The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95–1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83–1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08–1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319–1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110–1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5–12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0–94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96–1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of −0·040 (95% central range −0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Interpretation: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Resilience and recovery in neurosurgical residency: Unpacking lessons from video game mechanics

Introduction: Neurosurgical residency is a challenging journey demanding cognitive acuity and resilience, mirrored strikingly in the dynamics of video gaming. Gaming concepts of Down-But-Not-Out (DBNO), Heal-over-Time (HoT), and Damage-over-Time (DoT) can serve as compelling analogues to elements of neurosurgical training. Material and methods: An innovative, cross-disciplinary methodology was implemented, blending elements of autoethnography, personal reflective narrative, and comprehensive literary review. The cornerstone of this approach was an experiential reflective analysis, where two neurosurgical residents critically examined the parallels between their residency experiences and video game mechanics, thereby applying a lens of heuristic introspection to their professional journey. Complementing this, a comprehensive narrative synthesis of existing literature on resilience, wellness, and stress in neurosurgical residency training was conducted. Results: The DBNO concept parallels the resilience demonstrated by neurosurgical residents, emphasizing the importance of a supportive network. The HoT concept, analogous to wellness practices, underscores the incremental restoration of energy necessary for maintaining stamina in neurosurgery training. The DoT concept symbolizes the need to manage the often insidious and deleterious effects of chronic stress on residents' wellbeing. Discussion and conclusion: These gaming concepts provide an integrative framework for understanding the challenges faced and strategies employed in neurosurgical residency. The interplay between resilience, wellness practices, and effective stress management, represented by DBNO, HoT, and DoT respectively, is critical for maintaining health and fostering professional excellence. By embedding these metaphors within the training paradigm, the neurosurgical residency journey can be navigated more effectively, promoting not only professional success but also personal growth and wellbeing

Survey on training satisfaction among German neurosurgical trainees

The Ethics of Waiting lists and Rationing access to care (Ethics Parallel Session), September 26, 2023, 4:50 PM - 6:20 PM Background: There has been a fivefold increase of neurosurgeons over the last three decades in Germany, despite a lesser increase in operations. Currently, there are approximately 1000 neurosurgical residents employed at training hospitals. Little is known about the overall training experience and career opportunities for these trainees. Methods: In our role as resident representatives, we implemented a mailing list for interested German neurosurgical trainees. Thereafter, we created a survey including 25 items to assess the trainees’ satisfaction with their training and their perceived career prospects, which we then distributed through the mailing list. The survey was open from 1st April until 31st May 2021. Results: 90 trainees were enrolled in the mailing list and we received 81 completed responses to our survey. Overall, 47% of trainees were very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with their training. 62% of trainees reported a lack of surgical training. 58% of trainees found it difficult to attend courses or classes and only 16% had consistent mentoring. There was an expressed desire for a more structured training programme and mentoring projects. In addition, 88% of trainees were willing to relocate for fellowships outside their current hospitals. Conclusions: Half of the responders were dissatisfied with their neurosurgical training. There are various aspects that require improvement, such as the training curriculum, the lack of structured mentoring and the amount of administrative work. We propose the implementation of a modernized structured curriculum, which addresses the mentioned aspects, in order to improve neurosurgical training and, consecutively, patient care

The impact of mental health on health-related quality of life in patients with NF2-related Schwannomatosis

Abstract NF2-related schwannomatosis (NF2-SWN) is a rare genetic disorder and is associated with progressive morbidities. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between NF2-SWN disease severity, health-related Quality of Life (QoL), and mental health aspects of patients. Standardised questionnaires assessing mental health problems (symptoms of depression, anxiety, and somatic burden), psychological factors (resilience, loneliness, and personality functioning), and health-related QoL were administered to 97 patients with NF2-SWN. The results of these questionnaires were compared with physician-rated disease severity. Questionnaires were completed by 77 patients. Physician-rated disease severity scores were available for 55 patients. NF2-SWN patients showed a high prevalence of clinically relevant symptoms of depression (30%), anxiety (16%), and somatic burden (32%). Almost all variables showed moderate to high correlations with NF2-SWN-related QoL. NF2-SWN-related QoL was associated with physician-reported disease severity (r = 0.614). In the stepwise hierarchical linear regression analysis, a significant model with four predictors (disease severity type, depression symptoms, personality functioning, and gender) explained 64% of the variance in NF2-SWN-related QoL. Our results showed a strong association between NF2-SWN-related QoL and depression symptoms. Moreover, personality functioning is an important influencing factor, representing a modifiable construct that can be targeted by prevention programs or psychotherapy

The role of neuromuscular ultrasound in diagnostics of peripheral neuropathies induced by cytostatic agents or immunotherapies

Abstract A relevant number of cancer patients who receive potentially neurotoxic cytostatic agents develop a chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy over time. Moreover, the increasing use of immunotherapies and targeted agents leads to a raising awareness of treatment-associated peripheral neurotoxicity, e.g., axonal and demyelinating neuropathies such as Guillain–Barré-like syndromes. To date, the differentiation of these phenomena from concurrent neurological co-morbidities or (para-)neoplastic nerve affection as well as their longitudinal monitoring remain challenging. Neuromuscular ultrasound (NMUS) is an established diagnostic tool for peripheral neuropathies. Performed by specialized neurologists, it completes clinical and neurophysiological diagnostics especially in differentiation of axonal and demyelinating neuropathies. No generally approved biomarkers of treatment-induced peripheral neurotoxicity have been established so far. NMUS might significantly extend the repertoire of diagnostic and neuromonitoring methods in this growing patient group in short term. In this article, we present enlargements of the dorsal roots both in cytostatic and in immunotherapy-induced neurotoxicity for the first time. We discuss related literature regarding new integrative applications of NMUS for cancer patients by reference to two representative case studies. Moreover, we demonstrate the integration of NMUS in a diagnostic algorithm for suspected peripheral neurotoxicity independently of a certain cancer treatment regimen emphasizing the emerging potential of NMUS for clinical routine in this interdisciplinary field and prospective clinical trials

Additional file 1 of The role of neuromuscular ultrasound in diagnostics of peripheral neuropathies induced by cytostatic agents or immunotherapies

Additional file 1. Table S1: Detailed NMUS measurements of the presented patients