How future surgery will benefit from SARS-COV-2-related measures: a SPIGC survey conveying the perspective of Italian surgeons

COVID-19 negatively affected surgical activity, but the potential benefits resulting from adopted measures remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in surgical activity and potential benefit from COVID-19 measures in perspective of Italian surgeons on behalf of SPIGC. A nationwide online survey on surgical practice before, during, and after COVID-19 pandemic was conducted in March-April 2022 (NCT:05323851). Effects of COVID-19 hospital-related measures on surgical patients' management and personal professional development across surgical specialties were explored. Data on demographics, pre-operative/peri-operative/post-operative management, and professional development were collected. Outcomes were matched with the corresponding volume. Four hundred and seventy-three respondents were included in final analysis across 14 surgical specialties. Since SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, application of telematic consultations (4.1% vs. 21.6%; p < 0.0001) and diagnostic evaluations (16.4% vs. 42.2%; p < 0.0001) increased. Elective surgical activities significantly reduced and surgeons opted more frequently for conservative management with a possible indication for elective (26.3% vs. 35.7%; p < 0.0001) or urgent (20.4% vs. 38.5%; p < 0.0001) surgery. All new COVID-related measures are perceived to be maintained in the future. Surgeons' personal education online increased from 12.6% (pre-COVID) to 86.6% (post-COVID; p < 0.0001). Online educational activities are considered a beneficial effect from COVID pandemic (56.4%). COVID-19 had a great impact on surgical specialties, with significant reduction of operation volume. However, some forced changes turned out to be benefits. Isolation measures pushed the use of telemedicine and telemetric devices for outpatient practice and favored communication for educational purposes and surgeon-patient/family communication. From the Italian surgeons' perspective, COVID-related measures will continue to influence future surgical clinical practice

Clinical Perception and Treatment Options for Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD) in Italy

Background: Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) have a high prevalence, and their presence is associated with a severe impact in terms of social costs. However, dedicated clinical tools or biomarkers to detect these symptoms are lacking. Thus, BPSD management in clinical settings is challenging. The aim of this study was to investigate the perception and the treatment strategies for BPSD in Italian centers working in the dementia field. Methods: A multicenter, national survey was developed by BPSD Study Group of the Italian Neurological Society for Dementia (SINDEM). The survey consisted of a semi-structured questionnaire that was e-mailed to SINDEM members, dementia centers part of the national network of memory clinics (Centers for Cognitive Deterioration and Dementia [CDCD]), and clinicians working in dementia care settings. The questions were focused on (1) perceived global frequency and relevance of BPSD; (2) tools used to assess BPSD; (3) pharmacological treatment for psychosis, apathy, agitation, aggression, depression, anxiety, sleep, and nutrition disturbances; (4) non-pharmacological treatments; (5) drugs side effects. Results: One-hundred and thirty-six clinicians participated in this study. Seventy-nine participants worked in a CDCD and 57 in other settings. The perceived frequency of BPSD was 74%. BPSD are detected by means of a clinical assessment for 96.3% or a caregiver interview for 97%. For psychosis treatment the first choice was atypical antipsychotics (83.3%), followed by typical antipsychotic (8.9%) and antidepressants (4.8%). For agitation, atypical antipsychotics were the first-choice treatment in 64% of cases and antidepressants in 16.1%. For aggression, the most used drugs were atypical antipsychotics (82.9%). For anxiety, 55.2% use antidepressants, 17.9% use atypical antipsychotics, and 16.9% use benzodiazepines. Interestingly, most of the centers apply non-pharmacological treatments for BPSD. Some differences emerged comparing the responses from CDCD and other care settings. Conclusion: The survey results revealed many differences in BPSD perception, treatment options, and observed side effect according to the clinical setting. This variability can be explained by the absence of clear guidelines, by differences in patients' characteristics, and by clinical practice based on subjective experience. These results suggest that producing guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of BPSD is a major need

The Impact of COVID-19 Quarantine on Patients With Dementia and Family Caregivers: A Nation-Wide Survey

Introduction: Previous studies showed that quarantine for pandemic diseases is associated with several psychological and medical effects. The consequences of quarantine for COVID-19 pandemic in patients with dementia are unknown. We investigated the clinical changes in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, and evaluated caregivers’ distress during COVID-19 quarantine. Methods: The study involved 87 Italian Dementia Centers. Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB), Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD), and Vascular Dementia (VD) were eligible for the study. Family caregivers of patients with dementia were interviewed by phone in April 2020, 45 days after quarantine declaration. Main outcomes were patients’ changes in cognitive, behavioral, and motor symptoms. Secondary outcomes were effects on caregivers’ psychological features. Results: 4913 patients (2934 females, 1979 males) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Caregivers reported a worsening in cognitive functions in 55.1% of patients, mainly in subjects with DLB and AD. Aggravation of behavioral symptoms was observed in 51.9% of patients. In logistic regression analysis, previous physical independence was associated with both cognitive and behavioral worsening (odds ratio 1.85 [95% CI 1.42–2.39], 1.84 [95% CI 1.43–2.38], respectively). On the contrary, pandemic awareness was a protective factor for the worsening of cognitive and behavioral symptoms (odds ratio 0.74 [95% CI 0.65–0.85]; and 0.72 [95% CI 0.63–0.82], respectively). Approximately 25.9% of patients showed the onset of new behavioral symptoms. A worsening in motor function was reported by 36.7% of patients. Finally, caregivers reported a high increase in anxiety, depression, and distress. Conclusion: Our study shows that quarantine for COVID-19 is associated with an acute worsening of clinical symptoms in patients with dementia as well as increase of caregivers’ burden. Our findings emphasize the importance to implement new strategies to mitigate the effects of quarantine in patients with dementia

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