Management of refractory status epilepticus in adults: still more questions than answers.

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) is defined as status epilepticus that continues despite treatment with benzodiazepines and one antiepileptic drug. RSE should be treated promptly to prevent morbidity and mortality; however, scarce evidence is available to support the choice of specific treatments. Major independent outcome predictors are age (not modifiable) and cause (which should be actively targeted). Recent recommendations for adults suggest that the aggressiveness of treatment for RSE should be tailored to the clinical situation. To minimise intensive care unit-related complications, focal RSE without impairment of consciousness might initially be approached conservatively; conversely, early induction of pharmacological coma is advisable in generalised convulsive forms of the disorder. At this stage, midazolam, propofol, or barbiturates are the most commonly used drugs. Several other treatments, such as additional anaesthetics, other antiepileptic or immunomodulatory compounds, or non-pharmacological approaches (eg, electroconvulsive treatment or hypothermia), have been used in protracted RSE. Treatment lasting weeks or months can sometimes result in a good outcome, as in selected patients after encephalitis or autoimmune disorders. Well designed prospective studies of RSE are urgently needed.

First use of multiple substances: Identification of meaningful patterns

Context: Understanding the process through which adolescents and young adults are trying legal and illegal substances is a crucial point for the development of tailored prevention and treatment programs. However, patterns of substance first use can be very complex when multiple substances are considered, requiring reduction into a few meaningful number of categories. Data: We used data from a survey on adolescent and young adult health conducted in 2002 in Switzerland. Answers from 2212 subjects aged 19 and 20 were included. The first consumption ever of 10 substances (tobacco, cannabis, medicine to get high, sniff (volatile substances, and inhalants), ecstasy, GHB, LSD, cocaine, methadone, and heroin) was considered for a grand total of 516 different patterns. Methods: In a first step, automatic clustering was used to decrease the number of patterns to 50. Then, two groups of substance use experts, three social field workers, and three toxicologists and health professionals, were asked to reduce them into a maximum of 10 meaningful categories. Results: Classifications obtained through our methodology are of practical interest by revealing associations invisible to purely automatic algorithms. The article includes a detailed analysis of both final classifications, and a discussion on the advantages and limitations of our approach.

Argumentation and education. Theoretical foundations and practices

During the last decade, argumentation has attracted growing attention as a means to elicit processes (linguistic, logical, dialogical, psychological, etc.) that can sustain or provoke reasoning and learning. Constituting an important dimension of daily life and of professional activities, argumentation plays a special role in democracies and is at the heart of philosophical reasoning and scientific inquiry. Argumentation, as such, requires specific intellectual and social skills. Hence, argumentation will have an increasing importance in education, both because it is a critical competence that has to be learned, and because argumentation can be used to foster learning in philosophy, history, sciences and in many other domains. Argumentation and Education answers these and other questions by providing both theoretical backgrounds, in psychology, education and theory of argumentation, and concrete examples of experiments and results in school contexts in a range of domains. It reports on existing innovative practices in education settings at various levels.