throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`OZOZ/GL/LOUOWZIETNZEMBAKSTADbrZeDEIZAXNWOASOHZAXSMGB184XC¥]+LHPERDXZIOOMO+LHMOGURPILALUAETDIZHeODINZINALLNPXObwpbsuipxrynADaLAAqeuNeNWoo'MMy'sfeULnol:sdy\4Wo04)papeojuaog
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` TheJournal ofTRAUMA®Injury, Infection, and Critical Gare
`
`Factors Predictive of Outcome in Posttraumatic Seizures
`Hung-Chen Wang, MD, Wen-Neng Chang, MD, Hsueh-Wen Chang, PhD, Jih-Tsun Ho, MD, PhD,
`Tzu-Ming Yang, MD, Wei-Che Lin, MD, Yao-Chung Chuang, MD, and Cheng-Hsien Lu, MD
`
`Background: Seizures are important
`neurologic complications of traumatic brain
`injury (TBD. Thereis a need for better de-
`lineation of potential prognostic factors and
`outcomes in patients with posttraumatic sei-
`zures (PTS) who could receive treatment
`whenbrought to the hospital.
`Methods: In this 10-year retrospec-
`tive study, 170 adult patients with PTS
`were enrolled in this study. The degree of
`
`seizure control was analyzed using a Sei-
`zure Frequency Scoring System, which
`classified them into excellent and nonex-
`cellent outcomes.
`Results: There were 170 patients with
`acute symptomatic seizure enrolled in this
`study, 106 of whom had early PTS, whereas
`64 had late PTS. Ofthe 106 early PTS, 58%
`(61 of 106) occurred within 24 hours of
`trauma. Risk factors for developing nonex-
`
`cellent outcome included patients who un-
`dergo surgical intervention and presence of
`late-provoked seizures during the acute
`phase of TBI.
`Conclusions:Seizures are an impor-
`tant neurologic complication of TBI. Re-
`garding the potentially side effects of
`antiepileptic drugs, antiepileptic therapy
`should be carefully administrated in those
`nonexcellent outcome patients.
`J Trauma. 2008;64:883—888.
`
`raumatic brain injury (TBD)is one of the major causes of
`disability, morbidity, and mortality among individuals
`younger than 45 years andis responsible for a significant
`proportion of traumatic deaths in developed countries.!* The
`overall risk of seizures after TBI ranges from 2% to 5% in the
`general population** but is from 7% to 39% in patients with
`cortical injury and neurologic sequelae.
`One population-based study demonstrates that 86% of
`patients with a single late posttraumatic seizure (PTS) had a
`second seizure within 2 years.° Because of the possible ben-
`efits of antiepileptic drugs (AED) to reduce the degree of
`functional morbidity after TBI,
`there is a need for better
`delineation of potential prognostic factors and outcomes in
`nonselected patients admitted to the hospital who could re-
`ceive treatment.
`
`In this study, the role of a numberofclinical observations,
`neuroimaging findings, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score
`measurements were analyzed in terms of predicting the outcome
`of PTS. We chose to study (1) the clinical relevance of PTS and
`other neurologic complications that occur after TBI; (2) the
`types of seizures that occur during acute phase of TBI; and G)
`the potential prognostic factors during the acute illness for the
`long-term outcome.
`
`Submitted for publication July 18, 2006.
`Accepted for publication February 12, 2007.
`Copyright © 2008 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
`From the Departments of Neurosurgery (H.-C.W., J.-T.H., T.-MLY.),
`Neurology (W.-N.C., Y.-C.C., C.-H.L.), and Radiology (W.-C.L.), Chang
`Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical Center, Chang Gung Univer-
`sity College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, China; and Department of
`Biological Science (H.-W.C.), National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung,
`Taiwan, Republic of China.
`Addressfor reprints: Cheng-Hsien Lu, Department of Neurology, Chang
`Gung Memorial Hospital, 123, Ta Pei Road, Niao Sung Hsiang, Kaohsiung
`Hsien, Taiwan, Republic of China; email: chlu99 @ms44.url.com.tw.
`DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31804a7fa4d
`
`PATIENTS AND METHODS
`During a period of 10 years (1994-2003), 9,212 patients
`who suffered from first event TBI were admitted to the
`Department of Neurosurgery at the Chang Gung Memorial
`Hospital
`in Kaohsiung. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-
`Kaohsiungis a 2,482-bed acute-care teaching hospital, which
`is the largest medical center in southern Taiwan that provides
`both primary and tertiary referral care to patients. Of the
`9,212 patients, 190 suffered from acute symptomatic seizures
`during the acute phase of TBI.
`The definition of PTS was set according to that in previous
`studies: seizure occurring after head trauma that is causally
`related to the traumaitself.”® A provoked (acute symptomatic
`seizure) seizure is one that occurs in close temporalrelation with
`TBI, which is presumedto be the underlying cause. In contrast,
`an unprovoked seizure is a seizure occurring in the absence of
`one or more precipitating factors, and it includes events occur-
`ring in patients with antecedent stable (nonprogressing) CNS
`insults, including TBI (remote symptomatic seizures).”°
`The definition of onset of acute symptomatic seizure
`during hospitalization was modified from those of a previous
`study” classification into two subtypes: early-provoked sei-
`zures as seizures occurring within the first 7 days after injury,
`and late-provoked seizures as those occurring 7 days later but
`before discharge. In contrast, an unprovoked seizure is a
`seizure occurring in the absence of one or more precipitating
`factors, while epilepsy is the occurrence of repeated unpro-
`voked seizures.'° Status epilepticus was modified from those
`of previous reports and defined as both of the following: (1)
`continuous seizures lasting at least 5 minutes; and (2) two or
`more discrete seizures between which there is incomplete
`recovery of consciousness.''!?
`Patients initially treated in other hospitals but subse-
`quently transferred to our hospital for further therapy were
`also included in the study and their initial clinical and labo-
`ratory data at the previous hospital were used for analysis.
`
`Volume 64 ¢ Number 4
`
`883
`
`Gopyrignt © Lippincott Wiliams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1103 Page 0001
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1103 Page0001
`
`

`

`TheJournal ofTRAUMASInjury, Infection, and Critical Care
`
`Patients were cxcluded from the study if (1) they had a history
`of TBI; (2) preexisting epilepsy; (3) gunshot wounds or pene-
`trating head injuries; (4) preexisting neurologic conditions with
`various neurologic deficits; and (5) death within 1 month. The
`study had enrolled a total of 170 patients.
`Demographic data of the 170 patients, characteristics and
`circumstances, time interval from TBI to first seizure,
`the
`types of seizure, and several other features were documented,
`including length of hospital stay, the presence and duration of
`chronic epilepsies, neurosurgical interventions, and systemic
`underlying diseases associated with seizures. The GCS score
`was analyzed by neurosurgeons when the patient arrived in
`the emergency room.
`TBI was defined as an alteration in brain function man-
`ifesting as confusion,altered consciousness, seizure, coma, or
`focal sensory or motor neurologic deficit resulting from blunt
`or penetrating force to the head.‘? TBIwasclassified as mild
`(loss of consciousness or amnesia lasting less than 30 min-
`utes), moderate (loss of consciousness for 30 minutes to 24
`hours or a skull fracture), or severe (loss of consciousness or
`amnesia for more than 24 hours, subdural hematoma, intra-
`cerebral hematoma, or brain contusion).”
`All of the patients received brain computed tomography
`(CT) scans soon after arrival at the emergency room. Fur-
`thermore, follow-up brain CT scans were performedif clin-
`ical deterioration was noted, including acute onset of focal
`neurologic deficits, seizures or status epilepticus, and a pro-
`gressively disturbed conscious state. All diagnoses of intra-
`cranial contusion or hematoma were based on brain CT
`evidence.
`Our standard protocol was to administer AEDs only to
`those who had acute symptomatic seizure in TBI, whereas pro-
`phylactic AED therapies were not given to those without such
`symptoms in the acute stage of TBI. We usually administered
`AEDsfor less than 7 days to patients who had early-provoked
`seizures, while AEDs were continued for longer periods to
`prevent the development of unprovoked seizures in those with
`late-provoked seizure. The basis of discontinuing AEDsoflate-
`provoked seizure patients after hospital discharge included all of
`the following: (1) serial electroencephalogram (EEG) showed
`no evidence of epileptiform discharge or seizure-free clinically
`for more than 2 years; and (2) no risk factors for seizures
`recurrence, which include prolonged duration before seizure was
`controlled; high frequency of seizures before control; focal neu-
`rologic abnormalities; poor mentation; complexpartial seizures;
`and consistently abnormal EEGs.'*!5
`The follow-up period was terminated by death or by the
`end of the study itself (December 2004). Therapeutic out-
`comes and the degree of seizure control after discharge were
`analyzed by a Seizure Frequency Scoring System, which is
`slightly modified from Engel etal.’ (Table 1). For purposes
`of analysis, a score of 4 or below was defined as an excellent
`outcome, and 5 or more as nonexcellent.’? The outpatient
`department followed up most patients after discharge, with
`
`Table 1 Scoring System for Seizure Frequency
`Seizure Frequency
`
`0
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`Excellent outcome
`Seizure free, off antiepileptic drug
`Seizure free, need for antiepileptic drug unknown
`Seizure free, requires antiepileptic drug to remain so
`Nondisabling simple partial seizures
`Nondisabling noctural seizures only
`Non-excellent outcome
`5
`One to three times per yr
`6
`Four to 11 times per yr
`7
`Oneto three times per mo
`8
`Oneto six times per wk
`9
`Oneto three times per d
`10
`Four to 10 times per d
`oe
`More than 10 times per d but not status epilepticus
`
`Presenceof status epilepticus 12
`Slightly modified from Engelet al.”
`
`others interviewed through telephone to identify neurologic
`outcome.
`
`The clinical data, including gender and clinical manifes-
`tations between the two patient groups (“excellent outcome”
`and “nonexcellent outcome”) during the acute phase of TBI,
`was analyzed by means ofa ,* test or Fisher’s exact test. The
`mean ages between the two patient groups were analyzed by
`Student’s ¢ test. GCS score at
`the time of admission and
`duration of hospitalization between the two patient groups
`was analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test.
`The association between (1) early or late PTSs and (2)
`presence of surgical intervention, and the survival curve be-
`tween the two patient groups (“excellent outcome” and “non-
`excellent outcome”) were assessed with Kaplan-Meier Plots
`and compared by- log-rank test. Stepwise logistic regression
`was used in evaluating the relationship between clinical fac-
`tors and outcomeof seizure, with adjustments madefor other
`potential confounding factors. All statistical analysis was
`conducted using the SAS software package, version 9.1
`(2002, SAS, Inc., Cary, NC).
`
`RESULTS
`The 170 patients with acute symptomatic seizure in-
`cluded 126 males (age range, 2 months—87 years; mean age,
`39.6 years) and 44 females (age range, 3 months—83 years;
`mean age, 46.5 years). Among these, 134 had excellent out-
`comeand 36 had nonexcellent outcome (Table 2). The degree
`of seizure control after discharge forall 170 casesis listed in
`Figure 1. The mean age at onset was 40.5 years + 24.7 years
`for those who had an excellent outcome and 44.6 years +
`20.9 years for those who had a nonexcellent outcome. The
`mean time length of hospitalization was 21.4 days + 16.8
`days and 33.3 days + 29.7 days for those with excellent and
`nonexcellent outcomes, respectively (p = 0.001).
`No one was excluded because of loss to follow-up. Fol-
`low-upinterval in the 170 patients was 1 month to 204 months
`
`884
`April 2008
`Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1103 Page 0002
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1103 Page 0002
`
`

`

`|
`
`|
`
`Factors and Outcomein Posttraumatic Seizures
`
`So
`Table 2 Prognostic Factors of Posttraumatic Seizures
`Excellent Outcome,
`N = 184
`
`p Value
`
`Odds Ratio
`
`95% Cl
`
`Nonexcellent Outcome,
`N = 36
`
`Age(yrs)
`Gender
`Male
`Female
`Clinical features
`Posttraumatic amnesia
`Brief unconsciousness
`Motordeficits
`Severity of brain injuries*
`Mild
`Moderate
`Severe
`GCS at admission
`Neuroimaging finding*
`Depressed skull fracture
`Cortical contusion
`Subdural hematoma
`Epidural hematoma
`Intracerebral hematoma
`Acute symptomatic seizure
`Onset of seizure
`Early-provoked seizures (=7 d)
`Late-provoked seizures (>7 d)
`Subtype of seizure
`Generalized
`Focal with or without
`generalization
`Status epilepticus
`Surgical intervention
`Nonsurgery
`Surgery
`Duration of hospitalization
`
`40.5 + 24.7
`
`44.6 + 20.9
`
`96
`38
`
`94
`72
`53
`
`19
`10
`105
`10.5+3.9
`
`12
`44
`88
`9
`27
`
`95
`39
`
`63
`71
`
`6
`
`30
`6
`
`23
`20
`17
`
`6
`1
`29
`10.4 + 3.7
`
`4
`9
`27
`2
`12
`
`11
`25
`
`17
`19
`
`2
`
`63
`71
`21.4 + 16.8
`
`7
`29
`33.3 + 29.7
`
`0.358
`
`0.155
`
`0.472
`0.845
`0.406
`
`0.577
`
`0.726
`
`0.749
`0.513
`0.288
`7.0
`0.095
`
`=0.001
`
`0.982
`
`0.8677
`
`0.003
`
`=0.001
`
`0.19-1.31
`
`0.61-2.88
`0.44-1.95
`0.35-1.53
`
`0.32-2.39
`0.34-22.47
`
`0.24-2.60
`0.57-3.06
`0.28~1.47
`0.25-5.93
`0.22-1.14
`
`2.48-12.34
`
`0.47-2.07
`
`0.24-6.50
`
`0.51
`
`5.54
`
`3.68
`
`1.51-8.97
`
`The clinical data, including gender andclinical manifestations between the two patient groups(“excellent outcome” and “non-excelient
`outcome”) was analyzed by means of a ¥” test or Fisher’s exact test. The mean ages betweenthe twopatient groups were analyzed by Student’s
`t test. GCS at the time of admission and duration of hospitalization between the two patient groups was analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test.
`* Relative to “severe brain injury”.
`* Fifty-one patients had more than one abnormal neuroimaging findings.
`
` $
`
`
`
`Go
`
`&
`
` 3.
` o.
`9
`1
`2
`3 45 67 8
`® Wi B
`Seizure Frequency Scoring System:
`Fig. 1. Results of seizure frequency score. For the purposes of
`analysis, a score of four or below was defined as an excellent
`outcome, and five or more as nonexcellent.
`
`8
`
`curred within 24 hours of trauma. The mean time interval
`between the onset of TBI and early PTSs was 2.1 days +
`1.6 days, and 14.7 days + 5.8 days for the late PTSs (p =
`0.001).
`Regarding seizure subtypes, 77 had generalized seizures
`and 93 had focal seizures with or without generalization. The
`77 generalized seizures included generalized tonic—clonic
`seizures in 73 and myoclonic seizure in 4. Thelatter 93 focal
`seizures included simple focal seizures in 63 and focal sei-
`zures evolving to generalized tonic—clonic convulsions in the
`remaining 30 (Table 3). The frequency of seizures during the
`acute phase of TBI was: 95 had one episode of seizures, 67
`had more than one episode, and 8 progressed to status epi-
`lepticus. Of these eight cases, two had nonexcellent outcome
`and six had excellent outcome (with five seizure-free after
`completing the treatment for TBI). The outcome of PTS was
`strongly associated with the development of early PTSs (p =
`0.001), although no difference was noted between focal and
`generalized seizures (p = 0.982),
`
`(mean, 29.5 months). Aside from TBI, 42 patients had one or
`more other underlying conditions, which included diabetes mel-
`litus (37), hypertension (9), iatrogenic Cushing’s syndrome (6),
`and pneumonia (8).
`During hospitalization, 106 had early PTSs, whereas
`64 had late PTSs. Furthermore, 57.5% (61 of 106) oc-
`
`Volume 64 ¢ Number 4
`885
`Copyright©Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1103 Page 0003
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1103 Page 0003
`
`

`

`TheJournal ofTRAUMASInjury, Infection, and Critical Care
`eeeeeeeeeS
`
`Table 3 Relations Between Therapeutic Outcomes, Neuroimaging Findings, and Seizure Subtypes
` Brain CT at the Time of Admission Outcomes
`
`Excellent
`.
`
`
`Seizure Subtypes Depressed Skull—Contusion EDH SDH ICH . Nonexcellent
`
`
`
`
`Fracture (N= 16)
`(N=50)
`(N=11)
`(N=115)
`(N= 39)
`SeizureFree
`Score3&4
`(N = 36)
`(N = 126) (N = 8)eee
`
`Generalized seizures
`(N = 77)
`Tonic-cionic seizure
`(N = 73)
`Myoclonic seizure
`(N = 4)
`Focal seizures with or
`without generalization
`(N = 93)
`Focal seizures (N = 63)
`Focal seizures evolving
`to tonic-clonic convulsions
`
`(N = 30)
`
`28 (2)*
`
`5
`
`42 (2)
`
`15 (1)
`
`54 (4)
`
`3
`
`0
`
`4
`
`3
`
`0
`
`16 (1)
`
`0
`
`12
`8 (1)
`
`50
`20 (1)
`
`13
`41 (1)
`
`48
`20 (1)
`
`3
`2 (1)
`
`* Values in parentheses indicate number of cases progressed to status epilepticus during acute stage of traumatic brain injury.
`
`Regarding the relationship of the onset of acute symp-
`tomatic seizure (early PTSs and late PTSs) to the frequency
`of seizures during the acute phase of TBI (one episode, more
`than one episode, and presence of status epilepticus), to the
`type of seizures (tonic—clonic seizure, focal seizures evolving
`to tonic-clonic convulsions, and focal seizures), to the sever-
`ity of TBI (mild, moderate, and severe TBI), thestatistical
`analysis showed the following: (1) there was norelationship
`between the onset of acute symptomatic seizure (early PTSs
`and late PTSs) and the frequency of seizures (one episode,
`more than one episode, and presence of status epilepticus)
`(p = 0.298); (2) there was a significantrelationship between
`the onset of acute symptomatic seizure (early PTSs and late
`PTSs) and the subtypes of seizures (generalized tonic-clonic
`seizure, myoclonic seizure, focal seizures evolving to tonic-
`clonic convulsions, focal seizures, and status epilepticus)
`(p = 0.001); and (3) there was no relationship between the
`onset of acute symptomatic seizure (early PTSs and late
`PTSs) and the severity of TBI (mild, moderate, and severe
`TBI, p = 0.425).
`The other clinical data of the [70 patients are listed in
`Table 2. Furthermore, the mean score of GCS score at ad-
`mission between excellent and nonexcellent outcomes was
`10.5 + 3.9 and 10.4 + 3.7, respectively (p = 0.726).
`Among the 170 cases, only 69 had at least one EEGs
`after PTE. Fifty-eight had abnormal EKG readings of which
`38 had EEGreadings that showed a predominantly unilateral
`abnormality, whereas 20 had diffuse abnormality. In the 38
`cases, 10 were tonic—clonic seizures, 14 were focal seizures,
`8 were focal seizures evolving into tonic-clonic convulsions,
`2 were myoclonic seizures, and 4 were status epilepticus. Of
`the latter 20 cases, four were focal seizures, four were focal
`seizures evolving into tonic-clonic convulsions, one was
`myoclonic seizure, and two were status epilepticus. Among
`the 11 cases with normal ERG readings after PTS, 6 were
`tonic—clonic seizures, 2 were focal seizures, 2 were focal
`
`seizures evolving into tonic-clonic convulsions, and 1 was
`status epilepticus.
`During hospitalization, 160 had abnormal neuroimaging
`findings (Table 2). Of these, 128 had excellent outcome while
`32 did not. In the 10 cases with normal neuroimaging find-
`ings, 6 had excellent outcome. There was nostatistically
`significant
`relationship between abnormal neuroimaging
`findings and outcome (excellent and nonexcellent outcomes;
`p = 0.222).
`Of the 170 patients enrolled in this study, 45 received
`more than one AEDs therapy. Of these 45 patients, 36 re-
`ceived 2 AEDs, 7 received 3 AEDs, and 2 received more than
`3 AEDs. The other 125 patients included 103 who received
`phenytoin, 13 who received phenobarbital, 5 who received
`valproic acid, and 4 who received carbamazepine. The mean
`duration of AEDsuse in the late-provoked seizure group was
`37.1 months + 36.4 months. The adverse effects of AEDs
`included the following: hematologic disorders (leukocytosis
`or eosinophilia) in 12, cognitive impairment in 11, abnormal
`liver function in 10, skin rash in 10 (with one progressing to
`Stevens-Johnson Syndrome), gastrointestinal symptoms in 9,
`lethargy or fatigue in 5, tremor in 3, phlebitis in 2, weight
`change in 1, and gingival hyperplasia in 1.
`Comparisons of clinical features and laboratory data be-
`tween excellent or nonexcellent outcome of TBI were listed
`in (Table 2). Statistical analysis of the clinical manifestations
`and laboratory data between the two patient groups revealed
`the following significant findings: onset of acute symptom-
`atic seizures (early or late PTSs; p = 0.001), whether surgical
`intervention was necessary or not (p = 0.003), and duration
`of hospitalization (p = 0.001). Variables used in the logistic
`regression included onset of acute symptomatic seizures
`(early or late PTSs) and necessity of surgical intervention.
`After analysis of all the aforementioned variables, only onset
`of acute symptomatic seizures (early or late PTSs; p = 0.001)
`was independently associated with outcomeof seizures.
`
`886
`
`April 2008
`Copyright © Lippincott Willams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1103 Page 0004
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1103 Page 0004
`
`

`

`Factors and Outcomein Posttraumatic Seizures
`
`Among the 170 acute symptomatic seizure cases that were
`enrolled in this study, 44 (26%, 44 of 170) progressed to
`unprovoked seizures, whereas 126 (74%, 126 of 170) became
`seizure-free with or without AED therapy. The percent of
`early and late symptomatic seizures accounted for 62% (106
`of 170) and 38% (64 of 170) of episodes in our study,
`respectively.
`The onset of PTSs hassignificant implications for sub-
`sequent treatment and the quality of life of the patient. An
`important question, therefore, is whetherthere are prognostic
`factors that can identify the seizure frequencies of patients
`after the first acute symptomatic seizures. Therisk of devel-
`oping PTSs is primarily analyzed by the severity of the
`antecedent head injury, with high-risk factors that include
`neurologic characteristics such as acute intracranial hema-
`toma, depressed skull fracture, dural penetration, the presence
`of focal neurologic deficits, a deep and lengthy coma, or
`prolonged impairment of consciousness.!7!8
`In this study, we demonstrated that early acute symp-
`tomatic seizures (<7 days) during the acute phase of TBI had
`better outcomesthan for those who did not, though there was
`no difference noted between focal and generalized seizures.
`The mean duration of hospitalization during the acute phase
`of TBI was shorter among those whohadexcellent outcomes.
`Our study also demonstrated that
`there was a significant
`relationship between the onset of acute symptomatic seizure
`(early or late PTSs) and seizure subtypes (generalized tonic—
`clonic seizures, myoclonic seizures, focal seizures evolving
`to tonic-clonic convulsions, and focal seizures). We also
`found that
`the necessity of neurosurgical
`interventions
`strongly influenced the outcomeof seizure frequency.'’ The
`nonexcellent outcome in this study may beattributed to an
`underlying brain pathology, surgical intervention, or a com-
`bination of complications.
`Significant differences in study methods, particularly in
`case ascertainment and inclusion criteria, make study com-
`parisonsdifficult, particularly among subgroups of TBI pa-
`tients. Furthermore, clinical research for seizure prevention
`have several methodologic disadvantages,'*~°* including: (1)
`the patients are heterogeneous and have different propensities
`in developing unprovoked seizures; (2) prolonged period re-
`quired for the occurrence of unprovoked seizures in several
`individuals, which may affect patient compliance; (3) long-
`term treatment in patients developing seizures during the
`treatment; and (4) the increasingly predominant practice of
`starting AEDs after just one seizure, which may lessen the
`difference seen after the study drugs are discontinued and
`changing the natural history of PTS.
`Based on the above studies, AED prophylaxis seems to
`control provoked seizures in patients with TBI, although it
`does not seem to prevent the subsequent development of
`unprovoked seizures, which are poorly tolerated and even
`detrimental to cognitive and behavioral function. Our stan-
`dard protocol in administering AEDs is only for those who
`have had seizures in the acute stage of TBI, continuingthis to
`
`Logrank P= 0.0006
`
`
`
`
`
`Non-excellentoutcome
`
`
` Surgery (n=100}
` No Surgery. (n=70)
`
`O
`
`150
`1:00
`50
`Duration of Follow-up (months)
`Fig. 3. Kaplan-Meier plots indicating the percentages of nonexcel-
`lent outcome in the 170 PTSs patients after traumatic brain injury.
`The patients were divided into two groups: those with and those
`without surgical evacuation. The p value was obtained by log-rank
`comparison of data.
`
`To look at each factor individually, we calculated Kalpan-
`Meier estimates of the fraction developing nonexcellent
`outcome by different times for each subgroup and tested
`for differences by using a log-rank test. Onset of acute
`symptomatic seizures (early or late PTSs) and necessity of
`surgical intervention between the two patient groups (ex-
`cellent and nonexcellent outcome) showed the following:
`onset of acute symptomatic seizures (early or late PTSs:
`p = 0.0001; Fig. 2), and necessity of surgical intervention
`(p = 0.0006; Fig. 3).
`
`DISCUSSION
`The occurrence of seizures after head injury is a recog-
`nized complication of TBI and is known to worsen functional
`outcome significantly afterward.'® Much work has been per-
`formed in preventing the developmentof, or, at least, mini-
`mizing the impact of PTSs.In our study, acute symptomatic
`seizures accounted for 2% (190 of 9,212) of all episodes.
`
`Volume 64 « Number 4
`887
`Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1103 Page 0005
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1103 Page 0005
`
`Legrank P<0.0001
`
`Late seizure (n=64)
`
`te-]
`2os
`|
`2
`=:
`2068
`38 oad
`&
`6.27
`
`o2
`
`
`
`
`00>
`
`~T
`Q
`
`t
`T
`T
`150
`100
`50
`Duration of Follow-up (months)
`Fig. 2. Kaplan-Meier plots indicating the perceniage of nonexcel-
`lent outcome in the 170 PTS patients after traumatic brain injury.
`The patients were divided into two groups: those with late PTSs, and
`those with early PTSs. The p value was obtained by log-rank com-
`parison ofdata.
`
`

`

`
`
`TheJournal ofTRAUMA®Injury, Infection, and Critical Care
`
`prevent the development of later epilepsy. We do not use
`prophylactic AEDs therapy for those who do not have sei-
`zures in the acute stage of TBI.
`Although our study demonstrates that the time of onset
`of acute symptomatic seizures after TBI influences the out-
`comeafter PTSs, our study has several limitations. First, this
`is a retrospective analysis and is, therefore, subject to bias of
`unmeasured factors. It was also not possible to assess the
`effect of prophylactic AEDs after the acute stage of TBI to
`prevent later epilepsy or draw any conclusions. Second, only
`those who had acute symptomatic seizures during the acute
`phase of TBI were enrolled. Thus, continued uncertainty was
`present in assessing the incidence of unprovoked seizures
`after TBI in nonselected patients. Third, most patients in this
`study were treated with anticonvulsant medication after their
`first acute symptomatic seizure, in accordance with our study
`protocols. Thus, our findings may underestimate the “true”
`frequency of seizure associated with the “natural history” of
`untreated unprovoked seizures.
`Several studies focused on the effects of AEDs for pre-
`venting seizure after TBI.2!°-° All of their conclusions
`showed that the use of AEDs should be short (usually less
`than 7 days). The adverse effects of AEDs accounted for
`0.6% to 19.4% in different series.2>?© Because this is a
`retrospective study, the start of AED therapy would differ for
`each patient according to the preference of his or her doctor,
`which may cause potential bias in statistical analysis. Fur-
`thermore, our study only focused on patients who had sei-
`zures after acute traumatic head injury. It would be difficult
`to evaluate both the efficacy and adverse effects of AED
`prophylaxis for PTS and draw a conclusion.
`In conclusion,seizures are an important neurologic com-
`plication of TBI. Although antiepileptic therapy is usually
`short-term for patients with early-provoked seizures, 26% (44
`of 170) of cases with early-provoked seizures progress to
`unprovoked seizures. Regarding the potentially side ef-
`fects of AEDs, antiepileptic therapy should be carefully
`administrated in those nonexcellent outcomepatients in-
`cluding those patients who undergo surgical intervention
`and have late-provoked seizures during the acute phase of
`TBI.
`
`REFERENCES
`i. Chiu WT, Yeh KH, Li YC,et al. Traumatic brain injury registry in
`Taiwan. Neurol Res. 1997;19:261-264.
`2. Annegers JF, Hauser WA, Coan SP, et al. A population-based study
`of seizures after traumatic brain injuries. N Engl J Med. 1998;
`338:20~24,
`3. Annegers JF, Grabow JD, Groover RV,et al, Seizures after head
`trauma: a population study. Neurology. 1980;30:683-689.
`Jennett B. Early traumatic epilepsy. Incidence and significance after
`nonmissile injuries. Arch Neurol. 1974;30:394-398.
`
`4.
`
`Caveness WF. Epilepsy, a product of trauma in our time. Epilepsia.
`19763;17:207-215.
`Haltiner AM, Temkin NR, Dikmen SS. Risk of seizure recurrence
`after the first late posttraumatic seizure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
`1997;78:835-840.
`Engel J Jr, Van Ness PC, Rasmussen TB, et al. Outcome with
`respect to epileptic seizures. In: Engel J Jr, ed. Surgical Treatment of
`the Epilepsies. 2nd ed. New York: Raven Press: 1993:609—621.
`Frey LC. Epidemiology of posttraumatic epilepsy: a critical review.
`Epilepsia. 2003;44:11-17.
`Brain Injury Special Interest Group of the American Academy of
`Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Practice parameter:
`antiepileptic drug treatment of posttraumatic seizures. Arch Phys
`Med Rehabil. 1998;79:594 597.
`Commission on epidemiology and prognosis, international league
`against epilepsy. Guidelines for epidemiologic studies on epilepsy.
`Epilepsia. 1993;34:592-596.
`Commission on classification and terminology of international league
`against epilepsy. Proposal for revised classification of epilepsies and
`epileptic syndromes. Epilepsia. 1989;30:389-399.
`Lowenstein DH, Alldredge BK.Status epilepticus. N Engl J Med.
`1998;338:970-976.
`Bruns J Jr, Hauser WA. The epidemiology of traumatic brain injury:
`a review. Epilepsia. 2003;44:2—10.
`Shinnar S, Vining EP, Mellits ED, et al. Discontinuing antiepileptic
`medication in children with epilepsy after two years without
`seizures. A prospective study. N Engl J Med. 1985;313:976-980.
`Callaghan N, Garrett A, Goggin T. Withdrawal of anticonvulsant
`drags in patients free of seizures for two years. A prospective study.
`N Engl J Med. 1988;318:942-946.
`Asikainen I, Kaste M, Sarna S. Early and late posttraumatic seizures
`in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation patients: brain injury factors
`causing late seizures and influence of seizures on long-term
`outcome. Epilepsia. 1999;40:584—589,
`Temkin NR. Risk factors for posttraumatic seizures in adults.
`Epilepsia. 2003;44:18-20.
`Caveness WF, Meirowsky AM,Rish BL,et al. The nature of
`posttraumatic epilepsy. J Neurosurg. 1979;50:545-553.
`Temkin NR, Jarell AD, Anderson GD. Antiepileptogenic agents:
`how close are we? Drugs. 2001;61:1045-1055.
`Temkin NR, Dikmen $S, Wilensky AJ, et al. A randomized, double-
`blind study of phenytoin for the prevention of post-traumatic
`seizures. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:497-502.
`Schierhout G, Roberts I. Prophylactic antiepileptic agents after head
`injury: a systematic review. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1998;
`64:108~112.
`
`Temkin NR. Antiepileptogenesis and seizure prevention trials with
`antiepileptic drugs: meta-analysis of controlled trials. Epilepsia.
`2001 ;42:515—524.
`D’ Ambrosio R, Perucea E. Epilepsy after head injury. Curr Opin
`Neurol. 2004;17:731-735.
`Beghi E. Overview of studies to prevent posttraumatic epilepsy.
`Epilepsia, 2003;44:21-26.
`Rapp RP, Norton JA, Young B, Tibbs PA. Cutaneous reactions in
`head-injured patients receiving phenytoin for seizure prophylaxis.
`Neurosurgery. 1983;13:272-275.
`Haltiner AM, Newell DW, Temkin NR, Dikmen SS, Winn HR. Side
`effects and mortality associated with use of phenytoin for early
`posttraumatic seizure prophylaxis. J Neurosurg. 1999;91:588—592.
`
`10.
`
`il.
`
`12,
`
`13.
`
`14,
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18,
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24,
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`888
`
`April 2008
`Copyright © Lippincott Willams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1103 Page 0006
`AQUESTIVE EXHIBIT 1103 Page 0006
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket