拉莫三嗪对癫痫患者脑电图的影响

目的观察拉莫三嗪对癫痫患者脑电活动的影响。方法选取我院神经内科门诊及住院部明确诊断为癫痫的患者63例,予拉莫三嗪治疗,用药前及用药3个月、6个月时行脑电图(EEG)检查,观察患者用药前后EEG痫性放电及脑电背景方面的变化。结果与用药前比较,用药3个月及6个月时EEG痫样放电明显减少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。脑电图背景活动α波频率、θ波及δ波个数与用药前相比无明显变化,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论应用拉莫三嗪可使癫痫患者EEG痫性放电明显减少,对脑电背景活动影响较小,从而为临床癫痫用药提供电生理学依据。     

卒中后癫痫的临床特点和抗癫痫药物治疗转归

目的探讨不同类型脑卒中后癫痫的临床特点及抗癫痫药物(AEDs)治疗转归及痫性发作的再发诱因,旨在指导脑卒中后癫痫的临床防治。方法收集我院神经内科及癫痫专科门诊就诊的卒中后癫痫患者77例并随访观察,根据入组患者卒中后首次痫性发作的时间分组,分为早发性癫痫组(脑卒中后≤2 w发作者)32例和晚发性癫痫组(脑卒中后>2 w发作者)45例。分析两组患者卒中部位、痫性发作类型、脑电图特点、抗癫痫药治疗及痫性发作的再发诱因。结果 (1)卒中后癫痫相关的常见脑部病变部位依次为皮质、皮质下、丘脑等。(2)早发性癫痫以部分性发作为主,占53.1%;晚发性癫痫以全面强直阵挛发作(包括可能的部分继发全面性发作)为主,占71.1%。(3)早发性癫痫组与晚发性癫痫组比较,长程视频脑电图(VEEG)和常规脑电图(REEG)异常波检出率和痫样放电波检出率的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两种脑电图痫样放电波检出率的比较,VEEG的检出率高于REEG(χ2=8.376,P<0.05),异常波检出率的比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(4)早发性癫痫组经AEDs治疗后发作控制的无发作率及有效率均高于晚发性癫痫组(P<0.05)。(5)再次发作有诱因者占65.5%(主要为发热、服药不规律、不良生活习惯、情绪因素),无诱因者占34.5%。结论皮质、皮质下卒中及发作间期脑电图有痫样放电的患者应警惕痫性发作及反复发作,首次发作后再次发作的患者,应考虑规律服用抗癫痫药物治疗,并尽量避免再发诱因。     

难治性癫痫持续状态患者的脑电图特征

目的 探究难治性癫痫持续状态(RSE)患者的脑电图(EEG)特征.方法 将60例全面惊厥性癫痫持续状态(GCSE)患者根据抗癫痫药物(AEDs)疗效分为RSE和非难治性癫痫持续状态(NRSE),比较两组患者EEG模式的差异.结果 所有患者中,与NRSE组比较,RSE组患者发作期EEG呈持续性放电比例更高,差异具有统计学意义(OR=5.44,95%CI=1.24~23.96,P=0.04).50例EGG呈间歇性演变的患者中,与NRSE组比较,RSE组患者发作间歇期EEG呈周期性放电与痫样放电的比例较高,差异有统计学意义(OR=29.75,4.12;95%CI=3.19~277.32,1.09~15.58;P<0.05);而RSE组患者发作后EEG为正常模式的比例较低,差异具有统计学意义(OR=0.11,95%CI=0.01~0.91,P=0.04).结论 GCSE患者如EEG出现持续性放电、周期性放电、发作间期痫样放电,应引起临床的高度重视,给以强化抗惊厥治疗.     

小儿病毒性脑炎继发癫痫的EEG影像学及临床分析

目的探讨儿童病毒性脑炎继发癫痫(PEE)的脑电图(EEG)及影像学特点,进一步探讨其临床高危因素。方法以明确诊断的34例PEE患儿为观察组,选取同时期就诊的同年龄段病毒性脑炎未继发癫痫(no-PEE)患儿102例为对照组。收集患儿病毒性脑炎(VE)急性期临床资料,并进行随访。结果单因素分析得出2组病脑急性期痫性发作≥2次、癫痫持续状态(SE)、昏迷,EEG癫痫样放电、广泛或弥漫性慢波,影像学单纯皮层受损、皮层及皮层下受损、丘脑基底节受损差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析显示,病毒性脑炎急性期痫性发作≥2次、SE、昏迷、EEG癫痫样放电、影像学皮层及皮层下同时受损差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),为PEE危险因素。2组患儿随访期间智力发育落后差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。结论病毒性脑炎急性期EEG癫痫样放电、影像学皮层及皮层下同时受损、痫性发作≥2次、SE、昏迷为PEE危险因素。PEE患儿远期多有智力发育落后,应密切随访,及时干预治疗。     

左乙拉西坦添加治疗Lennox-Gastaut综合征临床疗效观察和脑电图改变

目的研究左乙拉西坦(LEV)添加治疗儿童癫痫性脑病Lennox-Gastaut综合征(LGS)的临床疗效和脑电图(EEG)改变。方法选取2014年1月至2018年5月在河北省儿童医院神经内科就诊47例LGS患儿,在原有药物治疗的基础上添加LEV口服,对比治疗前和治疗后4w、8w的癫痫发作控制有效率、EEG改善情况和安全性评价。结果 47例患者,在不同的癫痫发作类型中,强直发作、不典型失神发作、阵挛发作、强直-阵挛发作、强直-失张力发作、失张力发作、肌阵挛发作、癫痫样痉挛发作总有效率分别是63.3%、64.3%、50%、60%、50%、60%、61.5%、65%,(P> 0.05)。47例癫痫发作的患者中34例患者视频脑电图(VEEG)有效率72.3%;11例患者(23.4%)无缓解;2例患者(4.3%)EE G恶化。醒睡各期治疗后较治疗前癫痫放电指数均显著减少(P <0.001)。17例(36.2%)患者报道了不良事件,多动症5例(10.6%),疲劳3例(6.4%),嗜睡3例(6.4%),指压性水肿1例(2.1%),食欲不振、呕吐、睡眠欠佳、皮疹等其他不良事件5例(10.6%),所有不良事件均未危及生命。结论 LEV添加治疗儿童癫痫性脑病LGS是一种安全有效的治疗方法。     

氯喹对戊四氮慢性致痫大鼠脑皮质及海马腺苷激酶表达的影响

目的 观察氯喹对戊四氮致痫大鼠皮质和海马区腺苷激酶(ADK)表达的影响,探讨ADK与癫痫发作的关系及氯喹在癫痫发生过程中的作用. 方法 30只健康雄性SD大鼠按照随机数字表法分为对照组、戊四氮(PTZ)致痫组和氯喹干预组,每组10只.观察大鼠行为学表现,记录其脑电改变,采用免疫组化法检测3组大鼠皮质和海马区ADK的表达. 结果 对照组大鼠无癫痫发作,PTZ致痫组大鼠出现Racine评分中Ⅳ～Ⅴ级严重发作,氯喹干预组大鼠出现Ⅰ～Ⅲ级发作,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).PTZ致痫组大鼠脑电记录呈频发高幅的痫样波,氯喹干预组大鼠脑电记录显示慢波、小棘波.PTZ致痫组大鼠脑内ADK表达明显增强,以海马区最为显著,与对照组相比差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).氯喹干预组大鼠脑内ADK表达降低,但距离正常水平仍有较大差距,与对照组相比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05). 结论 癫痫脑组织中存在ADK的表达异常,氯喹可以抑制这种表达,有效控制癫痫发作.     

PET与MEG定位伽玛刀治疗顽固性癫痫临床及脑电图研究

目的 评估PET与MEG定位、伽玛刀治疗顽固性癫痫临床效果和脑电图变化.方法 Leksell-C型伽玛刀治疗难治性癫痫33例,30例获得随访列入研究,EEG检查26例异常.分为PET组(22例)和MEG组(8例),发作频率分别为4.8±1.9次/月和4.6±2.2次/月.根据癫痫发作特点、脑电图、PET或脑磁图、CT或MRI定位致痫灶.周边剂量为8～13Gy,中心剂量为16～45Gy,照射范围略大于PET和MEG所提示的致痫区范围.术后每3个月复查EEG,并对照术前EEG,观察癫痫发作控制情况,按国际癫痫学会分类法分为6级进行疗效判定.结果 随访时间6～19个月,Ⅰ～Ⅱ级10例(33.3%),Ⅲ～Ⅳ级14例(46.7%),Ⅴ级4例(13.3%),Ⅵ级2例(6.7%).总有效率80.0%.PET与MEG两组病例癫痫发作频次皆较术前明显减少,术后12个月分别降至2.0±1.3次/月和1.8±1.1次/月.随访EEG逐渐恢复正常12例(48.0%),好转9例(36.0%),无变化2例(8.0%),恶化2例(8.0%).PET与MEG两组之间在治疗前后都没有差别.结论 PET或MEG定位致痫灶,伽玛刀治疗顽固性癫痫疗效肯定,EEG可以在术后随访中发挥作用.     

脑皮质电刺激对癫痫大鼠脑皮质兴奋性的影响

目的 观察重复脑皮质电刺激对氯化铁诱发慢性癫痫大鼠模型脑皮质兴奋性的影响.方法 通过在运动感觉区脑皮质注射氯化铁建立慢性癫痫大鼠模型,给予脑皮质低频(1 Hz)低强度(0.1 mA)和低频(1 Hz)高强度(1.0 mA)、高频(100 Hz)低强度(0.1 mA)和高频(100 Hz)高强度(1.0 mA)不同的重复电刺激,检测电刺激前后脑皮质后放电阈值、后放电时程和行为学评分.假刺激慢性癫痫大鼠作为对照组.结果 后放电阈值低频低强度组(2.10±0.38)mA与对照组(1.50±0.33)mA相比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).行为学评分和后放电时程各组与对照组相比差异无统计学意义.行为学评分与后放电阈值的比值低频低强度组(1.88±0.60)和低频高强度组(2.18±0.38)与对照组(3.22±0.67)相比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01和P＜0.05).结论 重复低频低强度脑皮质电刺激可以升高氯化铁诱发慢性癫痫大鼠模型的脑皮质后放电阈值,降低脑皮质兴奋性,提示合适参数的脑皮质电刺激对氯化铁诱发大鼠癜痫具有抑制作用.     

左乙拉西坦对癫痫患者血清胶质纤维酸性蛋白水平、脑电活动及生活质量的影响

目的探讨左乙拉西坦对新诊断部分性癫痫患者血清胶质纤维酸性蛋白(GFAP)水平及脑电活动、生活质量的影响。方法对80例新诊断成人部分性癫痫患者进行左乙拉西坦单药治疗,分别在入组时及治疗6w、12w时采用ELISA法测定血清GFAP的浓度。长程脑电图监测棘波指数。采用癫痫生活质量量表评定患者的生活质量。结果治疗6w时血清GFAP浓度和棘波指数均明显下降(P0.05),治疗12w时下降更明显(P0.01)。患者经左乙拉西坦治疗后脑电图(EEG)背景活动α波Hz、θ波数、δ波数均无明显变化(P0.05),治疗6w后和治疗12w后生活质量量表评分均明显高于入组时(P0.05)。血清GFAP含量与棘波指数呈显著正相关(P0.05),与治疗后生活质量量表总分呈显著负相关(P0.01)。结论左乙拉西坦治疗可改善癫痫患者生活质量,可能与其抑制GFAP过度表达、抑制癫痫放电而不影响脑电背景活动有关。     

动态脑电图在癫痫与发作性疾病的诊断及鉴别诊断上的意义

目的　探讨动态脑电图(AEEG)对癫痫及发作性疾病的诊断及鉴别诊断的意义。方法　272例患者使用常规脑电图( EEG)与 AEEG 检查,并作比较。结果　272 例中 EEG 异常 105 例(38.60%),其中痫样放电 48 例( 17. 65%); AEEG 异常 174 例( 63. 97%),其中痫样放电 113 例(41.54%)。113例AEEG痫样放电中癫痫组87例,发作性疾病组 26 例,经χ2 检验均有非常显著差异(P <0.000 1)。结论　AEEG可提高痫样放电的检出率,在癫痫、发作性疾病的诊断、鉴别诊断上具有重要意义。     

Levetiracetam reduces frequency and duration of epileptic activity in patients with refractory primary generalized epilepsy.

PURPOSE: Levetiracetam (LEV) is a new antiepileptic drug highly effective as add-on treatment in refractory partial epilepsies. In animal models, LEV is effective against absence seizures. A limited number of case reports and series indicate that LEV reduces seizure frequency in patients with generalized epilepsies. METHOD: We evaluated with continuous EEG eight adult patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). All patients were refractory to the conventional therapy for IGE. Four patients received LEV as add-on therapy, and in four, a conversion to LEV monotherapy was undergone. Epileptic activity was analyzed in order to determine spike-wave density as well as median and maximal duration of spike-wave discharges. Each patient underwent a 24h EEG baseline monitoring before starting LEV therapy. A second 24h EEG examination was performed after a mean follow-up period of 136 days. RESULTS: Spike-wave density (spikes/h) was reduced by 78% after LEV administration. Median spike-wave duration decreased by 72% (p < 0.05). Maximal spike-wave duration was 6s before, and 1.5s after LEV with a percentage change of 81% (p < 0.05). The four patients on LEV monotherapy evidenced also a considerably improvement after conversion. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that LEV produces a consistent long-term reduction of interictal epileptic activity in patients with refractory IGE. The reduction in the spike-wave activity additionally correlated with a clinically relevant antiepileptic effect. Our results support the concept that LEV could be an alternative therapy in primary generalized epilepsies.     

Disfluent speech in patients with partial epilepsy: beneficial effect of levetiracetam

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effects of levetiracetam (LEV) in patients with partial epilepsy and disfluent speech. METHODS: Five consecutive patients with partial epilepsy and disfluent speech resulting from developmental or neurogenic stuttering were enrolled in a 9-week, open-label, prospective study. LEV was given in combination with carbamazepine (CBZ) or phenytoin (PHT) at dosages ranging from 500 to 1500mg twice daily. The severity of stuttering was assessed with the verbal fluency test (VFT), and with the patient global impression of improvement (PGI), at baseline and after 9weeks. Electroencephalography and serum monitoring of CBZ and PHT levels were done before and after the study. Seizure frequency was monitored. RESULTS: After LEV therapy, verbal fluency for all patients, as measured by the VFT, improved from 25% at baseline to 64%, as did the speed of oral reading, from 5 to 23%. On the PGI, all patients rated themselves as better and as having less disfluent speech after LEV therapy. For four patients with incomplete control of their seizures, the seizure count decreased by more than 50% after LEV therapy. The beneficial effect of LEV on verbal disfluency demonstrated on the PGI persisted for the entire period of observation, which ranged from 7 to 11 months. CONCLUSIONS: As an add-on therapy, LEV seems to improve verbal fluency in patients with partial epilepsy and disfluent speech. This effect seems unrelated to the antiepileptic activity of the drug. A placebo-controlled trial of LEV in patients with this kind of verbal disfluency is warranted.     

左乙拉西坦添加治疗学龄期难治性癫痫患儿认知功能与生活质量的影响

目的观察并探讨左乙拉西坦(levetiracetam,LEV)添加治疗对学龄期难治性癫痫(refractory epilepsy,RE)患儿认知功能与生活质量的影响。方法入选2013年6月至2015年12月收治的55例RE儿童为研究对象,所有患儿在继续原有治疗方案基础上行LEV添加治疗16周,起始剂量8~10 mg/(kg·d),逐步加量至50 mg/(kg·d),达标后维持剂量30 mg/(kg·d),期间记录药物不良反应,治疗结束后判定临床疗效,采用韦氏儿童智力量表评价患儿认知功能,采用儿童癫痫生活质量量表评价生活质量改变。结果患儿治疗后癫痫平均发作次数(3.8±1.3 vs.6.6±2.3)次/月较入组前明显下降(P0.05)。治疗后临床控制率、显效率、有效率、无效率分别为9.1%、36.4%、43.6%、10.9%,总体有效率为89.1%。患儿治疗后WISC-CR智力评价中算术(10.9±2.6 vs.9.2±2.1)、填图评分(15.1±3.9 vs.13.8±3.3)较治疗前显著提高(P0.05)。患儿治疗后QOLCE评价中生活质量总分(65.7±5.7vs.62.8±4.9)及认知功能(60.0±5.7 vs.57.4±6.2)、社会功能(65.0±6.3 vs.62.5±5.5)评分显著高于治疗前(P0.05)。服药期间,患儿头晕、乏力、嗜睡、易激惹、欣快感、一过性转氨酶升高发生率分别为12.7%、9.1%、20.0%、5.5%、3.6%、3.6%;16周服药保留率96.4%。结论 LEV添加治疗能显著减少RE患儿癫痫发作次数,并有助于改善患儿认知功能与生活质量,但应注意LEV对精神行为的影响。     

Levetiracetam: an improvement of attention and of oral fluency in patients with partial epilepsy

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study is to verify whether patients with partial epilepsy receiving levetiracetam (LEV) as an add-on treatment show an improvement in cognitive function. METHODS: A neuropsychological battery of tests was administered to 35 patients with partial epilepsy before the assumption of LEV and after the achievement of the therapeutical dose of this drug, 7 weeks later. A control group of 35 patients with partial epilepsy was administered the same battery of tests twice, at the same time interval as the LEV group. The controls were administered the same pharmacological treatment, which did not include LEV in either of the two sessions. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant improvement in cognitive functioning, i.e. in attention and oral fluency, in patients receiving LEV compared to the controls. The responders to LEV were 28.6%. CONCLUSIONS: LEV as an add-on therapy improved attention level and verbal fluency in our sample of patients with partial epilepsy. It is reasonable to assume that LEV may influence the metabolism of attention and of language area, as already suggested for piracetam (PIR) from which LEV derives. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.     

Monotherapy for partial epilepsy: focus on levetiracetam

Levetiracetam (LEV), the S-enantiomer of alpha-ethyl-2-oxo-1-pyrollidine acetamide, is a recently licensed antiepileptic drug (AED) for adjunctive therapy of partial seizures. Its mechanism of action is uncertain but it exhibits a unique profile of anticonvulsant activity in models of chronic epilepsy. Five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolling adult or pediatric patients with refractory partial epilepsy have demonstrated the efficacy of LEV as adjunctive therapy, with a responder rate (>/=50% reduction in seizure frequency) of 28%-45%. Long-term efficacy studies suggest retention rates of 60% after one year, with 13% of patients seizure-free for 6 months of the study and 8% seizure-free for 1 year. More recent studies illustrated successful conversion to monotherapy in patients with refractory epilepsy, and its effectiveness as a single agent in partial epilepsy. LEV has also efficacy in generalized epilepsies. Adverse effects of LEV, including somnolence, lethargy, and dizziness, are generally mild and their occurrence rate seems to be not significantly different from that observed in placebo groups. LEV also has no clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions with other AEDs, or with commonly prescribed medications. The combination of effective antiepileptic properties with a relatively mild adverse effect profile makes LEV an attractive therapy for partial seizures.     

Effects of levetiracetam on generalized discharges monitored with ambulatory EEG in epileptic patients

PURPOSE: Quantitative analysis of epileptiform discharges (EDs) before and after the initiation of an antiepileptic treatment is a useful tool to objectively documentate the efficacy of an antiepileptic drug (AED). Aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of levetiracetam (LEV) on EDs, monitored with ambulatory EEG (A/EEG), in a limited series of patients with generalized epilepsy. METHODS: We performed 24h A/EEG recording in basal condition and at follow-up after LEV therapy in 21 adult epileptic patients. Eleven received LEV as monotherapy and 10 as add-on. For each patient we quantified total epileptic activity considering the following parameters: total number, total duration, maximal duration and median duration of EDs. Self-reported information on the effect of LEV on clinical seizures was also collected, to determine the electro-clinical correlation. RESULTS: A high variability of the response to LEV was observed in the monotherapy group, without statistical differences for all the parameters investigated. A significant reduction of the total number of seizures (113.6 vs. 41.2; p=.01) was observed in patients in add-on therapy. The modifications of epileptiform EEG abnormalities did not necessarily correlate with the self-reported clinical impressions. DISCUSSION: The quantification of EDs monitored by A/EEG provides a useful objective support for evaluating the neurophysiologic profile and the real efficacy of an antiepileptic treatment. In our patients LEV was able to significantly reduce the EDs only in add-on therapy. Further larger studies are necessary to clarify the effects of LEV on electro-clinical features of generalized epilepsy.     

Levetiracetam during 1-year follow-up in children, adolescents, and young adults with refractory epilepsy

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV) in refractory crypto/symptomatic, partial or generalised epilepsy in children, adolescents and young adults. METHODS: We performed a prospective open label add-on study in 99 patients (age 12 months to 32 years, mean 14 years) with partial or generalised, crypto/symptomatic seizures. Levetiracetam was added to no more than two baseline AEDs and the efficacy was rated according to seizure type and frequency. RESULTS: LEV was initiated at the starting dose of 10mg/kg/day with 5-day increments up to 50 mg/kg/day, unless it was not tolerated. Concomitant therapy was generally not modified throughout the study. After a mean follow-up period of 6.7 months (range 3 weeks to 29 months), 11 patients (11.1%) were free of seizures (cryptogenic partial epilepsy, 5; symptomatic partial epilepsy, 6). A more than 75% seizure decrease was found in 14 patients (14.1%) and >50% in 8 (8.1%). Seizures were unchanged in 38 (38.4%), and worsened in 23 (23.2%). Mild and transient adverse side effects were found in 17 patients (17.2%), mostly represented by irritability and drowsiness. CONCLUSION: LEV appears to be well tolerated in children and adolescents with severe epilepsy and seems to be a broad spectrum AED, though in our experience, it was more effective against partial seizures with or without secondarily generalisation. LEV efficacy in other epilepsy syndrome should be evaluated further in homogeneous, more selected patients.     

Predicting drug-resistant patients who respond to add-on therapy with levetiracetam.

INTRODUCTION: Levetiracetam (LEV) is approved for use as add-on therapy in adult patients with partial epilepsy. It is apparent from clinical trials that up to 8% of previously drug-resistant patients may be rendered seizure-free by adding-on levetiracetam. As yet there is no way of predicting these unexpectedly responsive patients. We set out to identify our previously refractory patients who had demonstrated unexpected responsiveness to add-on therapy with levetiracetam, and compared these to patients who had not responded to the drug. We then attempted to characterise any clinical features that differentiated these groups of patients. METHODS: We included all patients with a history of present or previous exposure to levetiracetam who had been unresponsive to at least two other prior anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) and recorded their demographic and clinical data. We divided response into (a) 'seizure-free' (seizure-free for a minimum of 6 months after commencing LEV); (b) 'partial > 50%' (greater than 50% reduction in seizures for a minimum of 6 months after commencing LEV); (c) 'honeymoon' (seizure-free for less than 6 months after commencing LEV and then returned towards baseline frequency); and (d) 'no-response'. For the purpose of analysis we considered the 'seizure-free' and 'partial > 50%' groups as 'responders', and the 'no response' group as 'non responders'. RESULTS: 344 patients were included in the analysis. Fifty-six patients (16.3%) were rendered seizure-free on levetiracetam. Idiopathic generalised epilepsy and post-traumatic partial epilepsy were more common in the responder than the non-responder group (p = 0.005 and 0.05 respectively). Lamotrigine was used significantly more often in combination with levetiracetam in responders than non-responders (p = 0.003). The mean daily dose of levetiracetam was lower in responders than non-responders. DISCUSSION: A higher than expected number of previously drug resistant patients was rendered seizure-free by add-on therapy with levetiracetam. Those who respond best appear to do so at relatively low doses and our data suggest the possibility of a beneficial pharmacodynamic interaction between levetiracetam and lamotrigine. We were unable to identify any clinical factors that clearly predicted which patients would become seizure-free and we hypothesise that response may be determined by genetic or molecular factors. All drug-resistant patients, including those being assessed for surgery, should be considered for a trial of levetiracetam, regardless of their epilepsy classification.     

Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam as adjunctive treatment of refractory partial seizures in a multicentre open-label single-arm trial in Korean patients.

This prospective, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive levetiracetam (LEV) in Korean adults with uncontrolled partial epilepsy. Study patients had to have an average of at least 1 and not more than 14 partial seizures per month (averaged over a 3-month historical baseline) despite the use of one or two AEDs. Patients initially received LEV 1000 mg/day (administered bid) and could increase to 2000 mg/day after 2 weeks, and to 3000 mg/day after another 2 weeks, to obtain adequate seizure control. During the 12-week maintenance period, the dose of LEV could be increased or decreased once if seizure control was insufficient or tolerability warranted, respectively. Seizure count and adverse events (AEs) were recorded by patients. Global evaluation scale (GES) and quality of life (QOLIE-31) were also evaluated. A total of 100 patients were enrolled and 92 patients completed the study. The median percent reduction in weekly seizure frequency over the treatment period was 43.2%. The >or=50% and >or=75% responder rates were 45.4% and 36.1%, respectively. Seizure freedom throughout the 16-week treatment period was observed in 17 patients. On investigator's GES, 81 patients were considered improved, with 41 patients showing marked improvement. Most QOLIE-31 scales improved significantly. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 59 patients. Three most common AEs were somnolence (36%), dizziness (12%), and headache (8%). Adjunctive LEV therapy was effective and well-tolerated in Korean adults with refractory partial epilepsy.     

Long-term levetiracetam treatment of epilepsy patients: clinical audit

PURPOSE: The long-term efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam (LEV) was analysed in 218 epilepsy patients. One hundred and ninety-nine patients were treated for at least 6 months. We evaluated LEV efficacy for all types of seizures together, and for simple partial, complex partial and secondary generalized seizures individually. RESULTS: A significant decrease in the number of seizures occurred after 6 months of treatment (p<0.001). Mean seizure frequency (irrespective of type) before LEV was 19.2 a month. The mean monthly frequency at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months dropped to 12.7, 10.5, 9.7 and 7.1 seizures a month, respectively. The mean percentage reduction in seizures at these times was 45.7, 52.1, 59.1 and 64.2% and the number of responding patients was 51.3, 54.2, 59.8 and 62.2%. The number of patients completely seizure free was 18.6, 16.7, 15.2 and 16.2%. We found similar results in the last three categories for partial simple, complex and secondary generalized seizures individually. Side effects in 18.3% of patients caused treatment discontinuation in 6.4%. The most frequent were somnolence, moodiness and dizziness. The retention rate at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months was 0.848, 0.72, 0.62 and 0.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LEV is effective and well tolerated for long-term treatment of epilepsy.