Trends in management of patients with new‐onset refractory status epilepticus (<scp>NORSE</scp>) from 2016 to 2023: An interim analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the evolving treatment landscape for new-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) and the publication of consensus recommendations in 2022, we conducted a comparative analysis of NORSE management over time. Seventy-seven patients were enrolled by 32 centers, from July 2016 to August 2023, in the NORSE/FIRES biorepository at Yale. Immunotherapy was administered to 88% of patients after a median of 3 days, with 52% receiving second-line immunotherapy after a median of 12 days (anakinra 29%, rituximab 25%, and tocilizumab 19%). There was an increase in the use of second-line immunotherapies (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.1-1.8) and ketogenic diet (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.3-2.6) over time. Specifically, patients from 2022 to 2023 more frequently received second-line immunotherapy (69% vs 40%; OR = 3.3; 95% CI = 1.3-8.9)-particularly anakinra (50% vs 13%; OR = 6.5; 95% CI = 2.3-21.0), and the ketogenic diet (OR = 6.8; 95% CI = 2.5-20.1)-than those before 2022. Among the 27 patients who received anakinra and/or tocilizumab, earlier administration after status epilepticus onset correlated with a shorter duration of status epilepticus (ρ = .519, p = .005). Our findings indicate an evolution in NORSE management, emphasizing the increasing use of second-line immunotherapies and the ketogenic diet. Future research will clarify the impact of these treatments and their timing on patient outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".