Efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam in patients with intellectual disability and epilepsy.

Patients with intellectual disability (ID) are often excluded from clinical trials, and little is known about the best approach to treat their epilepsy. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) for adjunctive treatment in patients with focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization. We analyzed the efficacy and tolerability of BRV in patients with ID and epilepsy who either had or had not previously received treatment with levetiracetam (LEV). Data on efficacy and tolerability were retrospectively collected. After the initial start of BRV in our tertiary epilepsy center, we analyzed medical records at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up. 116 patients were included (mean age = 34.9 years, 44% female). All had complete data of 3-month follow-up, 76 of 6-month follow-up, and 39 patients of 1-year follow-up. Median starting dose of BRV was 50.0 mg/day and the mean number of concomitant AEDs was 2.6. Seizure reduction and no side effects were reported in more than half of all patients. The most reported side effects were somnolence, dizziness and aggression. Retention rates for BRV were 84.4%, 75.5% and 58.1% after 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Seizure reduction and side effects did not differ significantly between the groups with or without previous LEV treatment. We demonstrate that BRV is effective and well tolerated in patients with epilepsy and ID, even in those where previous LEV treatment failed.

[The contribution of an asthma diagnostic consultation service in obtaining an accurate asthma diagnosis for primary care patients: results of a real-life study]. / De waarde van een astma-adviespolikliniek.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies showed that general practitioners (GPs) have problems in diagnosing asthma accurately, resulting in both under and overdiagnosis. To support GPs in their diagnostic process an asthma diagnostic consultation service (ADCS) was set up. DESIGN: We evaluated the performance of this ADCS by analysing the (dis)concordance between the GPs working hypotheses and the ADCS diagnoses and possible consequences this had on the patients' pharmacotherapy. METHOD: In total 659 patients were included in this study. At this service the patients' medical history was taken and a physical examination and a histamine challenge test were carried out. We compared the GPs working hypotheses with the ADCS diagnoses and the change in medication this incurred. RESULTS: In 52% (n = 340) an asthma diagnosis was excluded. The diagnosis was confirmed in 42% (n = 275). Furthermore, chronic rhinitis was diagnosed in 40% (n = 261) of the patients whereas this was noted in 25% (n = 163) by their GP. The adjusted diagnosis resulted in a change of medication for more than half of all patients. In 10% (n = 63) medication was started because of a new asthma diagnosis. The 'one-stop-shop' principle was met with 53% of patients and 91% (n = 599) were referred back to their GP, mostly within 6 months. Only 6% (n = 41) remained under control of the ADCS because of severe unstable asthma. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the ADCS helped GPs significantly in setting accurate diagnoses for their patients with an asthma hypothesis. This may contribute to diminish the problem of over and underdiagnosis and may result in more appropriate treatment regimens.