GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Epilepsia, Wiley, Vol. 62, No. 5 ( 2021-05), p. 1119-1129
    Abstract: This study aimed at estimating the cumulative incidence of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment failure of first‐line monotherapy levetiracetam vs valproic acid in glioma patients with epilepsy. Methods In this retrospective observational study, a competing risks model was used to estimate the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from AED treatment initiation, for the two AEDs with death as a competing event. Patients were matched on baseline covariates potentially related to treatment assignment and outcomes of interest according to the nearest neighbor propensity score matching technique. Maximum duration of follow‐up was 36 months. Results In total, 776 patients using levetiracetam and 659 using valproic acid were identified. Matching resulted in two equal groups of 429 patients, with similar covariate distribution. The cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason was significantly lower for levetiracetam compared to valproic acid (12 months: 33% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29%–38%] vs 50% [95% CI 45%–55%] ; P   〈  .001). When looking at specific reasons of treatment failure, treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures was significantly lower for levetiracetam compared to valproic acid (12 months: 16% [95% CI 12%–19%] vs 28% [95% CI 23%–32%] ; P   〈  0.001), but no differences were found for treatment failure due to adverse effects (12 months: 14% [95% CI 11%–18%] vs 15% [95% CI 11%–18%] ; P  = .636). Significance Our results suggest that levetiracetam may have favorable efficacy compared to valproic acid, whereas level of toxicity seems similar. Therefore, levetiracetam seems to be the preferred choice for first‐line AED treatment in patients with glioma.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0013-9580 , 1528-1167
    URL: Issue
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2002194-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: British Journal of Haematology, Wiley, Vol. 151, No. 2 ( 2010-08-25), p. 179-184
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0007-1048
    URL: Issue
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2010
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1475751-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: International Journal of Cancer, Wiley, Vol. 146, No. 6 ( 2020-03-15), p. 1479-1489
    Abstract: Patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) still have a very poor prognosis. Several treatment modalities have been investigated in an attempt to improve the management of MBM. This review aimed to evaluate the impact of current treatments for MBM on patient‐ and tumor‐related outcomes, and to provide treatment recommendations for this patient population. A literature search in the databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane was conducted up to January 8, 2019. Original articles published since 2010 describing patient‐ and tumor‐related outcomes of adult MBM patients treated with clearly defined systemic therapy were included. Information on basic trial demographics, treatment under investigation and outcomes (overall and progression‐free survival, local and distant control and toxicity) were extracted. We identified 96 eligible articles, comprising 95 studies. A large variety of treatment options for MBM were investigated, either used alone or as combined modality therapy. Combined modality therapy was investigated in 71% of the studies and resulted in increased survival and better distant/local control than monotherapy, especially with targeted therapy or immunotherapy. However, neurotoxic side‐effects also occurred more frequently. Timing appeared to be an important determinant, with the best results when radiotherapy was given before or during systemic therapy. Improved tumor control and prolonged survival can be achieved by combining radiotherapy with immunotherapy or targeted therapy. However, more randomized controlled trials or prospective studies are warranted to generate proper evidence that can be used to change the standard of care for patients with MBM.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0020-7136 , 1097-0215
    URL: Issue
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 218257-9
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1474822-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Epilepsia, Wiley, Vol. 64, No. 1 ( 2023-01), p. 162-169
    Abstract: This study aimed to directly compare the effectiveness of first‐line monotherapy levetiracetam (LEV) versus enzyme‐inducing antiseizure medications (EIASMs) in glioma patients. Methods In this nationwide retrospective observational cohort study, Grade 2–4 glioma patients were included, with a maximum duration of follow‐up of 36 months. Primary outcome was antiseizure medication (ASM) treatment failure for any reason, and secondary outcomes were treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures and due to adverse effects. For estimation of the association between ASM treatment and ASM treatment failure, multivariate cause‐specific cox proportional hazard models were estimated, adjusting for potential confounders. Results In the original cohort, a total of 808 brain tumor patients with epilepsy were included, of whom 109 glioma patients were prescribed first‐line LEV and 183 glioma patients first‐line EIASMs. The EIASM group had a significantly higher risk of treatment failure for any reason compared to LEV (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]  = 1.20–2.75, p  = .005). Treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures did not differ significantly between EIASMs and LEV (aHR = 1.32, 95% CI = .78–2.25, p  = .300), but treatment failure due to adverse effects differed significantly (aHR = 4.87, 95% CI = 1.89–12.55, p  = .001). Significance In this study, it was demonstrated that LEV had a significantly better effectiveness (i.e., less ASM treatment failure for any reason or due to adverse effects) compared to EIASMs, supporting the current neuro‐oncology guideline recommendations to avoid EIASMs in glioma patients.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0013-9580 , 1528-1167
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2002194-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...