharing" more than their carers (OR 7.29, 95%CI: 1.76-30.18). Hope was the emotion expressed by more than 50% of the participants, followed by anger, fear, and resignation. After adjusting for severity, carers were more likely to express anger, in comparison with patients (OR 17.23, 95%CI: 3.55-83.74; P<0.001). The patients were 6.88 times more likely (95%CI 1.84-25.75; P=0.004) to express "resignation" than their carers. The most frequent medical issues were related to: "medications", "frequency of crises", "work impact", "quality of life", "psychomedical integration of care", and "development of new drugs". After adjusting for severity in a logistic regression analysis, patients were more likely to express concerns for the frequency of crises than carers (OR 3.57, 95%CI: 1.16-11.04; P=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' and carers' priorities, based on intense personal insight, represent a starting point to work for shared outcome measures in clinical trials and shared agenda in research, including research of strong evidence in complex intervention as service models for people with epilepsy.