An international multicenter randomized double-blind controlled trial of lamotrigine and sustained-release carbamazepine in the treatment of newly diagnosed epilepsy in the elderly

Purpose: To assess the comparative effectiveness, efficacy, and tolerability of lamotrigine (LTG) and sustained-release carbamazepine (CBZ) in the treatment of newly diagnosed epilepsy in the elderly. Methods: Patients aged 65 years or older, who had experienced at least two unprovoked partial and/or generalized tonic-clonic seizures, were randomized to receive LTG (n = 93) or CBZ (n = 92) according to a multicenter double-blind, parallel-group design. Trial duration was 40 weeks and included a 4-week dose escalation followed by a maintenance phase during which dosages could be adjusted according to response. Initial, maintenance and maximum dosages were 25 mg, 100 mg, and 500 mg per day for LTG, and 100 mg, 400 mg, and 2,000 mg per day for CBZ, respectively. The primary end point was retention in the trial. Results: In the LTG group, 68 patients (73%) completed the 40-week study period compared with 61 (67%) in the CBZ group, a nonsignificant difference. Time to withdrawal from any cause did not differ between groups (p = 0.34). The number of subjects who completed the 40-week period and were seizure free in the last 20 weeks was 48 (52%) in the LTG group and 52 (57%) in the CBZ group. Adverse events leading to withdrawal occurred in 13 (14%) subjects in the LTG group and 23 (25%) subjects in the CBZ group. Conclusion: LTG and CBZ showed comparable effectiveness, with a trend for higher seizure-free rates for CBZ and better tolerability for LTG. Differences in outcome compared with previous trials may be related to different dosing rates and use of a sustained-release formulation for CBZ

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

Aim The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. Methods This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. Results Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusion One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease