Effectiveness of Perampanel as the Only Add-on: Retrospective, Multicenter, Observational Real Life Study on epilepsy patients.

Objective: Perampanel (PER) is indicated as adjunctive antiseizure medication (ASM) in adolescents and adults with epilepsy. Data from clinical trials show good efficacy and tolerability, while limited information is available on the routine clinical use of PER, especially when used as only add-on treatment. Methods: we performed an observational, retrospective, multicenter study on people with focal or generalized epilepsy aged >12 years, consecutively recruited from 52 Italian epilepsy centers. All patients received PER as the only add-on treatment to a background ASM according to standard clinical practice. Retention rate, seizure frequency and adverse events were recorded at 3, 6 and 12 months after PER introduction. Sub-analyses by early or late use of PER and by concomitant ASM were also conducted. Results: 503 patients were included (age 36.5±19.9 years). Eighty-one per cent had focal epilepsy. Overall, the retention rate was very high in the whole group (89% at 12 months) according with efficacy measures. No major differences were observed in the sub-analyses, although patients who used PER as early add-on, as compared with late add-on, more often reached early seizure freedom at 3 months follow-up (66% vs. 53%, p=0.05). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 25%, far less commonly than in PER randomized trials. Significance: this study confirms the good efficacy and safety of PER for focal or generalized epilepsy in real-life conditions. We provide robust data about its effectiveness as only add-on treatment even in patients with a long-standing history of epilepsy and previously treated with many ASMs

Divergence Between Clinical Trial Evidence and Actual Practice in Use of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Stroke

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) proved that short-term (21-90 days) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces the risk of early ischemic recurrences after a noncardioembolic minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) without substantially increasing the hemorrhagic risk. We aimed at understanding whether and how real-world use of DAPT differs from RCTs. Methods: READAPT (Real-Life Study on Short-Term Dual Antiplatelet Treatment in Patients With Ischemic Stroke or TIA) is a prospective cohort study including >18-year-old patients treated with DAPT after a noncardioembolic minor ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA from 51 Italian centers. The study comprises a 90-day follow-up from symptom onset. In the present work, we reported descriptive statistics of baseline data of patients recruited up to July 31, 2022, and proportions of patients who would have been excluded from RCTs. We compared categorical data through the χ² test. Results: We evaluated 1070 patients, who had 72 (interquartile range, 62-79) years median age, were mostly Caucasian (1045; 97.7%), and were men (711; 66.4%). Among the 726 (67.9%) patients with ischemic stroke, 226 (31.1%) did not meet the RCT inclusion criteria because of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score >3 and 50 (6.9%) because of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score >5. Among the 344 (32.1%) patients with TIA, 69 (19.7%) did not meet the RCT criteria because of age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of TIA, presence of diabetes score <4 and 252 (74.7%) because of age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of TIA, presence of diabetes score <6 and no symptomatic arterial stenosis. Additionally, 144 (13.5%) patients would have been excluded because of revascularization procedures. Three hundred forty-five patients (32.2%) did not follow the RCT procedures because of late (>24 hours) DAPT initiation; 776 (72.5%) and 676 (63.2%) patients did not take loading doses of aspirin and clopidogrel, respectively. Overall, 84 (7.8%) patients met the RCT inclusion/exclusion criteria. Conclusions: The real-world use of DAPT is broader than RCTs. Most patients did not meet the RCT criteria because of the severity of ischemic stroke, lower risk of TIA, late DAPT start, or lack of antiplatelet loading dose. Registration: URL: https://www. Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT05476081

Brivaracetam as add-on treatment in patients with post-stroke epilepsy: real-world data from the BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk Study (BRIVAFIRST)

Objective: Post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) is one of the most common causes of acquired epilepsy and accounts for about 10-15% of all newly diagnosed epilepsy cases. However, evidence about the clinical profile of antiseizure medications in the PSE setting is currently limited. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a rationally developed compound characterized by high-affinity binding to synaptic vesicle protein 2A. The aim of this study was to assess the 12-month effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive BRV in patients with PSE treated in a real-world setting. Methods: This was a subgroup analysis of patients with PSE included in the BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk Study (BRIVAFIRST). The BRIVAFIRST was a 12-month retrospective, multicentre study including adult patients prescribed adjunctive BRV. Effectiveness outcomes included the rates of seizure response (≥50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency), seizure-freedom, and treatment discontinuation. Safety and tolerability outcomes included the rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) and the incidence of AEs. Results: Patients with PSE included in the BRIVAFIRST were 75 and had a median age of 57 (interquartile range, 42-66) years. The median daily doses of BRV at 3, 6, and 12 months from starting treatment were 100 (100-150) mg, 125 (100-200) mg and 100 (100-200) mg, respectively. At 12 months, 32 (42.7%) patients had a reduction in their baseline seizure frequency by at least 50%, and the seizure freedom rates was 26/75 (34.7%). During the 1-year study period, 10 (13.3%) patients discontinued BRV. The reasons of treatment withdrawal were insufficient efficacy in 6 (8.0%) patients and poor tolerability in 4 (5.3%) patients. Adverse events were reported by 13 (20.3%) patients and were rated as mild in 84.6% and moderate in 15.4% of cases. Significance: Adjunctive BRV was efficacious and generally well-tolerated when used in patients with PSE in clinical practice. Adjunctive BRV can be a suitable therapeutic option for patients with PSE

Sustained seizure freedom with adjunctive brivaracetam in patients with focal onset seizures

The maintenance of seizure control over time is a clinical priority in patients with epilepsy. The aim of this study was to assess the sustained seizure frequency reduction with adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in real-world practice. Patients with focal epilepsy prescribed add-on BRV were identified. Study outcomes included sustained seizure freedom and sustained seizure response, defined as a 100% and a >= 50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency that continued without interruption and without BRV withdrawal through the 12-month follow-up. Nine hundred ninety-four patients with a median age of 45 (interquartile range = 32-56) years were included. During the 1-year study period, sustained seizure freedom was achieved by 142 (14.3%) patients, of whom 72 (50.7%) were seizure-free from Day 1 of BRV treatment. Sustained seizure freedom was maintained for >= 6, >= 9, and 12 months by 14.3%, 11.9%, and 7.2% of patients from the study cohort. Sustained seizure response was reached by 383 (38.5%) patients; 236 of 383 (61.6%) achieved sustained >= 50% reduction in seizure frequency by Day 1, 94 of 383 (24.5%) by Month 4, and 53 of 383 (13.8%) by Month 7 up to Month 12. Adjunctive BRV was associated with sustained seizure frequency reduction from the first day of treatment in a subset of patients with uncontrolled focal epilepsy

Adjunctive Brivaracetam in Older Patients with Focal Seizures: Evidence from the BRIVAracetam add‑on First Italian netwoRk Study (BRIVAFIRST)

BACKGROUND: The management of epilepsy in older adults has become part of daily practice because of an aging population. Older patients with epilepsy represent a distinct and more vulnerable clinical group as compared with younger patients, and they are generally under-represented in randomized placebo-controlled trials. Real-world studies can therefore be a useful complement to characterize the drug's profile. Brivaracetam is a rationally developed compound characterized by high-affinity binding to synaptic vesicle protein 2A and approved as adjunctive therapy for focal seizures in adults with epilepsy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the 12-month effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam in older patients (≥65 years of age) with epilepsy treated in a real-world setting. METHODS: The BRIVAFIRST (BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk STudy) was a 12-month retrospective multicenter study including adult patients prescribed adjunctive brivaracetam. Effectiveness outcomes included the rates of seizure response (≥50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency), seizure freedom, and treatment discontinuation. Safety and tolerability outcomes included the rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events and the incidence of adverse events. Data were compared for patients aged ≥65 years of age ('older') vs those aged <65 years ('younger'). RESULTS: There were 1029 patients with focal epilepsy included in the study, of whom 111 (10.8%) were aged ≥65 years. The median daily dose of brivaracetam at 3 months was 100 [interquartile range, 100-175] mg in the older group and 100 [100-200] mg in the younger group (p = 0.036); it was 150 [100-200] mg in both groups either at 6 months (p = 0.095) or 12 months (p = 0.140). At 12 months, 49 (44.1%) older and 334 (36.4%) younger patients had a reduction in their baseline seizure frequency by at least 50% (p = 0.110), and the seizure freedom rates were 35/111 (31.5%) and 134/918 (14.6%) in older and younger groups, respectively (p < 0.001). During the 1-year study period, 20 (18.0%) patients in the older group and 245 (26.7%) patients in the younger group discontinued brivaracetam (p = 0.048). Treatment withdrawal because of insufficient efficacy was less common in older than younger patients [older: n = 7 (6.3%), younger: n = 152 (16.6%); p = 0.005]. Adverse events were reported by 24.2% of older patients and 30.8% of younger patients (p = 0.185); the most common adverse events were somnolence, nervousness and/or agitation, vertigo, and fatigue in both study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive brivaracetam was efficacious, had good tolerability, and no new or unexpected safety signals emerged when used to treat older patients with uncontrolled focal seizures in clinical practice. Adjunctive brivaracetam can be a suitable therapeutic option in this special population

The instruments used by the Italian centres for cognitive disorders and dementia to diagnose mild cognitive impairment (MCI)

Aims: The purpose of this study was to examine the tools used in Italy to diagnose mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: In collaboration with the Luigi Amaducci Research Consortium, the Italian Network of Alzheimer Evaluation Units prepared a questionnaire to describe how MCI is diagnosed in the Italian Centres for cognitive disorders and dementia (CCDD). Results: Most of the ninety-two CCDDs participating in the survey were located in hospitals (54.7%); large percentages were coordinated by neurologists (50.8%) and geriatricians (44.6%). Almost all (98.5%) used the Mini Mental State Examination to diagnose MCI; the Clock Drawing Test was also frequently used (83.9%). Other neuropsychological, imaging and biomarker tests were utilized less frequently and a wide diversity in the instruments used was noted. Conclusions: According to the results, diagnoses of MCI are based on a multitude of instruments, with major differences in the clinical assessment of geriatricians and neurologists. Standardized testing protocols, validated instruments and cut-off points need to be identified and adopted by the CCDDs for assessing MCI