MONOZEB: Long-term observational study of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy.

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used as monotherapy for 1 year or more in routine clinical use in patients with focal seizures in epilepsy clinics in Spain. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational, noninterventional study. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, had focal seizures, and started on ESL ≥1 year before database closure. Primary endpoint was the following: proportion seizure-free for ≥6 months at 1 and 2 years. Secondary endpoints included retention on ESL monotherapy at 1 and 2 years, seizure frequency change, seizure worsening, and side effects. Other analyses included seizure freedom from baseline to 1 and 2 years and outcomes in special populations. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-five patients were included (127 on first-line monotherapy and 308 converting to ESL monotherapy): median daily dose was 800 mg at all time points; 63.2% were seizure-free at 1 year, 65.1% at 2 years, and 50.3% for the entire follow-up. Mean duration of ESL monotherapy was 66.7 months; retention was 88.0% at 1 year and 81.9% at 2 years. Mean reduction in seizure frequency was 75.5% at last visit. Over the entire follow-up, seizure worsening was seen in 22 patients (5.1%), side effects in 28.0%, considered severe in 1.8%, and leading to discontinuation in 5.7%. Dizziness, hyponatremia (sodium <135 mEq/l), and somnolence were the most frequent side effects. Outcomes in special populations (patients aged ≥65 years and those with psychiatric history or learning difficulty) were consistent with the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with focal seizures taking ESL monotherapy had excellent retention, high seizure-free rates, and good tolerability up to 2 years.

Blood Biomarkers for the Early Diagnosis of Stroke: The Stroke-Chip Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stroke diagnosis could be challenging in the acute phase. We aimed to develop a blood-based diagnostic tool to differentiate between real strokes and stroke mimics and between ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes in the hyperacute phase. METHODS: The Stroke-Chip was a prospective, observational, multicenter study, conducted at 6 Stroke Centers in Catalonia. Consecutive patients with suspected stroke were enrolled within the first 6 hours after symptom onset, and blood samples were drawn immediately after admission. A 21-biomarker panel selected among previous results and from the literature was measured by immunoassays. Outcomes were differentiation between real strokes and stroke mimics and between ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. Predictive models were developed by combining biomarkers and clinical variables in logistic regression models. Accuracy was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: From August 2012 to December 2013, 1308 patients were included (71.9% ischemic, 14.8% stroke mimics, and 13.3% hemorrhagic). For stroke versus stroke mimics comparison, no biomarker resulted included in the logistic regression model, but it was only integrated by clinical variables, with a predictive accuracy of 80.8%. For ischemic versus hemorrhagic strokes comparison, NT-proBNP (N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide) >4.9 (odds ratio, 2.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-3.71; P<0.0001) and endostatin >4.7 (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-3.45; P=0.010), together with age, sex, blood pressure, stroke severity, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension, were included in the model. Predictive accuracy was 80.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The studied biomarkers were not sufficient for an accurate differential diagnosis of stroke in the hyperacute setting. Additional discovery of new biomarkers and improvement on laboratory techniques seem necessary for achieving a molecular diagnosis of stroke.

Functional outcome after primary endovascular therapy or IV thrombolysis alone for stroke. An observational, comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Among the acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusions and contraindications for the use of IV thrombolysis, mainly on oral anticoagulation or presenting too late, primary endovascular therapy is often performed as an alternative to the standard therapy even though evidence supporting the use of endovascular reperfusion therapies is not yet established. Using different statistical approaches, we compared the functional independence rates at 3 months among patients undergoing primary endovascular therapy and patients treated only with IV thrombolysis. METHODS: We used data from a prospective, government-mandated and externally audited registry of reperfusion therapies for ischemic stroke (January 2011 to November 2012). Patients were selected if treated with either IV thrombolysis alone (n = 1,582) or primary endovascular thrombectomy (n = 250). A series of exclusions were made to homogenize the clinical characteristics among the two groups. We then carried out multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching analyses on the final study sample (n = 1,179) to compare functional independence at 3 months, as measured by the modified Rankin scale scores 0-2, between the two groups. RESULTS: The unadjusted likelihood of good outcome was poorer among the endovascular group (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.47-1.0). After adjustment, no differences by treatment modality were seen (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 0.93-2.43 for primary endovascular therapy). Patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy within 180-270 min (OR: 2.89; 95% CI: 1.17-7.15) and patients with severe strokes (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.02-3.35) did better than their intravenous thrombolysis counterparts. The propensity score-matched analyses with and without adjustment by additional covariates showed that endovascular thrombectomy was as effective as intravenous thrombolysis alone in achieving functional independence (OR for unadjusted propensity score matched: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.9-2.02, OR for adjusted propensity score matched: 1.45; 95% CI: 0.91-2.32). CONCLUSION: This comparative effectiveness study shows that in ischemic stroke patients with contraindications for IV thrombolysis, primary endovascular treatment might be an alternative therapy at least as effective as IV thrombolysis alone. Randomized controlled trials are urgently needed.