Primary outcome met
More patients in the DAG group (42%) had moderate to severe postanoxic brain injury than in the NAG group (28%). However, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .08), possibly because of the small sample sizes. The number of antiepileptic drugs and the number of cycles of anesthetics did not differ between the groups.
Results showed that efficacy and safety outcomes favored DAG therapy.
The primary efficacy outcome was resolution of status epilepticus within 3 days after initiation of treatments. Status epilepticus resolved for 21 of 26 patients in the DAG group (81%), versus 9 of 22 patients in the NAG group (41%; odds ratio, 6.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-22.12; P = .005).
For secondary efficacy outcomes, there was a trend in favor of DAG, but differences from the NAG group were not statistically significant. In the groups, 46% versus 32% awakened and responded to commands before discharge from the intensive care unit, and 32% versus 23% showed good neurologic outcome at 6 months.
The primary safety outcome of all-cause mortality risk in the ICU was 90% lower for patients treated with DAG than for those treated with NAG (15% vs. 64%; OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.02-0.41; P < .01). Dr. Beretta explained that the high mortality rate in the NAG group was presumably a result of unresolved status epilepticus.
The secondary safety outcome of a transitory rise of gamma-glutamyl transferase greater than three times the upper limit of normal in the DAG group was expected with high-dose perampanel, the investigators noted. This outcome occurred in 77% of the DAG group versus 27% of the NAG group (OR, 9.88; 95% CI, 2.4-32.9; P < .001).
There was no statistically significant difference in incidence of recurrent cardiac arrest during therapy. This occurred in one member of the DAG group and in none in the NAG group.
Dr. Beretta reported that their investigations are still in a retrospective phase, but the researchers plan to move the work into a prospective phase and possibly a randomized trial soon.
Fascinating, promising
Commenting on the findings, Jaysingh Singh, MD, co-director of the Epilepsy Surgery Center at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said the study provides “fascinating, very helpful data” about a condition that has responded well to current treatment options.
He added that his center has used “the innovative treatments” discussed in the study for a few patients.
“More concrete evidence will push us to use it more uniformly across all our patient population [that] has refractory status. So I’m very optimistic, and the data were very promising,” said Dr. Singh, who was not involved with the research.
He cautioned that the study was retrospective, not randomized or controlled, and that it involved a small number of patients but said that the data were “heading in the right direction.”
Although resolution of status epilepticus was better among patients in the DAG group than in the NAG group, the awakenings and neurologic outcomes were “pretty much same as standard medical therapy, which we commonly give to our patients,” said Dr. Singh. “We see this phenomenon all the time in our patients.”
He noted that other factors can determine how patients respond, such as conditions of the heart or kidneys, the presence of sepsis, and multiorgan dysfunction. These factors were not controlled for in the study.
Nonetheless, he said the study achieved its primary endpoint of better resolution of status epilepticus “because that’s the first thing you want to see: whether the treatment is taking care of that.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Beretta and Dr. Singh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.