A new clinico-pathological classification system for mesial temporal sclerosis

We propose a histopathological classification system for hippocampal cell loss in patients suffering from mesial temporal lobe epilepsies (MTLE). One hundred and seventy-eight surgically resected specimens were microscopically examined with respect to neuronal cell loss in hippocampal subfields CA1–CA4 and dentate gyrus. Five distinct patterns were recognized within a consecutive cohort of anatomically well-preserved surgical specimens. The first group comprised hippocampi with neuronal cell densities not significantly different from age matched autopsy controls [no mesial temporal sclerosis (no MTS); n = 34, 19%]. A classical pattern with severe cell loss in CA1 and moderate neuronal loss in all other subfields excluding CA2 was observed in 33 cases (19%), whereas the vast majority of cases showed extensive neuronal cell loss in all hippocampal subfields (n = 94, 53%). Due to considerable similarities of neuronal cell loss patterns and clinical histories, we designated these two groups as MTS type 1a and 1b, respectively. We further distinguished two atypical variants characterized either by severe neuronal loss restricted to sector CA1 (MTS type 2; n = 10, 6%) or to the hilar region (MTS type 3, n = 7, 4%). Correlation with clinical data pointed to an early age of initial precipitating injury (IPI < 3 years) as important predictor of hippocampal pathology, i.e. MTS type 1a and 1b. In MTS type 2, IPIs were documented at a later age (mean 6 years), whereas in MTS type 3 and normal appearing hippocampus (no MTS) the first event appeared beyond the age of 13 and 16 years, respectively. In addition, postsurgical outcome was significantly worse in atypical MTS, especially MTS type 3 with only 28% of patients having seizure relief after 1-year follow-up period, compared to successful seizure control in MTS types 1a and 1b (72 and 73%). Our classification system appears suitable for stratifying the clinically heterogeneous group of MTLE patients also with respect to postsurgical outcome studies

Fracture toughness variation induced by stress corrosion cracking of prestressing steels

The stress corrosion cracking process developing in metals is at present an unknown mechanism of deterioration. It is a surface process that implies a corrosion and stress synergy, but the most practical consequence is that stress corrosion cracking can modify the mechanical characteristics of the metal. Due to that it leads to brittle failures; it generally involves high level of uncertainty in the prediction. This research deals with steels for prestressed concrete and aims to show that the fracture toughness changes when the steel is susceptible to stress corrosion cracking, questioning the idea that the toughness is an intrinsic characteristic of the material. The reduction in the fracture toughness of prestressing steels when they are in contact with aggressive media, involves that the material, for the same stress level, may reach a fracture having a lower crack size. That means the material becomes less damage tolerant, which implies that it is necessary to develop techniques able to detect defects of smaller size, as for example, small notches, pits or superficial cracks.The authors wish to thank Ministerio de Fomento of Spain for the funding the accomplishment of the project Non-destructive methods and strategies for the control of the corrosion in pretested steels, the INGENIO 2010-CONSOLIDER project on Safety and durability of structures: SEDUREC and, specially, to Professor Gustavo Guinea (UPM).Peer reviewe

KOMET: an unblinded, randomised, two parallel-group, stratified trial comparing the effectiveness of levetiracetam with controlled-release carbamazepine and extended-release sodium valproate as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) with extended-release sodium valproate (VPA-ER) and controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. METHODS: This unblinded, randomised, 52-week superiority trial (NCT00175903) recruited patients (≥16 years of age) with ≥2 unprovoked seizures in the previous 2 years and ≥1 in the previous 6 months. The physician chose VPA or CBZ as preferred standard treatment; each patient was randomised to standard treatment or LEV. The primary outcome was time to treatment withdrawal (LEV vs standard antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)). Analyses also compared LEV with VPA-ER, and LEV with CBZ-CR. FINDINGS: 1688 patients (mean age 41 years; 44% female) were randomised to LEV (n=841) or standard AEDs (n=847). Time to treatment withdrawal was not significantly different between LEV and standard AEDs: HR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.74 to 1.08). Time to treatment withdrawal (HR (95% CI)) was 1.02 (0.74 to 1.41) for LEV/VPA-ER and 0.84 (0.66 to 1.07) for LEV/CBZ-CR. Time to first seizure (HR, 95% CI) was significantly longer for standard AEDs, 1.20 (1.03 to 1.39), being 1.19 (0.93 to 1.54) for LEV/VPA-ER and 1.20 (0.99 to 1.46) for LEV/CBZ-CR. Estimated 12-month seizure freedom rates from randomisation: 58.7% LEV versus 64.5% VPA-ER; 50.5% LEV versus 56.7% CBZ-CR. Similar proportions of patients within each stratum reported at least one adverse event: 66.1% LEV versus 62.0% VPA-ER; 73.4% LEV versus 72.5% CBZ-CR. CONCLUSIONS: LEV monotherapy was not superior to standard AEDs for the global outcome, namely time to treatment withdrawal, in patients with newly diagnosed focal or generalised seizures.status: publishe

KOMET: an unblinded, randomised, two parallel-group, stratified trial comparing the effectiveness of levetiracetam with controlled-release carbamazepine and extended-release sodium valproate as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy

Objective To compare the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) with extended-release sodium valproate (VPA-ER) and controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Methods This unblinded, randomised, 52-week superiority trial (NCT00175903) recruited patients (≥16 years of age) with ≥2 unprovoked seizures in the previous 2 years and ≥1 in the previous 6 months. The physician chose VPA or CBZ as preferred standard treatment; each patient was randomised to standard treatment or LEV. The primary outcome was time to treatment withdrawal (LEV vs standard antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)). Analyses also compared LEV with VPA-ER, and LEV with CBZ-CR. Findings 1688 patients (mean age 41 years; 44% female) were randomised to LEV (n=841) or standard AEDs (n=847). Time to treatment withdrawal was not significantly different between LEV and standard AEDs: HR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.74 to 1.08). Time to treatment withdrawal (HR (95% CI)) was 1.02 (0.74 to 1.41) for LEV/VPA-ER and 0.84 (0.66 to 1.07) for LEV/CBZ-CR. Time to first seizure (HR, 95% CI) was significantly longer for standard AEDs, 1.20 (1.03 to 1.39), being 1.19 (0.93 to 1.54) for LEV/VPA-ER and 1.20 (0.99 to 1.46) for LEV/CBZ-CR. Estimated 12-month seizure freedom rates from randomisation: 58.7% LEV versus 64.5% VPA-ER; 50.5% LEV versus 56.7% CBZ-CR. Similar proportions of patients within each stratum reported at least one adverse event: 66.1% LEV versus 62.0% VPA-ER; 73.4% LEV versus 72.5% CBZ-CR. Conclusions LEV monotherapy was not superior to standard AEDs for the global outcome, namely time to treatment withdrawal, in patients with newly diagnosed focal or generalised seizures