Clinical pathways of epileptic seizures and status epilepticus: results from a survey in Italy

Objective: Patients with seizures or status epilepticus (SE) access the hospital through emergency departments and may be admitted into different wards according to the level of care required. Clinicians with different expertise are in charge of taking critical therapeutic decisions. To date, very few studies have investigated the stage at which these patients are referred to neurologists or epileptologists and how guideline recommendations are applied in clinical practice. Methods: A survey was used to investigate how patients with epileptic seizures or SE are managed in emergency and in subsequent hospital pathways in Italy. Results: One hundred and seventy-seven physicians (mainly neurologists) from all parts of Italy filled in a questionnaire. Less than half of the participants (35%) answered that, in their hospital, patients with epilepsy were managed by epileptologists. The percentages were lower for patients presenting with acute seizures (21%) or SE (16%). Diagnostic, therapeutic, and assistance pathways (PDTA) for patients presenting with seizure(s) or SE were available for both conditions in about 50% of cases, while, in the rest of the hospitals, participants indicated informal agreements (about 25% of cases) or lack of any agreement (about 25% of cases) between clinicians. Professionals more often involved in PDTA were epileptologists/neurologists, emergency physicians, and intensivists. More than half ot the participants (55%) thought that organizational issues are the most important criticalities for such patients and need to be improved (61%). Significance: There is a high variability in hospital clinical pathways for epilepsy in Italy

Inherited neuromuscular disorders: Which role for serum biomarkers?

Inherited neuromuscular disorders (INMD) are a heterogeneous group of rare diseases that involve muscles, motor neurons, peripheral nerves or the neuromuscular junction. Several different lab abnormalities have been linked to INMD: sometimes they are typical of the disorder, but they usually appear to be less specific. Sometimes serum biomarkers can point out abnormalities in presymtomatic or otherwise asymptomatic patients (e.g., carriers). More often a biomarker of INMD is evaluated by multiple clinicians other than expert in NMD before the diagnosis, because of the multisystemic involvement in INMD. The authors performed a literature search on biomarkers in inherited neuromuscular disorders to provide a practical approach to the diagnosis and the correct management of INMD. A considerable number of biomarkers have been reported that support the diagnosis of INMD, but the role of an expert clinician is crucial. Hence, the complete knowledge of such abnormalities can accelerate the diagnostic workup supporting the referral to specialists in neuromuscular disorders

From transformation to chronification of migraine: Pathophysiological and clinical aspects

Chronic migraine is a neurological disorder characterized by 15 or more headache days per month of which at least 8 days show typical migraine features. The process that describes the development from episodic migraine into chronic migraine is commonly referred to as migraine transformation or chronification. Ample studies have attempted to identify factors associated with migraine transformation fr

From transformation to chronification of migraine : pathophysiological and clinical aspects

Chronic migraine is a neurological disorder characterized by 15 or more headache days per month of which at least 8 days show typical migraine features. The process that describes the development from episodic migraine into chronic migraine is commonly referred to as migraine transformation or chronification. Ample studies have attempted to identify factors associated with migraine transformation from different perspectives. Understanding CM as a pathological brain state with trigeminovascular participation where biological changes occur, we have completed a comprehensive review on the clinical, epidemiological, genetic, molecular, structural, functional, physiological and preclinical evidence available

Seizure precipitants (triggering factors) in patients with epilepsy.

AIM: adult epilepsy clinic population: (a) to identify the frequency of seizure precipitants (triggering factors) and their relative frequency in those with psychiatric disorders, and in those in remission or with active epilepsy, differences in frequency with regard to gender, seizure duration, number of drugs taken; (b) to determine which precipitants patients most commonly report; and (c) to identify differences in the distribution of precipitants among generalized, temporal, and extratemporal epilepsies. METHODS: Consecutive patients attending a tertiary-care epilepsy clinic were prospectively and an open personal interview to identify and characterize seizure precipitants. Information about the epilepsy and clinical characteristics of patients was collected during the interview and from medical records. RESULTS: Of 104 patients, 97% cited at least one precipitant. Stress, sleep deprivation, and fatigue were the most frequently reported precipitants. Patients with psychological comorbidities reported a greater percentage of seizures with seizure precipitants. Patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy seemed to be more sensitive to seizures during awakening and sleep deprivation, patients with extratemporal epilepsy reported more frequent seizures during sleep. There were no differences in frequency or type of seizure precipitants with regard to gender, seizure duration or frequency, and the number of antiepileptic drugs taken. CONCLUSION: The findings may have implications for the better management of epilepsy by increasing a focus on nonpharmacological therapy. The implications of the findings for nosology and causation of epilepsy are also briefly discussed

What can we learn from status epilepticus registries?

There is a remarkable dearth of information about the various therapies used, often widely so, to control refractory or super-refractory status epilepticus despite its high mortality and morbidity. As pointed out by recent literature reviews, there are no controlled studies, and information is based almost entirely on open, often small and retrospective, case series or case reports. Randomized or controlled studies that are sufficiently powered are not feasible in relation to the many therapies and treatment approaches available. For this reason, we proposed an international case registry of therapies used in refractory and super-refractory cases and their outcome. Clinicians from different countries will be asked to complete an online questionnaire when they treat a patient with refractory or super-refractory status epilepticus. Information gathered from this database will summarize the spectrum of etiologies, treatments, and outcomes of this challenging condition and may even form the bases for treatment guidelines or future targeted treatment trials

The outcome of therapies in refractory and super-refractory convulsive status epilepticus and recommendations for therapy.

In a previous paper, we reviewed the range of therapies available for the treatment of super-refractory status epilepticus. Here we report a review of the outcome of therapies in refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus. Patients (n\u2009=\u20091168) are reported who had therapy with: thiopental, pentobarbital, midazolam, propofol, ketamine, inhalational anaesthetics (isoflurane, desflurane), antiepileptic drugs (topiramate, lacosamide, pregabalin, levetiracetam), hypothermia, magnesium, pyridoxine, immunotherapy, ketogenic diet, emergency neurosurgery, electroconvulsive therapy, cerebrospinal fluid drainage, vagal nerve stimulation and deep brain stimulation. The outcome parameters reported include control of status epilepticus, relapse on withdrawal, breakthrough seizures and mortality. Where reported (596 cases), the long-term outcome was found to be death (35%), severe neurological deficit (13%), mild neurological deficit (13%), undefined deficit (4%) and recovery to baseline (35%). The quality of reported outcome data is generally poor and the number of cases reported for all non-anaesthetic therapies is low. Outcome assessment is complicated by changes in co-medication, delay in response and publication bias. Given these deficits, only broad recommendations can be made regarding optimal therapy. An approach to therapy, divided into first-line, second-line and third-line therapy, is suggested on the basis of this outcome evaluation. The importance of treatments directed at the cause of the status epilepticus, and of supportive ITU care is also emphasized