The social cognition of medical knowledge, with special reference to childhood epilepsy

This paper arose out of an engagement in medical communication courses at a Gulf university. It deploys a theoretical framework derived from a (critical) sociocognitive approach to discourse analysis in order to investigate three aspects of medical discourse relating to childhood epilepsy: the cognitive processes that are entailed in relating different types of medical knowledge to their communicative context; the types of medical knowledge that are constituted in the three different text types analysed; and the relationship between these different types of medical knowledge and the discursive features of each text type. The paper argues that there is a cognitive dimension to the human experience of understanding and talking about one specialized from of medical knowledge. It recommends that texts be studied in medical communication courses not just in terms of their discrete formal features but also critically, in terms of the knowledge which they produce, transmit and reproduce

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs

BackgroundLevetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesTo compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy.DesignTwo pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel.SettingOutpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK.ParticipantsThose aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication.InterventionsParticipants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.ResultsFocal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective.LimitationsThe SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions.Future workSANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel.ConclusionsFocal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Emergency treatment with levetiracetam or phenytoin in status epilepticus in children-the EcLiPSE study: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

© The Author(s). 2017. Background: Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is the most common life-threatening neurological emergency in childhood. These children are also at risk of significant morbidity, with acute and chronic impact on the family and the health and social care systems. The current recommended first-choice, second-line treatment in children aged 6 months and above is intravenous phenytoin (fosphenytoin in the USA), although there is a lack of evidence for its use and it is associated with significant side effects. Emerging evidence suggests that intravenous levetiracetam may be effective as a second-line agent for CSE, and fewer adverse effects have been described. This trial therefore aims to determine whether intravenous phenytoin or levetiracetam is more effective, and safer, in treating childhood CSE. Methods/design: This is a phase IV, multi-centre, parallel group, randomised controlled, open-label trial. Following treatment for CSE with first-line treatment, children with ongoing seizures are randomised to receive either phenytoin (20 mg/kg, maximum 2 g) or levetiracetam (40 mg/kg, maximum 2.5 g) intravenously. The primary outcome measure is the cessation of all visible signs of CSE as determined by the treating clinician. Secondary outcome measures include the need for further anti-seizure medications or rapid sequence induction for ongoing CSE, admission to critical care areas, and serious adverse reactions. Patients are recruited without prior consent, with deferred consent sought at an appropriate time for the family. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat. The primary outcome is a time to event outcome and a sample size of 140 participants in each group will have 80% power to detect an increase in CSE cessation rates from 60% to 75%. Our total sample size of 308 randomised and treated participants will allow for 10% loss to follow-up. Discussion: This clinical trial will determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam is more effective as an intravenous second-line agent for CSE, and provide evidence for management recommendations. In addition, this trial will also provide data on which of these therapies is safer in this setting

Levetiracetam as an alternative to phenytoin for second-line emergency treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus: the EcLiPSE RCT.

BACKGROUND:Convulsive status epilepticus is the most common neurological emergency in children. Its management is important to avoid or minimise neurological morbidity and death. The current first-choice second-line drug is phenytoin (Epanutin, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), for which there is no robust scientific evidence. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam (Keppra, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) is the more clinically effective intravenous second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus and to help better inform its management. DESIGN:A multicentre parallel-group randomised open-label superiority trial with a nested mixed-method study to assess recruitment and research without prior consent. SETTING:Participants were recruited from 30 paediatric emergency departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS:Participants aged 6 months to 17 years 11 months, who were presenting with convulsive status epilepticus and were failing to respond to first-line treatment. INTERVENTIONS:Intravenous levetiracetam (40 mg/kg) or intravenous phenytoin (20 mg/kg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome - time from randomisation to cessation of all visible signs of convulsive status epilepticus. Secondary outcomes - further anticonvulsants to manage the convulsive status epilepticus after the initial agent, the need for rapid sequence induction owing to ongoing convulsive status epilepticus, admission to critical care and serious adverse reactions. RESULTS:Between 17 July 2015 and 7 April 2018, 286 participants were randomised, treated and consented. A total of 152 participants were allocated to receive levetiracetam and 134 participants to receive phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) participants who were allocated to levetiracetam and 86 (64%) participants who were allocated to phenytoin. Median time from randomisation to convulsive status epilepticus cessation was 35 (interquartile range 20-not assessable) minutes in the levetiracetam group and 45 (interquartile range 24-not assessable) minutes in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.60; p = 0.2). Results were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses, including time from treatment commencement to convulsive status epilepticus termination and competing risks. One phenytoin-treated participant experienced serious adverse reactions. LIMITATIONS:First, this was an open-label trial. A blinded design was considered too complex, in part because of the markedly different infusion rates of the two drugs. Second, there was subjectivity in the assessment of 'cessation of all signs of continuous, rhythmic clonic activity' as the primary outcome, rather than fixed time points to assess convulsive status epilepticus termination. However, site training included simulated demonstration of seizure cessation. Third, the time point of randomisation resulted in convulsive status epilepticus termination prior to administration of trial treatment in some cases. This affected both treatment arms equally and had been prespecified at the design stage. Last, safety measures were a secondary outcome, but the trial was not powered to demonstrate difference in serious adverse reactions between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS:Levetiracetam was not statistically superior to phenytoin in convulsive status epilepticus termination rate, time taken to terminate convulsive status epilepticus or frequency of serious adverse reactions. The results suggest that it may be an alternative to phenytoin in the second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. Simple trial design, bespoke site training and effective leadership were found to facilitate practitioner commitment to the trial and its success. We provide a framework to optimise recruitment discussions in paediatric emergency medicine trials. FUTURE WORK:Future work should include a meta-analysis of published studies and the possible sequential use of levetiracetam and phenytoin or sodium valproate in the second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22567894 and European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT number 2014-002188-13. FUNDING:This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide versus standard treatments for epilepsy: a comparison of standard and new antiepileptic drugs (SANAD-II)

Introduction: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Over the past 20 years, a number of new drugs have been approved for National Health Service (NHS) use on the basis of information from short-term trials that demonstrate efficacy. These trials do not provide information about the longer term outcomes, which inform treatment policy. This trial will assess the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the newer treatment levetiracetam and zonisamide. Methods and analysis: This is a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing new and standard treatments for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Arm A of the trial randomised 990 patients with focal epilepsy to standard AED lamotrigine or new AED levetiracetam or zonisamide. Arm B randomised 520 patients with generalised epilepsy to standard AED sodium valproate or new AED levetiracetam. Patients are recruited from UK NHS outpatient epilepsy, general neurology and paediatric clinics. Included patients are aged 5 years or older with two or more spontaneous seizures requiring AED monotherapy, who are not previously treated with AEDs. Patients are followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is time to 12-month remission from seizures. Secondary outcomes include time to treatment failure (including due to inadequate seizure control or unacceptable adverse reactions); time to first seizure; time to 24-month remission; adverse reactions and quality of life. All primary analyses will be on an intention to treat basis. Separate analyses will be undertaken for each arm. Health economic analysis will be conducted from the perspective of the NHS to assess the cost-effectiveness of each AED. Ethics and dissemination: This trial has been approved by the North West-Liverpool East REC (Ref. 12/NW/0361). The trial team will disseminate the results through scientific meetings, peer-reviewed publications and patient and public involvement. Trial registration numbers: EudraCT 2012-001884-64; ISRCTN30294119

Deep Herschel view of obscured star formation in the Bullet cluster

We use deep, five band (100–500 μm) data from the Herschel Lensing Survey (HLS) to fully constrain the obscured star formation rate, SFRFIR, of galaxies in the Bullet cluster (z = 0.296), and a smaller background system (z = 0.35) in the same field. Herschel detects 23 Bullet cluster members with a total SFRFIR = 144±14 yr-1. On average, the background system contains brighter far-infrared (FIR) galaxies, with ~50% higher SFRFIR (21 galaxies; 207± 9 yr-1). SFRs extrapolated from 24 μm flux via recent templates (SFR24 µm) agree well with SFRFIR for ~60% of the cluster galaxies. In the remaining ~40%, SFR24 µm underestimates SFRFIR due to a significant excess in observed S100/S24 (rest frame S75/S18) compared to templates of the same FIR luminosity