MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394823842 · doi:10.1016/j.seizure.2024.04.005

Predictors for and use of rescue medication in adults with epilepsy: A multicentre cross-sectional study from Germany

2024· article· en· W4394823842 on OpenAlexaff
Margarita Maltseva, Felix Rosenow, Felix von Podewils, Lena Habermehl, Lisa Langenbruch, Laura Bierhansl, Susanne Knake, Juliane Schulz, Bernadette Gaida, Leena Kämppi, Catrin Mann, Adam Strzelczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueSeizure · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersUCB PharmaDesitin ArzneimittelJazz PharmaceuticalsEisaiZogenixDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAngelini PharmaEuropean CommissionGW PharmaceuticalsGoethe-Universität Frankfurt am MainArvelle TherapeuticsMarinus PharmaceuticalsBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungBiogen
KeywordsEpilepsyMedicineLorazepamStatus epilepticusBenzodiazepineAdverse effectMidazolamMedical prescriptionDiazepamEmergency medicinePediatricsAnesthesiaPsychiatryInternal medicineSedationPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Seizure clusters, prolonged seizures, and status epilepticus are life-threatening neurological emergencies leading to irreversible neuronal damage. Benzodiazepines are current evidence-based rescue therapy options; however, recent investigations indicated the prescription of mainly unsuitable benzodiazepines and inappropriate use of rescue medication. OBJECTIVE: To examine current use, satisfaction, and adverse events concerning rescue medication in patients with epilepsy in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at epilepsy centres in Frankfurt am Main, Greifswald, Marburg, and Münster between 10/2020 and 12/2020. Patients with an epilepsy diagnosis were assessed based on a questionnaire examining a 12-month period. RESULTS: In total, 486 patients (mean age: 40.5, range 18-83, 58.2 % female) participated in this study, of which 125 (25.7 %) reported the use of rescue medication. The most frequently prescribed rescue medications were lorazepam tablets (56.8 %, n = 71 out of 125), buccal midazolam (19.2 %, n = 24), and rectal diazepam (10.4 %, n = 13). Seizures continuing for over several minutes (43.2 %, n = 54), seizure clusters (28.0 %, n = 35), and epileptic auras (28.0 %, n = 35) were named as indications, while 28.0 % (n = 35) stated they administered the rescue medication for every seizure. Of those continuing to have seizures, 46.0 % did not receive rescue medication. On average, rescue medication prescription occurred 7.1 years (SD 12.7, range 0-66) after an epilepsy diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Unsuitable oral benzodiazepines remain widely prescribed for epilepsy patients as rescue medication. Patients also reported inappropriate use of medication. A substantial proportion of patients who were not seizure-free did not receive rescue medication prescriptions. Offering each patient at risk for prolonged seizures or clusters of seizures an individual rescue treatment with instructions on using it may decrease mortality and morbidity and increase quality of life. .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeizureSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207