Nardone R, et al. J Clin Neurol. 2016 Jan;12(1):21-33. https://doi.org/10.3988/jcn.2016.12.1.21

Status epilepticus (SE) represents the most severe form of epilepsy. It is one of the most common neurologic emergencies, with an incidence of up to 61 per 100,000 per year and an estimated mortality of 20 %. Clinically, tonic-clonic convulsive SE is divided into four subsequent stages: early, established, refractory, and super-refractory. Pharmacotherapy of status epilepticus, especially of its later stages, represents an “evidence-free zone,” due to a lack of high-quality, controlled trials to inform clinical decisions. This comprehensive narrative review focuses on the pharmacotherapy of SE, presented according to the four-staged approach outlined above, and providing pharmacological properties and efficacy/safety data for each antiepileptic drug according to the strength of scientific evidence from the available literature. Data sources included MEDLINE and back-tracking of references in pertinent studies. Intravenous lorazepam or intramuscular midazolam effectively control early SE in approximately 63–73 % of patients. Despite a suboptimal safety profile, intravenous phenytoin or phenobarbital are widely used treatments for established SE; alternatives include valproate, levetiracetam, and lacosamide. Anesthetics are widely used in refractory and super-refractory SE, despite the current lack of trials in this field. Data on alternative treatments in the later stages are limited. Valproate and levetiracetam represent safe and effective alternatives to phenobarbital and phenytoin for treatment of established SE persisting despite first-line treatment with benzodiazepines. To date there are no class I data to support recommendations for most antiepileptic drugs for established, refractory, and super-refractory SE. Limiting the methodologic heterogeneity across studies is required and high-class randomized, controlled trials to inform clinicians about the best treatment in established and refractory status are needed.

Seizures are common in neonates, but there is substantial management variability. The Neonatal Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) developed evidence‐based recommendations about antiseizure medication (ASM) management in neonates in accordance with ILAE standards. Six priority questions were formulated, a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis were performed, and results were reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) 2020 standards. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool and risk of Bias in non‐randomised studies ‐ of interventions (ROBINS‐I), and quality of evidence was evaluated using grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). If insufficient evidence was available, then expert opinion was sought using Delphi consensus methodology. The strength of recommendations was defined according to the ILAE Clinical Practice Guidelines development tool. There were six main recommendations. First, phenobarbital should be the first‐line ASM (evidence‐based recommendation) regardless of etiology (expert agreement), unless channelopathy is likely the cause for seizures (e.g., due to family history), in which case phenytoin or carbamazepine should be used. Second, among neonates with seizures not responding to first‐line ASM, phenytoin, levetiracetam, midazolam, or lidocaine may be used as a second‐line ASM (expert agreement). In neonates with cardiac disorders, levetiracetam may be the preferred second‐line ASM (expert agreement). Third, following cessation of acute provoked seizures without evidence for neonatal‐onset epilepsy, ASMs should be discontinued before discharge home, regardless of magnetic resonance imaging or electroencephalographic findings (expert agreement). Fourth, therapeutic hypothermia may reduce seizure burden in neonates with hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy (evidence‐based recommendation). Fifth, treating neonatal seizures (including electrographic‐only seizures) to achieve a lower seizure burden may be associated with improved outcome (expert agreement). Sixth, a trial of pyridoxine may be attempted in neonates presenting with clinical features of vitamin B6‐dependent epilepsy and seizures unresponsive to second‐line ASM (expert agreement). Additional considerations include a standardized pathway for the management of neonatal seizures in each neonatal unit and informing parents/guardians about the diagnosis of seizures and initial treatment options.

Several Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) techniques can be applied to noninvasively measure cortical excitability and brain plasticity in humans. TMS has been used to assess neuroplastic changes in Alzheimer's disease (AD), corroborating findings that cortical physiology is altered in AD due to the underlying neurodegenerative process. In fact, many TMS studies have provided physiological evidence of abnormalities in cortical excitability, connectivity, and plasticity in patients with AD. Moreover, the combination of TMS with other neurophysiological techniques, such as high‐density electroencephalography (EEG), makes it possible to study local and network cortical plasticity directly. Interestingly, several TMS studies revealed abnormalities in patients with early AD and even with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), thus enabling early identification of subjects in whom the cholinergic degeneration has occurred. Furthermore, TMS can influence brain function if delivered repetitively; repetitive TMS (rTMS) is capable of modulating cortical excitability and inducing long‐lasting neuroplastic changes. Preliminary findings have suggested that rTMS can enhance performances on several cognitive functions impaired in AD and MCI. However, further well‐controlled studies with appropriate methodology in larger patient cohorts are needed to replicate and extend the initial findings. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated and comprehensive systematic review of the studies that have employed TMS/rTMS in patients with MCI and AD.

Drug-induced parkinsonism is the second most common cause of parkinsonism after Parkinson's disease and their distinction has crucial implications in terms of management and prognosis. However, differentiating between these conditions can be challenging on a clinical ground, especially in the early stages. We therefore performed a review to ascertain whether assessment of non-motor symptoms, or use of ancillary investigations, namely dopamine transporter imaging, transcranial sonography of the substantia nigra, and scintigraphy for myocardial sympathetic innervation, can be recommended to distinguish between these conditions. Among non-motor symptoms, there is evidence that hyposmia can differentiate between patients with "pure" drug-induced parkinsonism and those with degenerative parkinsonism unmasked by an anti-dopaminergic drug. However, several issues, including smoking history and cognitive functions, can influence smell function assessment. Higher diagnostic accuracy has been demonstrated for dopamine transporter imaging. Finally, preliminary evidence exists for sympathetic cardiac scintigraphy to predict dopaminergic pathway abnormalities and to differentiate between drug-induced parkinsonism and Parkinson's disease. Imaging of the dopaminergic pathway seems to be the only, reasonably available, technique to aid the differential diagnosis between drug-induced parkinsonism and Parkinson's disease.