Epilepsy Resource Center

The most reliable predictors of remission in newly diagnosed epilepsy include patient history, seizure characteristics, and onset age, according to authors of a recent review. Clinical prediction models can help neurologists identify which patients could benefit from more aggressive early treatment, authors added, although concerns over bias and model applicability leave room for improvement.

Triggering Aggressive Treatments

“These models are helpful because if you can predict that someone is going to do well with one or two medications, that’s great,” said Aatif M. Husain, MD. “But if you know early on that someone likely will not do well, will need many medications, and still not have their seizures under control, you’re much more likely to be more aggressive with their management, such as closely refer them to a specialist epilepsy center and evaluate them for surgical treatment options. This could minimize the amount of time their seizures are inadequately controlled.” Dr. Husain is an epileptologist, neurologist, and sleep medicine specialist at Duke University Health System in Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Husain was not involved with the study, which was published in Epilepsia.

“But the other important finding is that these models so far have not been that great,” he added.

wulecapedrudrejewrebrikicunechastosawaphistoshuritratreclironeslapovivawrospiclelisushobacleswuswagocroliphocruwruwratrachuswithocrevenothodrogithunasegubrevoketemastobocrudrokuhopacathojubiweclithedrefriprustisw

Prognosis Predictors

Investigators Corey Ratcliffe of the University of Liverpool in England and colleagues systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase for relevant publications, ultimately analyzing 48 models across 32 studies. The strongest predictors of seizure remission were history and seizure types or characteristics, the authors wrote, followed by onset age.

Regarding seizure history, a March 2018 JAMA Neurology study and a December 2013 BMC Neurology study linked factors such as history of seizures in the year pre-diagnosis, family history of epilepsy, and history of febrile seizures and of migraines with lower chances of seizure remission. Seizure types with increased chances of poor outcomes in the review included status epilepticus and seizures with complex or mixed etiologies. Additional seizure types associated with poor control include tonic-clonic seizures, frequent focal seizures, and seizures stemming from certain genetic predispositions, said Dr. Husain.

Although the roles of many of the foregoing factors are easily explained, he added, other variables’ impact is less clear. Younger onset often signals more refractory seizures, for example, while data regarding older onset are mixed. “Sometimes older individuals will have mild epilepsy due to a stroke, tumor, or something that can be relatively easily treated,” said Dr. Husain. Conversely, epilepsy can become more complicated if such patients take several medications and/or have coexisting medical problems that seizures or antiseizure medications exacerbate. “So sometimes it’s not so obvious.”
 

Incorporating Imaging, AI

Dr. Husain found it surprising that very few of the selected models incorporated EEG and MRI findings. “Subsequent research should look at those, since they are important diagnostic tests.” Moreover, he recommended including more sophisticated quantitative and connectivity analyses of EEG and MRI data. These analyses might provide additional prognostic information beyond a simple visual analysis of these tests, Dr. Husain explained, although their potential here remains unproven.

As for factors not represented in the review, he said, future studies will help clarify AI’s role in predicting newly diagnosed epilepsy outcomes. A study published in Epilepsia showed that among 248 potential pediatric surgical candidates, those whose providers received alerts based on machine learning analysis of prior visit notes were more likely to be referred for presurgical evaluation (9.8% versus 3.1%). Future clinical models will use AI to examine not only established elements of neurologic history, said Dr. Husain, but also other types of history such as socioeconomic characteristics, geographic location, and other such data.

Additionally, study authors recommended a standardized approach to prediction modeling, using Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines. Using consistent definitions, outcomes, and reporting requirements will facilitate communication among researchers, reduce bias, and support systematic between-study comparisons, Mr. Ratcliffe and colleagues wrote.
 

Reaching General Neurologists

Epilepsy specialists are generally aware of reliable outcome predictors, Dr. Husain said, though they do not use models per se. “But the vast majority of patients with epilepsy are seen by general neurologists.” And the lack of awareness among these physicians and primary care practitioners drives a need for education to facilitate appropriate referrals to subspecialty centers, he said.

The stakes for timely referrals can be high. Although using appropriate outcome models improves patients’ quality of life sooner, said Dr. Husain, allowing seizures to go untreated or undertreated results in neuroplastic changes that hinder long-term seizure control.

The fact that all 32 included studies reflected a high risk of bias, and 9 studies raised high applicability concerns, raises questions regarding the models’ validity, he added. Mr. Ratcliffe and colleagues attributed both types of concerns to the fact that 20% of included studies used baseline treatment response data as outcome predictors.

Nevertheless, Dr. Husain cautioned against dismissing prediction models in newly diagnosed epilepsy. “Practicing neurologists need to realize that the perfect model has yet to be developed. But the current tools can be used to help manage patients with epilepsy and predict who will do well and not as well,” he said.

Dr. Husain is a member of the American Epilepsy Society. He has been a consultant and researcher for Marinus Pharmaceuticals, PranaQ, and UCB, and a consultant for Eisai, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and uniQure. Study authors reported no funding sources or relevant conflicts of interest.

The most reliable predictors of remission in newly diagnosed epilepsy include patient history, seizure characteristics, and onset age, according to authors of a recent review. Clinical prediction models can help neurologists identify which patients could benefit from more aggressive early treatment, authors added, although concerns over bias and model applicability leave room for improvement.

Triggering Aggressive Treatments

“These models are helpful because if you can predict that someone is going to do well with one or two medications, that’s great,” said Aatif M. Husain, MD. “But if you know early on that someone likely will not do well, will need many medications, and still not have their seizures under control, you’re much more likely to be more aggressive with their management, such as closely refer them to a specialist epilepsy center and evaluate them for surgical treatment options. This could minimize the amount of time their seizures are inadequately controlled.” Dr. Husain is an epileptologist, neurologist, and sleep medicine specialist at Duke University Health System in Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Husain was not involved with the study, which was published in Epilepsia.

“But the other important finding is that these models so far have not been that great,” he added.

wulecapedrudrejewrebrikicunechastosawaphistoshuritratreclironeslapovivawrospiclelisushobacleswuswagocroliphocruwruwratrachuswithocrevenothodrogithunasegubrevoketemastobocrudrokuhopacathojubiweclithedrefriprustisw

Prognosis Predictors

Investigators Corey Ratcliffe of the University of Liverpool in England and colleagues systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase for relevant publications, ultimately analyzing 48 models across 32 studies. The strongest predictors of seizure remission were history and seizure types or characteristics, the authors wrote, followed by onset age.

Regarding seizure history, a March 2018 JAMA Neurology study and a December 2013 BMC Neurology study linked factors such as history of seizures in the year pre-diagnosis, family history of epilepsy, and history of febrile seizures and of migraines with lower chances of seizure remission. Seizure types with increased chances of poor outcomes in the review included status epilepticus and seizures with complex or mixed etiologies. Additional seizure types associated with poor control include tonic-clonic seizures, frequent focal seizures, and seizures stemming from certain genetic predispositions, said Dr. Husain.

Although the roles of many of the foregoing factors are easily explained, he added, other variables’ impact is less clear. Younger onset often signals more refractory seizures, for example, while data regarding older onset are mixed. “Sometimes older individuals will have mild epilepsy due to a stroke, tumor, or something that can be relatively easily treated,” said Dr. Husain. Conversely, epilepsy can become more complicated if such patients take several medications and/or have coexisting medical problems that seizures or antiseizure medications exacerbate. “So sometimes it’s not so obvious.”
 

Incorporating Imaging, AI

Dr. Husain found it surprising that very few of the selected models incorporated EEG and MRI findings. “Subsequent research should look at those, since they are important diagnostic tests.” Moreover, he recommended including more sophisticated quantitative and connectivity analyses of EEG and MRI data. These analyses might provide additional prognostic information beyond a simple visual analysis of these tests, Dr. Husain explained, although their potential here remains unproven.

As for factors not represented in the review, he said, future studies will help clarify AI’s role in predicting newly diagnosed epilepsy outcomes. A study published in Epilepsia showed that among 248 potential pediatric surgical candidates, those whose providers received alerts based on machine learning analysis of prior visit notes were more likely to be referred for presurgical evaluation (9.8% versus 3.1%). Future clinical models will use AI to examine not only established elements of neurologic history, said Dr. Husain, but also other types of history such as socioeconomic characteristics, geographic location, and other such data.

Additionally, study authors recommended a standardized approach to prediction modeling, using Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines. Using consistent definitions, outcomes, and reporting requirements will facilitate communication among researchers, reduce bias, and support systematic between-study comparisons, Mr. Ratcliffe and colleagues wrote.
 

Reaching General Neurologists

Epilepsy specialists are generally aware of reliable outcome predictors, Dr. Husain said, though they do not use models per se. “But the vast majority of patients with epilepsy are seen by general neurologists.” And the lack of awareness among these physicians and primary care practitioners drives a need for education to facilitate appropriate referrals to subspecialty centers, he said.

The stakes for timely referrals can be high. Although using appropriate outcome models improves patients’ quality of life sooner, said Dr. Husain, allowing seizures to go untreated or undertreated results in neuroplastic changes that hinder long-term seizure control.

The fact that all 32 included studies reflected a high risk of bias, and 9 studies raised high applicability concerns, raises questions regarding the models’ validity, he added. Mr. Ratcliffe and colleagues attributed both types of concerns to the fact that 20% of included studies used baseline treatment response data as outcome predictors.

Nevertheless, Dr. Husain cautioned against dismissing prediction models in newly diagnosed epilepsy. “Practicing neurologists need to realize that the perfect model has yet to be developed. But the current tools can be used to help manage patients with epilepsy and predict who will do well and not as well,” he said.

Dr. Husain is a member of the American Epilepsy Society. He has been a consultant and researcher for Marinus Pharmaceuticals, PranaQ, and UCB, and a consultant for Eisai, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and uniQure. Study authors reported no funding sources or relevant conflicts of interest.

The most reliable predictors of remission in newly diagnosed epilepsy include patient history, seizure characteristics, and onset age, according to authors of a recent review. Clinical prediction models can help neurologists identify which patients could benefit from more aggressive early treatment, authors added, although concerns over bias and model applicability leave room for improvement.

Triggering Aggressive Treatments

“These models are helpful because if you can predict that someone is going to do well with one or two medications, that’s great,” said Aatif M. Husain, MD. “But if you know early on that someone likely will not do well, will need many medications, and still not have their seizures under control, you’re much more likely to be more aggressive with their management, such as closely refer them to a specialist epilepsy center and evaluate them for surgical treatment options. This could minimize the amount of time their seizures are inadequately controlled.” Dr. Husain is an epileptologist, neurologist, and sleep medicine specialist at Duke University Health System in Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Husain was not involved with the study, which was published in Epilepsia.

“But the other important finding is that these models so far have not been that great,” he added.

wulecapedrudrejewrebrikicunechastosawaphistoshuritratreclironeslapovivawrospiclelisushobacleswuswagocroliphocruwruwratrachuswithocrevenothodrogithunasegubrevoketemastobocrudrokuhopacathojubiweclithedrefriprustisw

Prognosis Predictors

Investigators Corey Ratcliffe of the University of Liverpool in England and colleagues systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase for relevant publications, ultimately analyzing 48 models across 32 studies. The strongest predictors of seizure remission were history and seizure types or characteristics, the authors wrote, followed by onset age.

Regarding seizure history, a March 2018 JAMA Neurology study and a December 2013 BMC Neurology study linked factors such as history of seizures in the year pre-diagnosis, family history of epilepsy, and history of febrile seizures and of migraines with lower chances of seizure remission. Seizure types with increased chances of poor outcomes in the review included status epilepticus and seizures with complex or mixed etiologies. Additional seizure types associated with poor control include tonic-clonic seizures, frequent focal seizures, and seizures stemming from certain genetic predispositions, said Dr. Husain.

Although the roles of many of the foregoing factors are easily explained, he added, other variables’ impact is less clear. Younger onset often signals more refractory seizures, for example, while data regarding older onset are mixed. “Sometimes older individuals will have mild epilepsy due to a stroke, tumor, or something that can be relatively easily treated,” said Dr. Husain. Conversely, epilepsy can become more complicated if such patients take several medications and/or have coexisting medical problems that seizures or antiseizure medications exacerbate. “So sometimes it’s not so obvious.”
 

Incorporating Imaging, AI

Dr. Husain found it surprising that very few of the selected models incorporated EEG and MRI findings. “Subsequent research should look at those, since they are important diagnostic tests.” Moreover, he recommended including more sophisticated quantitative and connectivity analyses of EEG and MRI data. These analyses might provide additional prognostic information beyond a simple visual analysis of these tests, Dr. Husain explained, although their potential here remains unproven.

As for factors not represented in the review, he said, future studies will help clarify AI’s role in predicting newly diagnosed epilepsy outcomes. A study published in Epilepsia showed that among 248 potential pediatric surgical candidates, those whose providers received alerts based on machine learning analysis of prior visit notes were more likely to be referred for presurgical evaluation (9.8% versus 3.1%). Future clinical models will use AI to examine not only established elements of neurologic history, said Dr. Husain, but also other types of history such as socioeconomic characteristics, geographic location, and other such data.

Additionally, study authors recommended a standardized approach to prediction modeling, using Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines. Using consistent definitions, outcomes, and reporting requirements will facilitate communication among researchers, reduce bias, and support systematic between-study comparisons, Mr. Ratcliffe and colleagues wrote.
 

Reaching General Neurologists

Epilepsy specialists are generally aware of reliable outcome predictors, Dr. Husain said, though they do not use models per se. “But the vast majority of patients with epilepsy are seen by general neurologists.” And the lack of awareness among these physicians and primary care practitioners drives a need for education to facilitate appropriate referrals to subspecialty centers, he said.

The stakes for timely referrals can be high. Although using appropriate outcome models improves patients’ quality of life sooner, said Dr. Husain, allowing seizures to go untreated or undertreated results in neuroplastic changes that hinder long-term seizure control.

The fact that all 32 included studies reflected a high risk of bias, and 9 studies raised high applicability concerns, raises questions regarding the models’ validity, he added. Mr. Ratcliffe and colleagues attributed both types of concerns to the fact that 20% of included studies used baseline treatment response data as outcome predictors.

Nevertheless, Dr. Husain cautioned against dismissing prediction models in newly diagnosed epilepsy. “Practicing neurologists need to realize that the perfect model has yet to be developed. But the current tools can be used to help manage patients with epilepsy and predict who will do well and not as well,” he said.

Dr. Husain is a member of the American Epilepsy Society. He has been a consultant and researcher for Marinus Pharmaceuticals, PranaQ, and UCB, and a consultant for Eisai, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and uniQure. Study authors reported no funding sources or relevant conflicts of interest.

DENVER — Two new drugs are headed toward pivotal trials after making their endpoints in phase 2 treatment-resistant epilepsy studies, while a first-in-man study of an implantable product suggests a new direction for this disease , according to new data presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Of the two drugs evaluated in phase 2 trials, one is a highly targeted TARP-8–dependent AMPA receptor antagonist known as ES-481. The other is XEN1101, a novel potassium channel opener that was well tolerated as well as effective.

TARP inhibitors, which act on transmembrane AMPA (alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4 isoxazolepropionic acid) receptor regulatory proteins, are already available for the control of epilepsy, but ES-481 might be different, according to Terrence J. O’Brien, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
 

First-in-Class TARP Inhibitor Is Tested

As a “first-in-class, potent and selective antagonist of the TARP-γ8 AMPA receptor,” ES-481 is “predicted to effectively suppress focal seizures arising from the hippocampus and limbic system,” he said. Dr. O’Brien claims that this specificity of action appears to circumvent central nervous system side effects in studies so far.

In the phase 2a multicenter, randomized trial, 22 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy of any type (focal, generalized, or mixed) were randomized to ES-481 or placebo. In the ES-481 arm, the dose was escalated each week, climbing from 25 mg once-daily, to 25 mg twice-daily, 50 mg twice-daily, and then to 75 mg twice daily. At the end of 4 weeks and after a 7-day washout, the randomized groups were crossed over to the opposite therapy for another 4 weeks.

When data were confined to the first treatment period to avoid a carry-over effect, there was a consistent advantage for active treatment over placebo. At the highest 75-mg twice-daily dose of ES-481, the reduction in seizure frequency was 80% vs 49% on placebo ( P < .05).

The rate of complete remission at the end of the study was not greater for ES-481, but higher proportions of patients on active therapy achieved reductions from baseline in seizure activity when defined as greater than 30% (72.77% vs 36.4%) or greater than 50% (36.4% vs 18.2%). P values for these differences were not provided.

Differences in EEG were not observed, but Dr. O’Brien reported that 18 of the subjects had no EEG activity at baseline, diminishing the opportunity to show a difference.
 

Open-Label Study Supports Controlled Data

Sixteen patients have entered an open-label extension with sustained suppression of seizure activity relative to baseline observed so far, Dr. O’Brien reported.

ES-481 was well tolerated. There were no significant changes in lab values, and all four of the adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred on placebo. There were higher rates of dizziness, insomnia, gait disturbance, and dysarthria associated with ES-481 than placebo, but the rate of serious adverse events was lower (4.8% vs 14.3%).

These response rates are noteworthy because patients had severe disease with diminishing therapeutic options, according to Dr. O’Brien. For entry, patients were required to be taking one to four antiseizure medications while still experiencing seizure activity. The patients averaged one interictal epileptiform discharge and/or seizure per hour on EEG.

Large-scale, double-blind, controlled studies are planned and warranted on the basis of these data, according to Dr. O’Brien, who emphasized that benefit was achieved with a low relative risk of significant adverse events.
 

New Potassium Channel Opener Shows Promise

Data with the selective potassium channel opener XEN1101 from the previously published phase 2b X-TOLE trial were reported in two parts. The first set of data involved an analysis of response by baseline activity. The other set of data were generated by an ongoing open-label extension (OLE) of X-TOLE.

In X-TOLE, which randomized 325 patients with treatment-resistant focal-onset seizures (FOS) to one of three doses of XEN-1011 or placebo, the median reduction in FOS at the highest dose of 25 mg once-daily XEN-1011 was 52.8% vs placebo (P < .001).

In the new analysis, the goal was to look at efficacy of the 25-mg dose across differences in baseline severity, reported Roger J. Porter, MD, adjunct professor of neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Generally, a greater response was observed for those with less severe disease. For example, the response rate defined as greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency on XEN1101 was higher for those with a baseline seizure activity of 8.5 seizures/month or fewer relative to more (65.5% vs 50.6%) and six or fewer antiseizure medications relative to more (64.2% vs 40.0%).

Pointing out that the study enrolled a challenging group of patients, Dr. Porter said that the data do not rule out efficacy “across the spectrum of epilepsy severity,” but he did suggest that these data will provide context for the coming phase 3 trials.

In the OLE data presented by Jacqueline French, MD, professor of neurology at the Langone School of Medicine of New York University, the efficacy and safety of XEN1101 taken with food has been consistent with what was observed in the double-blind trial. With up to 2 years of follow-up in the planned 5-year OLE, which is evaluating 20 mg once-daily taken with food, 60% are still on therapy,

For those followed for 24 months, 23.6% are completely seizure free, according to Dr. French. For those followed at least 12 months, 31.5% have achieved a median percent reduction in monthly seizure activity of 90% or more; 41.8% a reduction of 75% or more; and 69.7% a reduction of 50% or more.

The side-effect profile has also been consistent with that seen in the phase 2b trial. Dizziness and other mild to moderate side effects that often accompany antiseizure medications have been observed, along with modest weight gain, but there have been no new safety signals over long-term use.

If a planned phase 3 study enrolling patients with localized and general epilepsy confirms these phase 2 data, Dr. French indicated that it has the potential to advance a potassium channel opener that is both efficacious and well tolerated.
 

First-in-Man Study Performed With Stem Cell Product

The investigational product for treatment-resistant epilepsy has data on just five patients. Yet, the two patients followed the longest, both of which had highly treatment-resistant epilepsy, have had reductions in seizure activity exceeding 95%, according to Cory Nicholas, PhD, the chief executive officer of Neurona Therapeutics.

NRTX-100 is a GABAergic interneuron product derived from human pluripotent stem cells. The NRTX cells are surgically transplanted into the head and body of the hippocampus in patients with unilateral temporal lobe epilepsy with hippocampal sclerosis. The procedure is performed with MRI guidance, and patients are placed on immunosuppression that starts 1 week before surgery and is tapered 1 year later.

In this first-in-man study, the primary outcome of interest was safety. There have been no adverse events associated with this stem cell product in follow-up so far, according to Dr. Nicholas, who presented data on the first 5 of 10 procedures that have been completed so far.

Consistent with the prior work in animal models, it takes several months for the reduction in seizures to be achieved and, in animal models, to see improved functionality. It is notable that the reductions in seizure activity observed over time in those patients followed the longest have been accompanied by evidence of neurocognitive improvement, Dr. Nicholas reported.

“The efficacy has seemed durable so far, and we expect incremental improvement in clinical response over time,” said Dr. Nicholas, who reported that the Food and Drug Administration has already approved a second clinical study.
 

Are New Antiseizure Therapies Needed?

The value of this and the other emerging therapies is that “no treatment for epilepsy works well in every patient. We continue to need a wide array of treatments to find the one right for the patient in front of us,” said Nassim Zecavati, MD, director of Epilepsy, Children’s Hospital, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Asked to comment on the promise of these three therapies, Dr. Zecavati suggested each is intriguing for different reasons. AMPA receptor antagonists have proven to be a promising drug class so far, suggesting that “another could be helpful.” Potassium channel openers appear to have “a great mechanism of action,” but Dr. Zecavati said drugs in this class with a more favorable safety profile are needed.

As for NRTX-1001, she was intrigued with its novelty. She speculated that it might have particular promise for intractable drug-resistant epilepsy in patients who are not candidates for standard surgical strategies but might tolerate a less invasive procedure.

“My question might be who is going to perform this procedure,” Dr. Zecavati said. Noting that experience and skill might be needed to achieve an optimal result with cell transplantation into the brain, she said she will be waiting for more studies that might answer this question and to determine where, if effective, it would fit among current options.

Dr. O’Brien reported financial relationships with Eisai, Kinoxis, Livanova, Supernus, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Porter reported financial relationships with Axonis, Engrail, Longboard, Neurocrine, and Xenon, which provided funding for the study he discussed. Dr. French has financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Xenon, which provided funding for the study she discussed. Dr. Nicholas is chief executive officer of Neurona Therapeutics. Dr. Zecavati reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — Two new drugs are headed toward pivotal trials after making their endpoints in phase 2 treatment-resistant epilepsy studies, while a first-in-man study of an implantable product suggests a new direction for this disease , according to new data presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Of the two drugs evaluated in phase 2 trials, one is a highly targeted TARP-8–dependent AMPA receptor antagonist known as ES-481. The other is XEN1101, a novel potassium channel opener that was well tolerated as well as effective.

TARP inhibitors, which act on transmembrane AMPA (alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4 isoxazolepropionic acid) receptor regulatory proteins, are already available for the control of epilepsy, but ES-481 might be different, according to Terrence J. O’Brien, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
 

First-in-Class TARP Inhibitor Is Tested

As a “first-in-class, potent and selective antagonist of the TARP-γ8 AMPA receptor,” ES-481 is “predicted to effectively suppress focal seizures arising from the hippocampus and limbic system,” he said. Dr. O’Brien claims that this specificity of action appears to circumvent central nervous system side effects in studies so far.

In the phase 2a multicenter, randomized trial, 22 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy of any type (focal, generalized, or mixed) were randomized to ES-481 or placebo. In the ES-481 arm, the dose was escalated each week, climbing from 25 mg once-daily, to 25 mg twice-daily, 50 mg twice-daily, and then to 75 mg twice daily. At the end of 4 weeks and after a 7-day washout, the randomized groups were crossed over to the opposite therapy for another 4 weeks.

When data were confined to the first treatment period to avoid a carry-over effect, there was a consistent advantage for active treatment over placebo. At the highest 75-mg twice-daily dose of ES-481, the reduction in seizure frequency was 80% vs 49% on placebo ( P < .05).

The rate of complete remission at the end of the study was not greater for ES-481, but higher proportions of patients on active therapy achieved reductions from baseline in seizure activity when defined as greater than 30% (72.77% vs 36.4%) or greater than 50% (36.4% vs 18.2%). P values for these differences were not provided.

Differences in EEG were not observed, but Dr. O’Brien reported that 18 of the subjects had no EEG activity at baseline, diminishing the opportunity to show a difference.
 

Open-Label Study Supports Controlled Data

Sixteen patients have entered an open-label extension with sustained suppression of seizure activity relative to baseline observed so far, Dr. O’Brien reported.

ES-481 was well tolerated. There were no significant changes in lab values, and all four of the adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred on placebo. There were higher rates of dizziness, insomnia, gait disturbance, and dysarthria associated with ES-481 than placebo, but the rate of serious adverse events was lower (4.8% vs 14.3%).

These response rates are noteworthy because patients had severe disease with diminishing therapeutic options, according to Dr. O’Brien. For entry, patients were required to be taking one to four antiseizure medications while still experiencing seizure activity. The patients averaged one interictal epileptiform discharge and/or seizure per hour on EEG.

Large-scale, double-blind, controlled studies are planned and warranted on the basis of these data, according to Dr. O’Brien, who emphasized that benefit was achieved with a low relative risk of significant adverse events.
 

New Potassium Channel Opener Shows Promise

Data with the selective potassium channel opener XEN1101 from the previously published phase 2b X-TOLE trial were reported in two parts. The first set of data involved an analysis of response by baseline activity. The other set of data were generated by an ongoing open-label extension (OLE) of X-TOLE.

In X-TOLE, which randomized 325 patients with treatment-resistant focal-onset seizures (FOS) to one of three doses of XEN-1011 or placebo, the median reduction in FOS at the highest dose of 25 mg once-daily XEN-1011 was 52.8% vs placebo (P < .001).

In the new analysis, the goal was to look at efficacy of the 25-mg dose across differences in baseline severity, reported Roger J. Porter, MD, adjunct professor of neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Generally, a greater response was observed for those with less severe disease. For example, the response rate defined as greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency on XEN1101 was higher for those with a baseline seizure activity of 8.5 seizures/month or fewer relative to more (65.5% vs 50.6%) and six or fewer antiseizure medications relative to more (64.2% vs 40.0%).

Pointing out that the study enrolled a challenging group of patients, Dr. Porter said that the data do not rule out efficacy “across the spectrum of epilepsy severity,” but he did suggest that these data will provide context for the coming phase 3 trials.

In the OLE data presented by Jacqueline French, MD, professor of neurology at the Langone School of Medicine of New York University, the efficacy and safety of XEN1101 taken with food has been consistent with what was observed in the double-blind trial. With up to 2 years of follow-up in the planned 5-year OLE, which is evaluating 20 mg once-daily taken with food, 60% are still on therapy,

For those followed for 24 months, 23.6% are completely seizure free, according to Dr. French. For those followed at least 12 months, 31.5% have achieved a median percent reduction in monthly seizure activity of 90% or more; 41.8% a reduction of 75% or more; and 69.7% a reduction of 50% or more.

The side-effect profile has also been consistent with that seen in the phase 2b trial. Dizziness and other mild to moderate side effects that often accompany antiseizure medications have been observed, along with modest weight gain, but there have been no new safety signals over long-term use.

If a planned phase 3 study enrolling patients with localized and general epilepsy confirms these phase 2 data, Dr. French indicated that it has the potential to advance a potassium channel opener that is both efficacious and well tolerated.
 

First-in-Man Study Performed With Stem Cell Product

The investigational product for treatment-resistant epilepsy has data on just five patients. Yet, the two patients followed the longest, both of which had highly treatment-resistant epilepsy, have had reductions in seizure activity exceeding 95%, according to Cory Nicholas, PhD, the chief executive officer of Neurona Therapeutics.

NRTX-100 is a GABAergic interneuron product derived from human pluripotent stem cells. The NRTX cells are surgically transplanted into the head and body of the hippocampus in patients with unilateral temporal lobe epilepsy with hippocampal sclerosis. The procedure is performed with MRI guidance, and patients are placed on immunosuppression that starts 1 week before surgery and is tapered 1 year later.

In this first-in-man study, the primary outcome of interest was safety. There have been no adverse events associated with this stem cell product in follow-up so far, according to Dr. Nicholas, who presented data on the first 5 of 10 procedures that have been completed so far.

Consistent with the prior work in animal models, it takes several months for the reduction in seizures to be achieved and, in animal models, to see improved functionality. It is notable that the reductions in seizure activity observed over time in those patients followed the longest have been accompanied by evidence of neurocognitive improvement, Dr. Nicholas reported.

“The efficacy has seemed durable so far, and we expect incremental improvement in clinical response over time,” said Dr. Nicholas, who reported that the Food and Drug Administration has already approved a second clinical study.
 

Are New Antiseizure Therapies Needed?

The value of this and the other emerging therapies is that “no treatment for epilepsy works well in every patient. We continue to need a wide array of treatments to find the one right for the patient in front of us,” said Nassim Zecavati, MD, director of Epilepsy, Children’s Hospital, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Asked to comment on the promise of these three therapies, Dr. Zecavati suggested each is intriguing for different reasons. AMPA receptor antagonists have proven to be a promising drug class so far, suggesting that “another could be helpful.” Potassium channel openers appear to have “a great mechanism of action,” but Dr. Zecavati said drugs in this class with a more favorable safety profile are needed.

As for NRTX-1001, she was intrigued with its novelty. She speculated that it might have particular promise for intractable drug-resistant epilepsy in patients who are not candidates for standard surgical strategies but might tolerate a less invasive procedure.

“My question might be who is going to perform this procedure,” Dr. Zecavati said. Noting that experience and skill might be needed to achieve an optimal result with cell transplantation into the brain, she said she will be waiting for more studies that might answer this question and to determine where, if effective, it would fit among current options.

Dr. O’Brien reported financial relationships with Eisai, Kinoxis, Livanova, Supernus, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Porter reported financial relationships with Axonis, Engrail, Longboard, Neurocrine, and Xenon, which provided funding for the study he discussed. Dr. French has financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Xenon, which provided funding for the study she discussed. Dr. Nicholas is chief executive officer of Neurona Therapeutics. Dr. Zecavati reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — Two new drugs are headed toward pivotal trials after making their endpoints in phase 2 treatment-resistant epilepsy studies, while a first-in-man study of an implantable product suggests a new direction for this disease , according to new data presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Of the two drugs evaluated in phase 2 trials, one is a highly targeted TARP-8–dependent AMPA receptor antagonist known as ES-481. The other is XEN1101, a novel potassium channel opener that was well tolerated as well as effective.

TARP inhibitors, which act on transmembrane AMPA (alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4 isoxazolepropionic acid) receptor regulatory proteins, are already available for the control of epilepsy, but ES-481 might be different, according to Terrence J. O’Brien, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
 

First-in-Class TARP Inhibitor Is Tested

As a “first-in-class, potent and selective antagonist of the TARP-γ8 AMPA receptor,” ES-481 is “predicted to effectively suppress focal seizures arising from the hippocampus and limbic system,” he said. Dr. O’Brien claims that this specificity of action appears to circumvent central nervous system side effects in studies so far.

In the phase 2a multicenter, randomized trial, 22 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy of any type (focal, generalized, or mixed) were randomized to ES-481 or placebo. In the ES-481 arm, the dose was escalated each week, climbing from 25 mg once-daily, to 25 mg twice-daily, 50 mg twice-daily, and then to 75 mg twice daily. At the end of 4 weeks and after a 7-day washout, the randomized groups were crossed over to the opposite therapy for another 4 weeks.

When data were confined to the first treatment period to avoid a carry-over effect, there was a consistent advantage for active treatment over placebo. At the highest 75-mg twice-daily dose of ES-481, the reduction in seizure frequency was 80% vs 49% on placebo ( P < .05).

The rate of complete remission at the end of the study was not greater for ES-481, but higher proportions of patients on active therapy achieved reductions from baseline in seizure activity when defined as greater than 30% (72.77% vs 36.4%) or greater than 50% (36.4% vs 18.2%). P values for these differences were not provided.

Differences in EEG were not observed, but Dr. O’Brien reported that 18 of the subjects had no EEG activity at baseline, diminishing the opportunity to show a difference.
 

Open-Label Study Supports Controlled Data

Sixteen patients have entered an open-label extension with sustained suppression of seizure activity relative to baseline observed so far, Dr. O’Brien reported.

ES-481 was well tolerated. There were no significant changes in lab values, and all four of the adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred on placebo. There were higher rates of dizziness, insomnia, gait disturbance, and dysarthria associated with ES-481 than placebo, but the rate of serious adverse events was lower (4.8% vs 14.3%).

These response rates are noteworthy because patients had severe disease with diminishing therapeutic options, according to Dr. O’Brien. For entry, patients were required to be taking one to four antiseizure medications while still experiencing seizure activity. The patients averaged one interictal epileptiform discharge and/or seizure per hour on EEG.

Large-scale, double-blind, controlled studies are planned and warranted on the basis of these data, according to Dr. O’Brien, who emphasized that benefit was achieved with a low relative risk of significant adverse events.
 

New Potassium Channel Opener Shows Promise

Data with the selective potassium channel opener XEN1101 from the previously published phase 2b X-TOLE trial were reported in two parts. The first set of data involved an analysis of response by baseline activity. The other set of data were generated by an ongoing open-label extension (OLE) of X-TOLE.

In X-TOLE, which randomized 325 patients with treatment-resistant focal-onset seizures (FOS) to one of three doses of XEN-1011 or placebo, the median reduction in FOS at the highest dose of 25 mg once-daily XEN-1011 was 52.8% vs placebo (P < .001).

In the new analysis, the goal was to look at efficacy of the 25-mg dose across differences in baseline severity, reported Roger J. Porter, MD, adjunct professor of neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Generally, a greater response was observed for those with less severe disease. For example, the response rate defined as greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency on XEN1101 was higher for those with a baseline seizure activity of 8.5 seizures/month or fewer relative to more (65.5% vs 50.6%) and six or fewer antiseizure medications relative to more (64.2% vs 40.0%).

Pointing out that the study enrolled a challenging group of patients, Dr. Porter said that the data do not rule out efficacy “across the spectrum of epilepsy severity,” but he did suggest that these data will provide context for the coming phase 3 trials.

In the OLE data presented by Jacqueline French, MD, professor of neurology at the Langone School of Medicine of New York University, the efficacy and safety of XEN1101 taken with food has been consistent with what was observed in the double-blind trial. With up to 2 years of follow-up in the planned 5-year OLE, which is evaluating 20 mg once-daily taken with food, 60% are still on therapy,

For those followed for 24 months, 23.6% are completely seizure free, according to Dr. French. For those followed at least 12 months, 31.5% have achieved a median percent reduction in monthly seizure activity of 90% or more; 41.8% a reduction of 75% or more; and 69.7% a reduction of 50% or more.

The side-effect profile has also been consistent with that seen in the phase 2b trial. Dizziness and other mild to moderate side effects that often accompany antiseizure medications have been observed, along with modest weight gain, but there have been no new safety signals over long-term use.

If a planned phase 3 study enrolling patients with localized and general epilepsy confirms these phase 2 data, Dr. French indicated that it has the potential to advance a potassium channel opener that is both efficacious and well tolerated.
 

First-in-Man Study Performed With Stem Cell Product

The investigational product for treatment-resistant epilepsy has data on just five patients. Yet, the two patients followed the longest, both of which had highly treatment-resistant epilepsy, have had reductions in seizure activity exceeding 95%, according to Cory Nicholas, PhD, the chief executive officer of Neurona Therapeutics.

NRTX-100 is a GABAergic interneuron product derived from human pluripotent stem cells. The NRTX cells are surgically transplanted into the head and body of the hippocampus in patients with unilateral temporal lobe epilepsy with hippocampal sclerosis. The procedure is performed with MRI guidance, and patients are placed on immunosuppression that starts 1 week before surgery and is tapered 1 year later.

In this first-in-man study, the primary outcome of interest was safety. There have been no adverse events associated with this stem cell product in follow-up so far, according to Dr. Nicholas, who presented data on the first 5 of 10 procedures that have been completed so far.

Consistent with the prior work in animal models, it takes several months for the reduction in seizures to be achieved and, in animal models, to see improved functionality. It is notable that the reductions in seizure activity observed over time in those patients followed the longest have been accompanied by evidence of neurocognitive improvement, Dr. Nicholas reported.

“The efficacy has seemed durable so far, and we expect incremental improvement in clinical response over time,” said Dr. Nicholas, who reported that the Food and Drug Administration has already approved a second clinical study.
 

Are New Antiseizure Therapies Needed?

The value of this and the other emerging therapies is that “no treatment for epilepsy works well in every patient. We continue to need a wide array of treatments to find the one right for the patient in front of us,” said Nassim Zecavati, MD, director of Epilepsy, Children’s Hospital, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Asked to comment on the promise of these three therapies, Dr. Zecavati suggested each is intriguing for different reasons. AMPA receptor antagonists have proven to be a promising drug class so far, suggesting that “another could be helpful.” Potassium channel openers appear to have “a great mechanism of action,” but Dr. Zecavati said drugs in this class with a more favorable safety profile are needed.

As for NRTX-1001, she was intrigued with its novelty. She speculated that it might have particular promise for intractable drug-resistant epilepsy in patients who are not candidates for standard surgical strategies but might tolerate a less invasive procedure.

“My question might be who is going to perform this procedure,” Dr. Zecavati said. Noting that experience and skill might be needed to achieve an optimal result with cell transplantation into the brain, she said she will be waiting for more studies that might answer this question and to determine where, if effective, it would fit among current options.

Dr. O’Brien reported financial relationships with Eisai, Kinoxis, Livanova, Supernus, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Porter reported financial relationships with Axonis, Engrail, Longboard, Neurocrine, and Xenon, which provided funding for the study he discussed. Dr. French has financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Xenon, which provided funding for the study she discussed. Dr. Nicholas is chief executive officer of Neurona Therapeutics. Dr. Zecavati reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — Seizure burden, defined by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm applied to point-of-care electroencephalography (POC EEG) recordings, can help predict functional outcomes.

After relevant cofactors were controlled for, higher seizure burden correlated with poorer functional outcomes. All of the patients in the study were being monitored as part of their standard of care owing to suspicion of seizures or because they were at risk for seizures, said study investigator Masoom Desai, MD, with the Department of Neurology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. The results were “compelling,” she said.

“Our study addresses the critical need for automation in monitoring epileptic activity and seizure burden,” Dr. Desai added during a press briefing at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
 

A Pivotal Shift 

“Several decades of research have highlighted the significant correlation between seizure burden and unfavorable outcomes both in adult and pediatric populations,” said Dr. Desai. 

However, the traditional method of manually interpreting EEGs to identify seizures and their associated burden is a “complex and time-consuming process that can be subject to human error and variability,” she noted.

POC EEG is a rapid-access, reduced-montage EEG system that, when paired with an automated machine learning tool called Clarity (Ceribell, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA), can monitor and analyze seizure burden in real time.

The algorithm incorporates a comprehensive list of EEG features that have been associated with outcomes. It analyzes EEG activity every 10 seconds from all EEG channels and calculates a seizure burden in the past 5 minutes for the patient. The higher the seizure burden, the more time the patient has spent in seizure activity. 

Among 344 people with POC EEG (mean age, 62 years, 45% women) in the SAFER-EEG trial, 178 (52%) had seizure burden of zero throughout the recording and 41 (12%) had suspected status epilepticus (maximum seizure burden ≥ 90%). 

Before adjustment for clinical covariates, there was a significant association between high seizure burden and unfavorable outcomes. 

Specifically, 76% of patients with a seizure burden of 50% or greater had an unfavorable modified Rankin Scale score of 4 or greater at discharge and a similar proportion was discharged to long-term care facilities, she noted. 

After adjustment for relevant clinical covariants, patients with a high seizure burden (≥ 50 or > 90%) had a fourfold increase in odds of an unfavorable modified Rankin Scale score compared with those with no seizure burden. 

High seizure burden present in the last quarter of the recording was particularly indicative of unfavorable outcomes (fivefold increased odds), “suggesting the critical timing of seizures and its impact on patient prognosis,” Dr. Desai noted. 
 

‘Profound Implications’

“The implications of our research are profound, indicating a pivotal shift towards integrating AI and machine learning-guided automated EEG interpretation in management of critically ill patients with seizures,” she added. 

“As we move forward, our research will concentrate on applying this advanced tool in clinical decision making in clinical practice, examining how it can steer treatment decisions for patients, with the ultimate goal of enhancing patient care and improving outcomes for those affected by these neurological challenges,” Dr. Desai said. 

Briefing moderator Paul M. George, MD, PhD, chair of the AAN science committee, noted that this abstract was one of three featured at the “top science” press briefing themed “advancing the limits of neurologic care,” because it represents an “innovative method” of using new technology to improve understanding of neurologic conditions.

Dr. George said this technology “could be particularly useful in settings with few clinical specialists. It will be exciting to see as this unfolds, where it can guide maybe the ED doctor or primary care physician to help improve patient care.”

On that note, Dr. George cautioned that it’s still “early in the field” of using AI to guide decision-making and it will be important to gather more information to confirm that “machine learning algorithms can help guide physicians in treating patients with neurologic conditions.”

Funding for the study was provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ceribell, Inc. Dr. Desai received funding from Ceribell for this project. Dr. George has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Seizure burden, defined by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm applied to point-of-care electroencephalography (POC EEG) recordings, can help predict functional outcomes.

After relevant cofactors were controlled for, higher seizure burden correlated with poorer functional outcomes. All of the patients in the study were being monitored as part of their standard of care owing to suspicion of seizures or because they were at risk for seizures, said study investigator Masoom Desai, MD, with the Department of Neurology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. The results were “compelling,” she said.

“Our study addresses the critical need for automation in monitoring epileptic activity and seizure burden,” Dr. Desai added during a press briefing at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
 

A Pivotal Shift 

“Several decades of research have highlighted the significant correlation between seizure burden and unfavorable outcomes both in adult and pediatric populations,” said Dr. Desai. 

However, the traditional method of manually interpreting EEGs to identify seizures and their associated burden is a “complex and time-consuming process that can be subject to human error and variability,” she noted.

POC EEG is a rapid-access, reduced-montage EEG system that, when paired with an automated machine learning tool called Clarity (Ceribell, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA), can monitor and analyze seizure burden in real time.

The algorithm incorporates a comprehensive list of EEG features that have been associated with outcomes. It analyzes EEG activity every 10 seconds from all EEG channels and calculates a seizure burden in the past 5 minutes for the patient. The higher the seizure burden, the more time the patient has spent in seizure activity. 

Among 344 people with POC EEG (mean age, 62 years, 45% women) in the SAFER-EEG trial, 178 (52%) had seizure burden of zero throughout the recording and 41 (12%) had suspected status epilepticus (maximum seizure burden ≥ 90%). 

Before adjustment for clinical covariates, there was a significant association between high seizure burden and unfavorable outcomes. 

Specifically, 76% of patients with a seizure burden of 50% or greater had an unfavorable modified Rankin Scale score of 4 or greater at discharge and a similar proportion was discharged to long-term care facilities, she noted. 

After adjustment for relevant clinical covariants, patients with a high seizure burden (≥ 50 or > 90%) had a fourfold increase in odds of an unfavorable modified Rankin Scale score compared with those with no seizure burden. 

High seizure burden present in the last quarter of the recording was particularly indicative of unfavorable outcomes (fivefold increased odds), “suggesting the critical timing of seizures and its impact on patient prognosis,” Dr. Desai noted. 
 

‘Profound Implications’

“The implications of our research are profound, indicating a pivotal shift towards integrating AI and machine learning-guided automated EEG interpretation in management of critically ill patients with seizures,” she added. 

“As we move forward, our research will concentrate on applying this advanced tool in clinical decision making in clinical practice, examining how it can steer treatment decisions for patients, with the ultimate goal of enhancing patient care and improving outcomes for those affected by these neurological challenges,” Dr. Desai said. 

Briefing moderator Paul M. George, MD, PhD, chair of the AAN science committee, noted that this abstract was one of three featured at the “top science” press briefing themed “advancing the limits of neurologic care,” because it represents an “innovative method” of using new technology to improve understanding of neurologic conditions.

Dr. George said this technology “could be particularly useful in settings with few clinical specialists. It will be exciting to see as this unfolds, where it can guide maybe the ED doctor or primary care physician to help improve patient care.”

On that note, Dr. George cautioned that it’s still “early in the field” of using AI to guide decision-making and it will be important to gather more information to confirm that “machine learning algorithms can help guide physicians in treating patients with neurologic conditions.”

Funding for the study was provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ceribell, Inc. Dr. Desai received funding from Ceribell for this project. Dr. George has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Seizure burden, defined by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm applied to point-of-care electroencephalography (POC EEG) recordings, can help predict functional outcomes.

After relevant cofactors were controlled for, higher seizure burden correlated with poorer functional outcomes. All of the patients in the study were being monitored as part of their standard of care owing to suspicion of seizures or because they were at risk for seizures, said study investigator Masoom Desai, MD, with the Department of Neurology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. The results were “compelling,” she said.

“Our study addresses the critical need for automation in monitoring epileptic activity and seizure burden,” Dr. Desai added during a press briefing at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
 

A Pivotal Shift 

“Several decades of research have highlighted the significant correlation between seizure burden and unfavorable outcomes both in adult and pediatric populations,” said Dr. Desai. 

However, the traditional method of manually interpreting EEGs to identify seizures and their associated burden is a “complex and time-consuming process that can be subject to human error and variability,” she noted.

POC EEG is a rapid-access, reduced-montage EEG system that, when paired with an automated machine learning tool called Clarity (Ceribell, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA), can monitor and analyze seizure burden in real time.

The algorithm incorporates a comprehensive list of EEG features that have been associated with outcomes. It analyzes EEG activity every 10 seconds from all EEG channels and calculates a seizure burden in the past 5 minutes for the patient. The higher the seizure burden, the more time the patient has spent in seizure activity. 

Among 344 people with POC EEG (mean age, 62 years, 45% women) in the SAFER-EEG trial, 178 (52%) had seizure burden of zero throughout the recording and 41 (12%) had suspected status epilepticus (maximum seizure burden ≥ 90%). 

Before adjustment for clinical covariates, there was a significant association between high seizure burden and unfavorable outcomes. 

Specifically, 76% of patients with a seizure burden of 50% or greater had an unfavorable modified Rankin Scale score of 4 or greater at discharge and a similar proportion was discharged to long-term care facilities, she noted. 

After adjustment for relevant clinical covariants, patients with a high seizure burden (≥ 50 or > 90%) had a fourfold increase in odds of an unfavorable modified Rankin Scale score compared with those with no seizure burden. 

High seizure burden present in the last quarter of the recording was particularly indicative of unfavorable outcomes (fivefold increased odds), “suggesting the critical timing of seizures and its impact on patient prognosis,” Dr. Desai noted. 
 

‘Profound Implications’

“The implications of our research are profound, indicating a pivotal shift towards integrating AI and machine learning-guided automated EEG interpretation in management of critically ill patients with seizures,” she added. 

“As we move forward, our research will concentrate on applying this advanced tool in clinical decision making in clinical practice, examining how it can steer treatment decisions for patients, with the ultimate goal of enhancing patient care and improving outcomes for those affected by these neurological challenges,” Dr. Desai said. 

Briefing moderator Paul M. George, MD, PhD, chair of the AAN science committee, noted that this abstract was one of three featured at the “top science” press briefing themed “advancing the limits of neurologic care,” because it represents an “innovative method” of using new technology to improve understanding of neurologic conditions.

Dr. George said this technology “could be particularly useful in settings with few clinical specialists. It will be exciting to see as this unfolds, where it can guide maybe the ED doctor or primary care physician to help improve patient care.”

On that note, Dr. George cautioned that it’s still “early in the field” of using AI to guide decision-making and it will be important to gather more information to confirm that “machine learning algorithms can help guide physicians in treating patients with neurologic conditions.”

Funding for the study was provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ceribell, Inc. Dr. Desai received funding from Ceribell for this project. Dr. George has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Epilepsy was linked to a significantly increased the risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19 early in the pandemic, while healthcare utilization rates in this patient population declined, data from two linked studies showed. 

Results showed that individuals with epilepsy had a 60% higher risk for hospitalization and a 33% higher risk of dying from COVID-19 than those without the disorder. However, during the pandemic, the number of hospitalizations and ER visits by people with epilepsy dropped by as much as 30%. 

“The neurotropic effects of Sars-CoV-2 might explain some of this increased risk for people with epilepsy, or epilepsy might be associated with alterations in the immune system, predisposing to more severe COVID-19,” wrote the investigators, led by Owen Pickrell, MBBChirm, PhD, Swansea University, United Kingdom.

The findings were published online March 5 in Epilepsia. 
 

Skill Shifting 

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions and affects approximately 50 million people worldwide, with significant comorbidity and an increased risk for early death.

During the pandemic, clinicians treating people with epilepsy and other conditions shifted their skills to treat an ever-increasing number of patients with COVID-19, which may have hindered epilepsy-specific services for a time.

To further explore how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the health of this patient population, researchers analyzed health records from a large database with information about hospital admissions, primary care visits, COVID-19 vaccination status, and demographics of 90% of Welsh residents.

Those living with epilepsy before or during the study period (March 1, 2020, to June 31, 2021) were identified and compared with controls without epilepsy. 

The analysis included approximately 27,280 people with epilepsy and 136,400 matched controls. Among those with epilepsy, there were 158 deaths (0.58%) and 933 hospitalizations (3.4%). In comparison, there were 370 deaths (0.27%) and 1871 hospitalizations (1.4%) in the control group.

Unadjusted analyses showed the risk of dying from COVID-19 for those with epilepsy vs controls was more than twofold higher (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI; 1.78-2.59) and the increase in the risk for hospitalization was similar (HR, 2.15; 95% CI; 1.94-2.37). 

After adjusting for 40 comorbidities, including serious mental illness, asthma, and diabetes, those with epilepsy had a 60% increased risk for hospitalization (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.60) and a 33% increased risk for death (aHR, 1.33) than those without epilepsy (all P < .0001). 

The findings “may have implications for prioritizing future COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations for people with epilepsy,” the investigators wrote.

Study limitations included the inability to account for the effect of vaccinations or prior infections with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, the study did not account for geographical or temporal variations in prevalence and COVID-19 variants. 
 

Consultations Canceled 

In the related study, researchers analyzed healthcare utilization by people with epilepsy before and after the pandemic using the same database. Results showed hospital admissions, ER visits, and outpatient visits significantly decreased during the pandemic. 

In the year before the pandemic, people with epilepsy had double the rate of ER visits (rate ratio [RR], 2.36), hospital admissions (RR, 2.08), and outpatient appointments (RR, 1.92) compared with matched controls. 

However, during the pandemic there was a greater reduction in hospital admissions (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.69-0.72) and ER visits (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.70) in those with epilepsy versus matched controls (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83) as well as hospital visits and ER visits (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86-0.88; all P < .0001). New epilepsy diagnoses also decreased during the pandemic (RR, 0.73; P < .0001)

The redeployment of epileptologists during the pandemic also meant that epilepsy consultations and investigations were canceled, making it harder for people with epilepsy to access specialty care, the researchers noted. 

“Our research also showed that there were fewer new diagnoses of epilepsy and fewer contacts with health services by people with epilepsy, during the period we examined,” Huw Strafford, lead data analyst for the studies, said in a release.

Both studies were funded by Health and Care Research Wales. Dr. Pickrell reported receiving speaker fees from UCB Pharma and Angelini Pharma, travel grants from Angelini Pharma, and an unrestricted grant from UCB Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Epilepsy was linked to a significantly increased the risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19 early in the pandemic, while healthcare utilization rates in this patient population declined, data from two linked studies showed. 

Results showed that individuals with epilepsy had a 60% higher risk for hospitalization and a 33% higher risk of dying from COVID-19 than those without the disorder. However, during the pandemic, the number of hospitalizations and ER visits by people with epilepsy dropped by as much as 30%. 

“The neurotropic effects of Sars-CoV-2 might explain some of this increased risk for people with epilepsy, or epilepsy might be associated with alterations in the immune system, predisposing to more severe COVID-19,” wrote the investigators, led by Owen Pickrell, MBBChirm, PhD, Swansea University, United Kingdom.

The findings were published online March 5 in Epilepsia. 
 

Skill Shifting 

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions and affects approximately 50 million people worldwide, with significant comorbidity and an increased risk for early death.

During the pandemic, clinicians treating people with epilepsy and other conditions shifted their skills to treat an ever-increasing number of patients with COVID-19, which may have hindered epilepsy-specific services for a time.

To further explore how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the health of this patient population, researchers analyzed health records from a large database with information about hospital admissions, primary care visits, COVID-19 vaccination status, and demographics of 90% of Welsh residents.

Those living with epilepsy before or during the study period (March 1, 2020, to June 31, 2021) were identified and compared with controls without epilepsy. 

The analysis included approximately 27,280 people with epilepsy and 136,400 matched controls. Among those with epilepsy, there were 158 deaths (0.58%) and 933 hospitalizations (3.4%). In comparison, there were 370 deaths (0.27%) and 1871 hospitalizations (1.4%) in the control group.

Unadjusted analyses showed the risk of dying from COVID-19 for those with epilepsy vs controls was more than twofold higher (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI; 1.78-2.59) and the increase in the risk for hospitalization was similar (HR, 2.15; 95% CI; 1.94-2.37). 

After adjusting for 40 comorbidities, including serious mental illness, asthma, and diabetes, those with epilepsy had a 60% increased risk for hospitalization (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.60) and a 33% increased risk for death (aHR, 1.33) than those without epilepsy (all P < .0001). 

The findings “may have implications for prioritizing future COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations for people with epilepsy,” the investigators wrote.

Study limitations included the inability to account for the effect of vaccinations or prior infections with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, the study did not account for geographical or temporal variations in prevalence and COVID-19 variants. 
 

Consultations Canceled 

In the related study, researchers analyzed healthcare utilization by people with epilepsy before and after the pandemic using the same database. Results showed hospital admissions, ER visits, and outpatient visits significantly decreased during the pandemic. 

In the year before the pandemic, people with epilepsy had double the rate of ER visits (rate ratio [RR], 2.36), hospital admissions (RR, 2.08), and outpatient appointments (RR, 1.92) compared with matched controls. 

However, during the pandemic there was a greater reduction in hospital admissions (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.69-0.72) and ER visits (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.70) in those with epilepsy versus matched controls (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83) as well as hospital visits and ER visits (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86-0.88; all P < .0001). New epilepsy diagnoses also decreased during the pandemic (RR, 0.73; P < .0001)

The redeployment of epileptologists during the pandemic also meant that epilepsy consultations and investigations were canceled, making it harder for people with epilepsy to access specialty care, the researchers noted. 

“Our research also showed that there were fewer new diagnoses of epilepsy and fewer contacts with health services by people with epilepsy, during the period we examined,” Huw Strafford, lead data analyst for the studies, said in a release.

Both studies were funded by Health and Care Research Wales. Dr. Pickrell reported receiving speaker fees from UCB Pharma and Angelini Pharma, travel grants from Angelini Pharma, and an unrestricted grant from UCB Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Epilepsy was linked to a significantly increased the risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19 early in the pandemic, while healthcare utilization rates in this patient population declined, data from two linked studies showed. 

Results showed that individuals with epilepsy had a 60% higher risk for hospitalization and a 33% higher risk of dying from COVID-19 than those without the disorder. However, during the pandemic, the number of hospitalizations and ER visits by people with epilepsy dropped by as much as 30%. 

“The neurotropic effects of Sars-CoV-2 might explain some of this increased risk for people with epilepsy, or epilepsy might be associated with alterations in the immune system, predisposing to more severe COVID-19,” wrote the investigators, led by Owen Pickrell, MBBChirm, PhD, Swansea University, United Kingdom.

The findings were published online March 5 in Epilepsia. 
 

Skill Shifting 

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions and affects approximately 50 million people worldwide, with significant comorbidity and an increased risk for early death.

During the pandemic, clinicians treating people with epilepsy and other conditions shifted their skills to treat an ever-increasing number of patients with COVID-19, which may have hindered epilepsy-specific services for a time.

To further explore how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the health of this patient population, researchers analyzed health records from a large database with information about hospital admissions, primary care visits, COVID-19 vaccination status, and demographics of 90% of Welsh residents.

Those living with epilepsy before or during the study period (March 1, 2020, to June 31, 2021) were identified and compared with controls without epilepsy. 

The analysis included approximately 27,280 people with epilepsy and 136,400 matched controls. Among those with epilepsy, there were 158 deaths (0.58%) and 933 hospitalizations (3.4%). In comparison, there were 370 deaths (0.27%) and 1871 hospitalizations (1.4%) in the control group.

Unadjusted analyses showed the risk of dying from COVID-19 for those with epilepsy vs controls was more than twofold higher (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI; 1.78-2.59) and the increase in the risk for hospitalization was similar (HR, 2.15; 95% CI; 1.94-2.37). 

After adjusting for 40 comorbidities, including serious mental illness, asthma, and diabetes, those with epilepsy had a 60% increased risk for hospitalization (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.60) and a 33% increased risk for death (aHR, 1.33) than those without epilepsy (all P < .0001). 

The findings “may have implications for prioritizing future COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations for people with epilepsy,” the investigators wrote.

Study limitations included the inability to account for the effect of vaccinations or prior infections with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, the study did not account for geographical or temporal variations in prevalence and COVID-19 variants. 
 

Consultations Canceled 

In the related study, researchers analyzed healthcare utilization by people with epilepsy before and after the pandemic using the same database. Results showed hospital admissions, ER visits, and outpatient visits significantly decreased during the pandemic. 

In the year before the pandemic, people with epilepsy had double the rate of ER visits (rate ratio [RR], 2.36), hospital admissions (RR, 2.08), and outpatient appointments (RR, 1.92) compared with matched controls. 

However, during the pandemic there was a greater reduction in hospital admissions (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.69-0.72) and ER visits (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.70) in those with epilepsy versus matched controls (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83) as well as hospital visits and ER visits (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86-0.88; all P < .0001). New epilepsy diagnoses also decreased during the pandemic (RR, 0.73; P < .0001)

The redeployment of epileptologists during the pandemic also meant that epilepsy consultations and investigations were canceled, making it harder for people with epilepsy to access specialty care, the researchers noted. 

“Our research also showed that there were fewer new diagnoses of epilepsy and fewer contacts with health services by people with epilepsy, during the period we examined,” Huw Strafford, lead data analyst for the studies, said in a release.

Both studies were funded by Health and Care Research Wales. Dr. Pickrell reported receiving speaker fees from UCB Pharma and Angelini Pharma, travel grants from Angelini Pharma, and an unrestricted grant from UCB Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Working with medically trained service dogs is associated with a 31% reduction in seizures compared with usual care in treatment-resistant epilepsy, a new study showed.

Investigators speculate that the dogs may ease participants’ stress, leading to a decrease in seizure frequency, although they note this relationship warrants more study.

“Despite the development of numerous antiseizure medications over the past 15 years, up to 30% of people with epilepsy experience persistent seizures,” study author Valérie van Hezik-Wester, MSc, of Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a press release.

The unpredictable nature of seizures is one of the most disabling aspects of epilepsy, Ms. Hezik-Wester added. Seizure dogs are trained to recognize seizures and respond when they occur.

“The tasks that these dogs perform, along with their companionship, may reduce seizure-related anxiety, also potentially reducing seizures caused by stress, the most common trigger for seizures,” she said.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Improve Quality of Life

The study included 25 individuals with medically refractory epilepsy who had an average of two or more seizures per week, with seizure characteristics associated with a high risk for injuries or dysfunction. They also had to be able to care for a service dog.

All were observed under usual care, which included antiseizure medications, neurostimulation devices, and other supportive therapies. Participants could then choose to work with a service dog that had completed socialization and obedience training or be assigned a puppy they would train at home.

The median follow-up was 19 months with usual care and 12 months with the intervention. Participants recorded seizure activity in diaries and completed surveys on seizure severity, quality of life, and well-being every 3 months. Daily seizure counts were converted to obtain cumulative seizure frequencies over 28-day periods.

Of the 25 original participants, six discontinued trial participation before the end of follow-up, four of whom left the study due to difficulty with dog care and training.

Participants receiving usual care reported an average of 115 seizures per 28-day period, while those with trained service dogs recorded 73 seizures in the same period, or a 37% difference between groups.

Researchers found that participants had an average of 31% fewer seizures during the past 3 months when they had seizure dogs, with seven participants achieving a 50%-100% reduction in seizures.

The number of seizure-free days increased from an average of 11 days per 28-day period before receiving a service dog to 15 days after working with a dog.

Scores on the EQ-5D-5L, which measures perceived health problems, decreased on average by 2.5% per consecutive 28-day period with the intervention, reflecting an increase in generic health-related quality of life (0.975; 95% CI, 0.954-0.997).

“These findings show that seizure dogs can help people with epilepsy,” said Ms. van Hezik-Wester. “However, we also found that this partnership with seizure dogs might not be the right fit for everyone, as some people discontinued their participation in this program. More research is needed to better understand which people can benefit from working with seizure dogs.”
 

Enhanced Quality of Life

In an accompanying editorial, Amir Mbonde, MB, and Amy Crepeau, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the findings add to a growing body of work on the effectiveness of service dogs in reducing seizure frequency.

“In addition to improved seizure control, the EPISODE study demonstrated the benefit of seizure dogs in enhancing the quality of life for patients, a crucial component of comprehensive epilepsy care,” they wrote.

In prior studies, seizure dogs have identified an odor that a person emits before a seizure in up to 97% of people, they noted, adding that this ability “offers immense clinical benefits to people with epilepsy, enhancing their independence, social engagement, employment opportunities, self-confidence, and thus quality of life.”

Study limitations include its small sample size and high attrition rate.

The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and Innovatiefonds Zorgverzekeraars.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Working with medically trained service dogs is associated with a 31% reduction in seizures compared with usual care in treatment-resistant epilepsy, a new study showed.

Investigators speculate that the dogs may ease participants’ stress, leading to a decrease in seizure frequency, although they note this relationship warrants more study.

“Despite the development of numerous antiseizure medications over the past 15 years, up to 30% of people with epilepsy experience persistent seizures,” study author Valérie van Hezik-Wester, MSc, of Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a press release.

The unpredictable nature of seizures is one of the most disabling aspects of epilepsy, Ms. Hezik-Wester added. Seizure dogs are trained to recognize seizures and respond when they occur.

“The tasks that these dogs perform, along with their companionship, may reduce seizure-related anxiety, also potentially reducing seizures caused by stress, the most common trigger for seizures,” she said.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Improve Quality of Life

The study included 25 individuals with medically refractory epilepsy who had an average of two or more seizures per week, with seizure characteristics associated with a high risk for injuries or dysfunction. They also had to be able to care for a service dog.

All were observed under usual care, which included antiseizure medications, neurostimulation devices, and other supportive therapies. Participants could then choose to work with a service dog that had completed socialization and obedience training or be assigned a puppy they would train at home.

The median follow-up was 19 months with usual care and 12 months with the intervention. Participants recorded seizure activity in diaries and completed surveys on seizure severity, quality of life, and well-being every 3 months. Daily seizure counts were converted to obtain cumulative seizure frequencies over 28-day periods.

Of the 25 original participants, six discontinued trial participation before the end of follow-up, four of whom left the study due to difficulty with dog care and training.

Participants receiving usual care reported an average of 115 seizures per 28-day period, while those with trained service dogs recorded 73 seizures in the same period, or a 37% difference between groups.

Researchers found that participants had an average of 31% fewer seizures during the past 3 months when they had seizure dogs, with seven participants achieving a 50%-100% reduction in seizures.

The number of seizure-free days increased from an average of 11 days per 28-day period before receiving a service dog to 15 days after working with a dog.

Scores on the EQ-5D-5L, which measures perceived health problems, decreased on average by 2.5% per consecutive 28-day period with the intervention, reflecting an increase in generic health-related quality of life (0.975; 95% CI, 0.954-0.997).

“These findings show that seizure dogs can help people with epilepsy,” said Ms. van Hezik-Wester. “However, we also found that this partnership with seizure dogs might not be the right fit for everyone, as some people discontinued their participation in this program. More research is needed to better understand which people can benefit from working with seizure dogs.”
 

Enhanced Quality of Life

In an accompanying editorial, Amir Mbonde, MB, and Amy Crepeau, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the findings add to a growing body of work on the effectiveness of service dogs in reducing seizure frequency.

“In addition to improved seizure control, the EPISODE study demonstrated the benefit of seizure dogs in enhancing the quality of life for patients, a crucial component of comprehensive epilepsy care,” they wrote.

In prior studies, seizure dogs have identified an odor that a person emits before a seizure in up to 97% of people, they noted, adding that this ability “offers immense clinical benefits to people with epilepsy, enhancing their independence, social engagement, employment opportunities, self-confidence, and thus quality of life.”

Study limitations include its small sample size and high attrition rate.

The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and Innovatiefonds Zorgverzekeraars.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Working with medically trained service dogs is associated with a 31% reduction in seizures compared with usual care in treatment-resistant epilepsy, a new study showed.

Investigators speculate that the dogs may ease participants’ stress, leading to a decrease in seizure frequency, although they note this relationship warrants more study.

“Despite the development of numerous antiseizure medications over the past 15 years, up to 30% of people with epilepsy experience persistent seizures,” study author Valérie van Hezik-Wester, MSc, of Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a press release.

The unpredictable nature of seizures is one of the most disabling aspects of epilepsy, Ms. Hezik-Wester added. Seizure dogs are trained to recognize seizures and respond when they occur.

“The tasks that these dogs perform, along with their companionship, may reduce seizure-related anxiety, also potentially reducing seizures caused by stress, the most common trigger for seizures,” she said.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Improve Quality of Life

The study included 25 individuals with medically refractory epilepsy who had an average of two or more seizures per week, with seizure characteristics associated with a high risk for injuries or dysfunction. They also had to be able to care for a service dog.

All were observed under usual care, which included antiseizure medications, neurostimulation devices, and other supportive therapies. Participants could then choose to work with a service dog that had completed socialization and obedience training or be assigned a puppy they would train at home.

The median follow-up was 19 months with usual care and 12 months with the intervention. Participants recorded seizure activity in diaries and completed surveys on seizure severity, quality of life, and well-being every 3 months. Daily seizure counts were converted to obtain cumulative seizure frequencies over 28-day periods.

Of the 25 original participants, six discontinued trial participation before the end of follow-up, four of whom left the study due to difficulty with dog care and training.

Participants receiving usual care reported an average of 115 seizures per 28-day period, while those with trained service dogs recorded 73 seizures in the same period, or a 37% difference between groups.

Researchers found that participants had an average of 31% fewer seizures during the past 3 months when they had seizure dogs, with seven participants achieving a 50%-100% reduction in seizures.

The number of seizure-free days increased from an average of 11 days per 28-day period before receiving a service dog to 15 days after working with a dog.

Scores on the EQ-5D-5L, which measures perceived health problems, decreased on average by 2.5% per consecutive 28-day period with the intervention, reflecting an increase in generic health-related quality of life (0.975; 95% CI, 0.954-0.997).

“These findings show that seizure dogs can help people with epilepsy,” said Ms. van Hezik-Wester. “However, we also found that this partnership with seizure dogs might not be the right fit for everyone, as some people discontinued their participation in this program. More research is needed to better understand which people can benefit from working with seizure dogs.”
 

Enhanced Quality of Life

In an accompanying editorial, Amir Mbonde, MB, and Amy Crepeau, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the findings add to a growing body of work on the effectiveness of service dogs in reducing seizure frequency.

“In addition to improved seizure control, the EPISODE study demonstrated the benefit of seizure dogs in enhancing the quality of life for patients, a crucial component of comprehensive epilepsy care,” they wrote.

In prior studies, seizure dogs have identified an odor that a person emits before a seizure in up to 97% of people, they noted, adding that this ability “offers immense clinical benefits to people with epilepsy, enhancing their independence, social engagement, employment opportunities, self-confidence, and thus quality of life.”

Study limitations include its small sample size and high attrition rate.

The study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and Innovatiefonds Zorgverzekeraars.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have almost double the risk for seizures, with the risk even greater with sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators, results of a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest. Those with a progressive disease phenotype are at particularly high seizure risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• The meta-analysis included 63 phase 3 RCTs with 53,535 patients.
• Most of the studies included in the meta-analysis investigated disease-modifying treatments compared with placebo or an active comparator such as interferon beta, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate, in terms of relapse rate and/or disability progression.
• Researchers extracted relevant information from studies, including MS subtype (clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting, primary progressive, or secondary progressive MS), mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, lesion volume on T2-hyperintense sequence, normalized brain volume, and number of seizures or epilepsy events.
• They calculated the pooled effect size of studies on the incidence rate of seizure or epilepsy as the number of events per patient-years and explored which variables influenced the pooled effect size.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 120 patients experienced epileptic seizure events over a median follow-up of 2 years, resulting in a pooled incidence rate of 68.0 (95% CI, 49.1-86.9) per 100,000 patient-years, which investigators noted is significantly higher than the general population rate of 34.6.
• Higher seizure incidence rates were found among patients with progressive disease courses, longer time since clinical onset, higher EDSS scores, and lower normalized brain volume; age and T2 lesion volume did not affect the pooled effect size.
• Patients treated with S1PR modulators (fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, and siponimod) had more than double the risk for seizure compared with placebo or comparators (estimated incident seizure risk ratio, 2.45; P = .008).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore epilepsy as a significant comorbidity in MS and emphasize the necessity for further research into its triggers, preventive measures and treatment strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Valeria Pozzilli, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology and Neurobiology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Roma, Italy, was published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

As none of the included RCTs considered epilepsy an exclusion criterion, patients with comorbid epilepsy may have been enrolled in these studies. There was significant diversity in reporting of adverse events across studies. While this study’s statistical methodology was robust, the findings can’t be applied directly to individuals due to the risk for ecological fallacy.

DISCLOSURES:

Pozzilli had no relevant conflicts of interests. See paper for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have almost double the risk for seizures, with the risk even greater with sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators, results of a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest. Those with a progressive disease phenotype are at particularly high seizure risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• The meta-analysis included 63 phase 3 RCTs with 53,535 patients.
• Most of the studies included in the meta-analysis investigated disease-modifying treatments compared with placebo or an active comparator such as interferon beta, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate, in terms of relapse rate and/or disability progression.
• Researchers extracted relevant information from studies, including MS subtype (clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting, primary progressive, or secondary progressive MS), mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, lesion volume on T2-hyperintense sequence, normalized brain volume, and number of seizures or epilepsy events.
• They calculated the pooled effect size of studies on the incidence rate of seizure or epilepsy as the number of events per patient-years and explored which variables influenced the pooled effect size.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 120 patients experienced epileptic seizure events over a median follow-up of 2 years, resulting in a pooled incidence rate of 68.0 (95% CI, 49.1-86.9) per 100,000 patient-years, which investigators noted is significantly higher than the general population rate of 34.6.
• Higher seizure incidence rates were found among patients with progressive disease courses, longer time since clinical onset, higher EDSS scores, and lower normalized brain volume; age and T2 lesion volume did not affect the pooled effect size.
• Patients treated with S1PR modulators (fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, and siponimod) had more than double the risk for seizure compared with placebo or comparators (estimated incident seizure risk ratio, 2.45; P = .008).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore epilepsy as a significant comorbidity in MS and emphasize the necessity for further research into its triggers, preventive measures and treatment strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Valeria Pozzilli, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology and Neurobiology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Roma, Italy, was published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

As none of the included RCTs considered epilepsy an exclusion criterion, patients with comorbid epilepsy may have been enrolled in these studies. There was significant diversity in reporting of adverse events across studies. While this study’s statistical methodology was robust, the findings can’t be applied directly to individuals due to the risk for ecological fallacy.

DISCLOSURES:

Pozzilli had no relevant conflicts of interests. See paper for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have almost double the risk for seizures, with the risk even greater with sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators, results of a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest. Those with a progressive disease phenotype are at particularly high seizure risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• The meta-analysis included 63 phase 3 RCTs with 53,535 patients.
• Most of the studies included in the meta-analysis investigated disease-modifying treatments compared with placebo or an active comparator such as interferon beta, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate, in terms of relapse rate and/or disability progression.
• Researchers extracted relevant information from studies, including MS subtype (clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting, primary progressive, or secondary progressive MS), mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, lesion volume on T2-hyperintense sequence, normalized brain volume, and number of seizures or epilepsy events.
• They calculated the pooled effect size of studies on the incidence rate of seizure or epilepsy as the number of events per patient-years and explored which variables influenced the pooled effect size.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 120 patients experienced epileptic seizure events over a median follow-up of 2 years, resulting in a pooled incidence rate of 68.0 (95% CI, 49.1-86.9) per 100,000 patient-years, which investigators noted is significantly higher than the general population rate of 34.6.
• Higher seizure incidence rates were found among patients with progressive disease courses, longer time since clinical onset, higher EDSS scores, and lower normalized brain volume; age and T2 lesion volume did not affect the pooled effect size.
• Patients treated with S1PR modulators (fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, and siponimod) had more than double the risk for seizure compared with placebo or comparators (estimated incident seizure risk ratio, 2.45; P = .008).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore epilepsy as a significant comorbidity in MS and emphasize the necessity for further research into its triggers, preventive measures and treatment strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Valeria Pozzilli, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology and Neurobiology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Roma, Italy, was published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

As none of the included RCTs considered epilepsy an exclusion criterion, patients with comorbid epilepsy may have been enrolled in these studies. There was significant diversity in reporting of adverse events across studies. While this study’s statistical methodology was robust, the findings can’t be applied directly to individuals due to the risk for ecological fallacy.

DISCLOSURES:

Pozzilli had no relevant conflicts of interests. See paper for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first updated guidelines for specialized epilepsy centers in a decade reflect a shift toward addressing patients’ overall well-being, including recommendations for genetic testing and counseling, mental health screening, and greater attention to special-needs populations. 

The guidelines — the first from the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC) in a decade — describe the comprehensive services and resources specialized epilepsy centers should provide to improve quality of care for people living with epilepsy.

“In addition to advances in medicine, there has been a shift toward addressing overall well-being beyond seizure management,” Fred A. Lado, MD, PhD, NAEC president and guideline panel cochair, said in a news release. “This includes care for comorbid conditions like anxiety and depression, enhanced communication between the patient and care team, and addressing health disparities in the epilepsy community.

The guidance was developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts, which is the first time that the NAEC has gone beyond the field of neurology to seek input from other medical specialists and allied health personnel, the panel noted. 

“Expanded guidelines are also sorely needed to help centers and hospitals obtain the resources to provide this level of comprehensive care,” said Dr. Lado, regional director of epilepsy and professor of neurology at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. 

An executive summary of the guidelines was published online in Neurology. 
 

A Multidisciplinary Approach

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurologic conditions worldwide, affecting an estimated 3.4 million people in the United States alone. Recurring seizures can be debilitating and, in some cases, life-threatening. 

To update epilepsy care guidelines, an expert panel of 41 stakeholders with diverse expertise evaluated the latest evidence and reached consensus on 52 recommendations spanning a range of services that make up high-quality epilepsy care. 

“This is exhibited in a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary care conferences, screening for comorbidities of epilepsy, and providing access to other specialty services in addition to the core epilepsy center components of outpatient care, diagnostic procedures, and epilepsy surgery,” they wrote. 

For the first time, the guidelines advise specialized epilepsy centers to offer genetic testing and counseling, provide more education and communication for patients, give greater attention to special-needs populations, employ a care coordinator to organize and facilitate multidisciplinary care, provide mental health screening, and address health disparities and inequities.

“All recommendations quickly reached consensus despite there being such a diverse panel of stakeholders, which emphasizes that the recommendations reflect the important elements of healthcare services that should be in place for an epilepsy center to provide the highest quality of care,” said Susan Arnold, MD, guideline panel co-chair and a pediatric epileptologist at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

“But epilepsy centers will need the resources to provide this comprehensive level of care. We hope the guidelines will help increase health insurer and institutional support and recognition of these recommendations,” Dr. Arnold added. 

The guidelines were funded by NAEC. Dr. Lado has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Arnold holds stock in Pfizer. A complete list of disclosures for the guideline panel is available with the original article. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first updated guidelines for specialized epilepsy centers in a decade reflect a shift toward addressing patients’ overall well-being, including recommendations for genetic testing and counseling, mental health screening, and greater attention to special-needs populations. 

The guidelines — the first from the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC) in a decade — describe the comprehensive services and resources specialized epilepsy centers should provide to improve quality of care for people living with epilepsy.

“In addition to advances in medicine, there has been a shift toward addressing overall well-being beyond seizure management,” Fred A. Lado, MD, PhD, NAEC president and guideline panel cochair, said in a news release. “This includes care for comorbid conditions like anxiety and depression, enhanced communication between the patient and care team, and addressing health disparities in the epilepsy community.

The guidance was developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts, which is the first time that the NAEC has gone beyond the field of neurology to seek input from other medical specialists and allied health personnel, the panel noted. 

“Expanded guidelines are also sorely needed to help centers and hospitals obtain the resources to provide this level of comprehensive care,” said Dr. Lado, regional director of epilepsy and professor of neurology at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. 

An executive summary of the guidelines was published online in Neurology. 
 

A Multidisciplinary Approach

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurologic conditions worldwide, affecting an estimated 3.4 million people in the United States alone. Recurring seizures can be debilitating and, in some cases, life-threatening. 

To update epilepsy care guidelines, an expert panel of 41 stakeholders with diverse expertise evaluated the latest evidence and reached consensus on 52 recommendations spanning a range of services that make up high-quality epilepsy care. 

“This is exhibited in a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary care conferences, screening for comorbidities of epilepsy, and providing access to other specialty services in addition to the core epilepsy center components of outpatient care, diagnostic procedures, and epilepsy surgery,” they wrote. 

For the first time, the guidelines advise specialized epilepsy centers to offer genetic testing and counseling, provide more education and communication for patients, give greater attention to special-needs populations, employ a care coordinator to organize and facilitate multidisciplinary care, provide mental health screening, and address health disparities and inequities.

“All recommendations quickly reached consensus despite there being such a diverse panel of stakeholders, which emphasizes that the recommendations reflect the important elements of healthcare services that should be in place for an epilepsy center to provide the highest quality of care,” said Susan Arnold, MD, guideline panel co-chair and a pediatric epileptologist at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

“But epilepsy centers will need the resources to provide this comprehensive level of care. We hope the guidelines will help increase health insurer and institutional support and recognition of these recommendations,” Dr. Arnold added. 

The guidelines were funded by NAEC. Dr. Lado has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Arnold holds stock in Pfizer. A complete list of disclosures for the guideline panel is available with the original article. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first updated guidelines for specialized epilepsy centers in a decade reflect a shift toward addressing patients’ overall well-being, including recommendations for genetic testing and counseling, mental health screening, and greater attention to special-needs populations. 

The guidelines — the first from the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC) in a decade — describe the comprehensive services and resources specialized epilepsy centers should provide to improve quality of care for people living with epilepsy.

“In addition to advances in medicine, there has been a shift toward addressing overall well-being beyond seizure management,” Fred A. Lado, MD, PhD, NAEC president and guideline panel cochair, said in a news release. “This includes care for comorbid conditions like anxiety and depression, enhanced communication between the patient and care team, and addressing health disparities in the epilepsy community.

The guidance was developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts, which is the first time that the NAEC has gone beyond the field of neurology to seek input from other medical specialists and allied health personnel, the panel noted. 

“Expanded guidelines are also sorely needed to help centers and hospitals obtain the resources to provide this level of comprehensive care,” said Dr. Lado, regional director of epilepsy and professor of neurology at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. 

An executive summary of the guidelines was published online in Neurology. 
 

A Multidisciplinary Approach

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurologic conditions worldwide, affecting an estimated 3.4 million people in the United States alone. Recurring seizures can be debilitating and, in some cases, life-threatening. 

To update epilepsy care guidelines, an expert panel of 41 stakeholders with diverse expertise evaluated the latest evidence and reached consensus on 52 recommendations spanning a range of services that make up high-quality epilepsy care. 

“This is exhibited in a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary care conferences, screening for comorbidities of epilepsy, and providing access to other specialty services in addition to the core epilepsy center components of outpatient care, diagnostic procedures, and epilepsy surgery,” they wrote. 

For the first time, the guidelines advise specialized epilepsy centers to offer genetic testing and counseling, provide more education and communication for patients, give greater attention to special-needs populations, employ a care coordinator to organize and facilitate multidisciplinary care, provide mental health screening, and address health disparities and inequities.

“All recommendations quickly reached consensus despite there being such a diverse panel of stakeholders, which emphasizes that the recommendations reflect the important elements of healthcare services that should be in place for an epilepsy center to provide the highest quality of care,” said Susan Arnold, MD, guideline panel co-chair and a pediatric epileptologist at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

“But epilepsy centers will need the resources to provide this comprehensive level of care. We hope the guidelines will help increase health insurer and institutional support and recognition of these recommendations,” Dr. Arnold added. 

The guidelines were funded by NAEC. Dr. Lado has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Arnold holds stock in Pfizer. A complete list of disclosures for the guideline panel is available with the original article. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When pediatric patients with epilepsy shift to adult care, inherent challenges are complicated by a near-total lack of efforts to smooth the transition, according to a recent survey. Many respondents received little to no information regarding the process, and many adults were still receiving care from family physicians or pediatric neurologists. The study was published online in Epilepsy & Behavior.

Room for Improvement

“We are not doing as good a job with planning for transition as we should,” said Elaine C. Wirrell, MD, who was not involved with the study. “It is not just a simple issue of sending your patient to an adult neurologist. Transition is a process that happens over time, so we need to do a better job getting our families ready for moving on to an adult provider.” Dr. Wirrell is director of pediatric epilepsy and professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Wirrell_Elaine_C_MINN_web.jpg

Clumsy Transitions

Investigators distributed a 25-question survey to patients and caregivers who attended the 2019 Epilepsy Awareness Day at Disneyland, and through online support groups in North America. Among 58 responses, 32 came from patients between ages 12 and 17 years or their caregivers.

Despite attempts to recruit a diverse cross-section of respondents, most patients had severe epilepsy and comorbidities: 43% had daily or weekly seizures; 45% were on three or more antiseizure medications; and 74% had intellectual disabilities.

Many children with early-life epilepsies suffer from developmental and epileptic encephalopathy, which has associated non-seizure symptoms including learning challenges, behavioral issues, and other medical concerns, Dr. Wirrell said. Therefore, she said, finding a neurologist who treats adults — and has the expertise and interest to care for such patients — can be difficult.

“We’re seeing many patients not making that transition, or maybe not making it appropriately, so they’re not necessarily getting to the providers who have the most expertise in managing their epilepsy.” Among adults surveyed, 27% were still being followed by pediatric neurologists, and 35% were visiting family doctors for epilepsy-related treatment.

Because the needs of children with complex epilepsy can extend well beyond neurology, Dr. Wirrell added, managing such cases often requires multidisciplinary pediatric teams. “Finding that team on the adult side is more challenging.” As a result, she said, patients may transfer their neurology care without getting additional support for comorbidities such as mood disorders and learning disabilities.

The foregoing challenges are complicated by the fact that pediatric neurologists often lack the time (and in the United States, reimbursement) to adequately address the transition process, said Dr. Wirrell. Providers in freestanding children’s hospitals may face additional challenges coordinating with adult-care providers outside their facilities, she said.

“There’s also potentially a reluctance of both families and physicians to transition the patient on, because there’s concern that maybe there isn’t anybody on the adult side who is able to do as good a job as what they have on the pediatric side.”
 

Well-Coordinated Transitions Should Have No Surprises

Transition should be a planned, independence-promoting process that results in smooth, well-coordinated movement of pediatric patients into adult care — one without surprises or disconnections, the authors wrote. However, 55% of respondents never heard the term “transition” from any provider, even though 69% of patients were being treated in academic specialty centers.

Among 12- to 17-year-olds, 72% had never discussed transition with their healthcare team. That figure includes no 17-year-olds. Approximately 90% of respondents said they received sufficient time during healthcare visits, but 54% reported feeling stressed when moving from pediatric to adult care.

Given resource constraints in many pediatric epilepsy programs, the study authors recommended patient-empowerment tools such as a transition toolkit to help patients and families navigate the transition process even in places without formal transition programs.

“Many of these children are coming over with boatloads of medical records,” Dr. Wirrell said. “It’s not fair to the adult provider, who then has to go through all those records.” Instead, she said, pediatric teams should provide succinct summaries of relevant test results, medication side effects, prior treatments tried, and the like. “Those summaries are critically important so that we can get information to the person who needs it.”

Although successful transition requires significant coordination, she added, much of the process can often be handled by nonphysicians. “There are some very good nurse-led transition programs. Often, we can have a nurse providing education to the family and even potentially having a joint visit with an adult epilepsy nurse for complex patients.”

Pediatric providers also must know when to begin the transition process, Dr. Wirrell said. As soon as patients are 13 or 14 years old, she suggested discussing the process with them and their families every 6 to 12 months, covering specifics ranging from how to order medications to why adult patients may need power of attorney designees.

On a broader scale, said Dr. Wirrell, a smooth handoff requires planning. Fortunately, she said, the topic is becoming a significant priority for a growing number of children’s hospitals specific not only to epilepsy, but also to other chronic illnesses.

Dr. Wirrell is co–editor-in-chief for epilepsy.com. She reports no relevant financial interests.

When pediatric patients with epilepsy shift to adult care, inherent challenges are complicated by a near-total lack of efforts to smooth the transition, according to a recent survey. Many respondents received little to no information regarding the process, and many adults were still receiving care from family physicians or pediatric neurologists. The study was published online in Epilepsy & Behavior.

Room for Improvement

“We are not doing as good a job with planning for transition as we should,” said Elaine C. Wirrell, MD, who was not involved with the study. “It is not just a simple issue of sending your patient to an adult neurologist. Transition is a process that happens over time, so we need to do a better job getting our families ready for moving on to an adult provider.” Dr. Wirrell is director of pediatric epilepsy and professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Wirrell_Elaine_C_MINN_web.jpg

Clumsy Transitions

Investigators distributed a 25-question survey to patients and caregivers who attended the 2019 Epilepsy Awareness Day at Disneyland, and through online support groups in North America. Among 58 responses, 32 came from patients between ages 12 and 17 years or their caregivers.

Despite attempts to recruit a diverse cross-section of respondents, most patients had severe epilepsy and comorbidities: 43% had daily or weekly seizures; 45% were on three or more antiseizure medications; and 74% had intellectual disabilities.

Many children with early-life epilepsies suffer from developmental and epileptic encephalopathy, which has associated non-seizure symptoms including learning challenges, behavioral issues, and other medical concerns, Dr. Wirrell said. Therefore, she said, finding a neurologist who treats adults — and has the expertise and interest to care for such patients — can be difficult.

“We’re seeing many patients not making that transition, or maybe not making it appropriately, so they’re not necessarily getting to the providers who have the most expertise in managing their epilepsy.” Among adults surveyed, 27% were still being followed by pediatric neurologists, and 35% were visiting family doctors for epilepsy-related treatment.

Because the needs of children with complex epilepsy can extend well beyond neurology, Dr. Wirrell added, managing such cases often requires multidisciplinary pediatric teams. “Finding that team on the adult side is more challenging.” As a result, she said, patients may transfer their neurology care without getting additional support for comorbidities such as mood disorders and learning disabilities.

The foregoing challenges are complicated by the fact that pediatric neurologists often lack the time (and in the United States, reimbursement) to adequately address the transition process, said Dr. Wirrell. Providers in freestanding children’s hospitals may face additional challenges coordinating with adult-care providers outside their facilities, she said.

“There’s also potentially a reluctance of both families and physicians to transition the patient on, because there’s concern that maybe there isn’t anybody on the adult side who is able to do as good a job as what they have on the pediatric side.”
 

Well-Coordinated Transitions Should Have No Surprises

Transition should be a planned, independence-promoting process that results in smooth, well-coordinated movement of pediatric patients into adult care — one without surprises or disconnections, the authors wrote. However, 55% of respondents never heard the term “transition” from any provider, even though 69% of patients were being treated in academic specialty centers.

Among 12- to 17-year-olds, 72% had never discussed transition with their healthcare team. That figure includes no 17-year-olds. Approximately 90% of respondents said they received sufficient time during healthcare visits, but 54% reported feeling stressed when moving from pediatric to adult care.

Given resource constraints in many pediatric epilepsy programs, the study authors recommended patient-empowerment tools such as a transition toolkit to help patients and families navigate the transition process even in places without formal transition programs.

“Many of these children are coming over with boatloads of medical records,” Dr. Wirrell said. “It’s not fair to the adult provider, who then has to go through all those records.” Instead, she said, pediatric teams should provide succinct summaries of relevant test results, medication side effects, prior treatments tried, and the like. “Those summaries are critically important so that we can get information to the person who needs it.”

Although successful transition requires significant coordination, she added, much of the process can often be handled by nonphysicians. “There are some very good nurse-led transition programs. Often, we can have a nurse providing education to the family and even potentially having a joint visit with an adult epilepsy nurse for complex patients.”

Pediatric providers also must know when to begin the transition process, Dr. Wirrell said. As soon as patients are 13 or 14 years old, she suggested discussing the process with them and their families every 6 to 12 months, covering specifics ranging from how to order medications to why adult patients may need power of attorney designees.

On a broader scale, said Dr. Wirrell, a smooth handoff requires planning. Fortunately, she said, the topic is becoming a significant priority for a growing number of children’s hospitals specific not only to epilepsy, but also to other chronic illnesses.

Dr. Wirrell is co–editor-in-chief for epilepsy.com. She reports no relevant financial interests.

When pediatric patients with epilepsy shift to adult care, inherent challenges are complicated by a near-total lack of efforts to smooth the transition, according to a recent survey. Many respondents received little to no information regarding the process, and many adults were still receiving care from family physicians or pediatric neurologists. The study was published online in Epilepsy & Behavior.

Room for Improvement

“We are not doing as good a job with planning for transition as we should,” said Elaine C. Wirrell, MD, who was not involved with the study. “It is not just a simple issue of sending your patient to an adult neurologist. Transition is a process that happens over time, so we need to do a better job getting our families ready for moving on to an adult provider.” Dr. Wirrell is director of pediatric epilepsy and professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Wirrell_Elaine_C_MINN_web.jpg

Clumsy Transitions

Investigators distributed a 25-question survey to patients and caregivers who attended the 2019 Epilepsy Awareness Day at Disneyland, and through online support groups in North America. Among 58 responses, 32 came from patients between ages 12 and 17 years or their caregivers.

Despite attempts to recruit a diverse cross-section of respondents, most patients had severe epilepsy and comorbidities: 43% had daily or weekly seizures; 45% were on three or more antiseizure medications; and 74% had intellectual disabilities.

Many children with early-life epilepsies suffer from developmental and epileptic encephalopathy, which has associated non-seizure symptoms including learning challenges, behavioral issues, and other medical concerns, Dr. Wirrell said. Therefore, she said, finding a neurologist who treats adults — and has the expertise and interest to care for such patients — can be difficult.

“We’re seeing many patients not making that transition, or maybe not making it appropriately, so they’re not necessarily getting to the providers who have the most expertise in managing their epilepsy.” Among adults surveyed, 27% were still being followed by pediatric neurologists, and 35% were visiting family doctors for epilepsy-related treatment.

Because the needs of children with complex epilepsy can extend well beyond neurology, Dr. Wirrell added, managing such cases often requires multidisciplinary pediatric teams. “Finding that team on the adult side is more challenging.” As a result, she said, patients may transfer their neurology care without getting additional support for comorbidities such as mood disorders and learning disabilities.

The foregoing challenges are complicated by the fact that pediatric neurologists often lack the time (and in the United States, reimbursement) to adequately address the transition process, said Dr. Wirrell. Providers in freestanding children’s hospitals may face additional challenges coordinating with adult-care providers outside their facilities, she said.

“There’s also potentially a reluctance of both families and physicians to transition the patient on, because there’s concern that maybe there isn’t anybody on the adult side who is able to do as good a job as what they have on the pediatric side.”
 

Well-Coordinated Transitions Should Have No Surprises

Transition should be a planned, independence-promoting process that results in smooth, well-coordinated movement of pediatric patients into adult care — one without surprises or disconnections, the authors wrote. However, 55% of respondents never heard the term “transition” from any provider, even though 69% of patients were being treated in academic specialty centers.

Among 12- to 17-year-olds, 72% had never discussed transition with their healthcare team. That figure includes no 17-year-olds. Approximately 90% of respondents said they received sufficient time during healthcare visits, but 54% reported feeling stressed when moving from pediatric to adult care.

Given resource constraints in many pediatric epilepsy programs, the study authors recommended patient-empowerment tools such as a transition toolkit to help patients and families navigate the transition process even in places without formal transition programs.

“Many of these children are coming over with boatloads of medical records,” Dr. Wirrell said. “It’s not fair to the adult provider, who then has to go through all those records.” Instead, she said, pediatric teams should provide succinct summaries of relevant test results, medication side effects, prior treatments tried, and the like. “Those summaries are critically important so that we can get information to the person who needs it.”

Although successful transition requires significant coordination, she added, much of the process can often be handled by nonphysicians. “There are some very good nurse-led transition programs. Often, we can have a nurse providing education to the family and even potentially having a joint visit with an adult epilepsy nurse for complex patients.”

Pediatric providers also must know when to begin the transition process, Dr. Wirrell said. As soon as patients are 13 or 14 years old, she suggested discussing the process with them and their families every 6 to 12 months, covering specifics ranging from how to order medications to why adult patients may need power of attorney designees.

On a broader scale, said Dr. Wirrell, a smooth handoff requires planning. Fortunately, she said, the topic is becoming a significant priority for a growing number of children’s hospitals specific not only to epilepsy, but also to other chronic illnesses.

Dr. Wirrell is co–editor-in-chief for epilepsy.com. She reports no relevant financial interests.

ORLANDO — Experts shed light on the applications, benefits, and pitfalls of artificial intelligence (AI) during the Merrit-Putnam Symposium at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES).

In a session titled “Artificial Intelligence Fundamentals and Breakthrough Applications in Epilepsy,” University of Pittsburgh neurologist and assistant professor Wesley Kerr, MD, PhD, provided an overview of AI as well its applications in neurology. He began by addressing perhaps one of the most controversial topics regarding AI in the medical community: clinicians’ fear of being replaced by technology.

“Artificial intelligence will not replace clinicians, but clinicians assisted by artificial intelligence will replace clinicians without artificial intelligence,” he told the audience.
 

To Optimize AI, Clinicians Must Lay the Proper Foundation

Dr. Kerr’s presentation focused on providing audience members with tools to help them evaluate new technologies, recognize benefits, and identify key costs and limitations associated with AI implementation and integration into clinical practice.

Before delving deeper, one must first understand basic terminology regarding AI. Without this knowledge, clinicians may inadvertently introduce bias or errata or fail to understand how to best leverage the technology to enhance the quality of the practice while improving patient outcomes.

Machine learning (ML) describes the process of using data to learn a specific task. Deep learning (DL) stacks multiple layers of ML to improve performance on the task. Lastly, generative AI generates content such as text, images, and media.

Utilizing AI effectively in clinical applications involves tapping into select features most related to prediction (for example, disease factors) and grouping features into categories based on measuring commonalities such as factor composition in a population. This information should be used in training data only.

Fully understanding ML/AI allows clinicians to use it as a diagnostic test by exploiting a combination of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, along with positive and negative predictive values.
 

Data Fidelity and Integrity Hinge on Optimal Data Inputs

In the case of epilepsy, calibration curves can provide practical guidance in terms of predicting impending seizures.

“ML/AI needs gold-standard labels for evaluation,” Dr. Kerr said. He went on to stress the importance of quality data inputs to optimize the fidelity of AI’s predictive analytics.

“If you input garbage, you’ll get garbage out,” he said. “So a lot of garbage going in means a lot of garbage out.”

Such “garbage” can result in missed or erroneous diagnoses, or even faulty predictions. Even when the data are complete, AI can draw incorrect conclusions based on trends for which it lacks proper context.

Dr. Kerr used epilepsy trends in the Black population to illustrate this problem.

“One potential bias is that AI can figure out a patient is Black without being told, and based on data that Black patients are less likely to get epilepsy surgery,” he said, “AI would say they don’t need it because they’re Black, which isn’t true.”

In other words, ML/AI can use systematic determinants of health, such as race, to learn what Dr. Kerr referred to as an “inappropriate association.”

For that reason, ML/AI users must test for bias.

Such data are often retrieved from electronic health records (EHR), which serve as an important source of data ML/AI input. Using EHR makes sense, as they are a major source of missed potential in improving prompt treatment. According to Dr. Kerr, 20% of academic neurologists’ notes miss seizure frequency, and 30% miss the age of onset.

In addition, International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes create another hurdle depending on the type of code used. For example, epilepsy with G40 or 2 codes of R56 is reliable, while focal to bilateral versus generalized epilepsy proves more challenging.
 

AI Improves Efficiency in National Language Generation

Large language models (LLM) look at first drafts and can save time on formatting, image selection, and construction. Perhaps ChatGPT is the most famous LLM, but other tools in this category include Open AI and Bard. LLMs are trained on “the whole internet” and use publicly accessible text.

In these cases, prompts serve as input data. Output data are predictions of the first and subsequent words.

Many users appreciate the foundation LLMs provide in terms of facilitating and collating research and summarizing ideas. The LLM-generated text actually serves as a first draft, saving users time on more clerical tasks such as formatting, image selection, and structure. Notwithstanding, these tools still require human supervision to screen for hallucinations or to add specialized content.

“LLMs are a great starting place to save time but are loaded with errors,” Dr. Kerr said.

Even if the tools could produce error-free content, ethics still come into play when using AI-generated content without any alterations. Any ML/AI that has not been modified or supervised is considered plagiarism.

Yet, interestingly enough, Dr. Kerr found that patients respond more positively to AI than physicians when interacting.

“Patients felt that AI was more sensitive and compassionate because it was longer-winded and humans are short,” he said. He went on to argue that AI might actually prove useful in helping physicians to improve the quality of their patient interactions.

Dr. Kerr left the audience with these key takeaways:

• ML/AI is just one type of clinical tool with benefits and limitations. The technology conveys the advantages of freeing up the clinician’s time to focus on more human-centered tasks, improving clinical decisions in challenging situations, and improving efficiency.
• However, healthcare systems should understand that ML/AI is not 100% foolproof, as the software’s knowledge is limited to its training exposure, and proper use requires supervision.

ORLANDO — Experts shed light on the applications, benefits, and pitfalls of artificial intelligence (AI) during the Merrit-Putnam Symposium at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES).

In a session titled “Artificial Intelligence Fundamentals and Breakthrough Applications in Epilepsy,” University of Pittsburgh neurologist and assistant professor Wesley Kerr, MD, PhD, provided an overview of AI as well its applications in neurology. He began by addressing perhaps one of the most controversial topics regarding AI in the medical community: clinicians’ fear of being replaced by technology.

“Artificial intelligence will not replace clinicians, but clinicians assisted by artificial intelligence will replace clinicians without artificial intelligence,” he told the audience.
 

To Optimize AI, Clinicians Must Lay the Proper Foundation

Dr. Kerr’s presentation focused on providing audience members with tools to help them evaluate new technologies, recognize benefits, and identify key costs and limitations associated with AI implementation and integration into clinical practice.

Before delving deeper, one must first understand basic terminology regarding AI. Without this knowledge, clinicians may inadvertently introduce bias or errata or fail to understand how to best leverage the technology to enhance the quality of the practice while improving patient outcomes.

Machine learning (ML) describes the process of using data to learn a specific task. Deep learning (DL) stacks multiple layers of ML to improve performance on the task. Lastly, generative AI generates content such as text, images, and media.

Utilizing AI effectively in clinical applications involves tapping into select features most related to prediction (for example, disease factors) and grouping features into categories based on measuring commonalities such as factor composition in a population. This information should be used in training data only.

Fully understanding ML/AI allows clinicians to use it as a diagnostic test by exploiting a combination of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, along with positive and negative predictive values.
 

Data Fidelity and Integrity Hinge on Optimal Data Inputs

In the case of epilepsy, calibration curves can provide practical guidance in terms of predicting impending seizures.

“ML/AI needs gold-standard labels for evaluation,” Dr. Kerr said. He went on to stress the importance of quality data inputs to optimize the fidelity of AI’s predictive analytics.

“If you input garbage, you’ll get garbage out,” he said. “So a lot of garbage going in means a lot of garbage out.”

Such “garbage” can result in missed or erroneous diagnoses, or even faulty predictions. Even when the data are complete, AI can draw incorrect conclusions based on trends for which it lacks proper context.

Dr. Kerr used epilepsy trends in the Black population to illustrate this problem.

“One potential bias is that AI can figure out a patient is Black without being told, and based on data that Black patients are less likely to get epilepsy surgery,” he said, “AI would say they don’t need it because they’re Black, which isn’t true.”

In other words, ML/AI can use systematic determinants of health, such as race, to learn what Dr. Kerr referred to as an “inappropriate association.”

For that reason, ML/AI users must test for bias.

Such data are often retrieved from electronic health records (EHR), which serve as an important source of data ML/AI input. Using EHR makes sense, as they are a major source of missed potential in improving prompt treatment. According to Dr. Kerr, 20% of academic neurologists’ notes miss seizure frequency, and 30% miss the age of onset.

In addition, International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes create another hurdle depending on the type of code used. For example, epilepsy with G40 or 2 codes of R56 is reliable, while focal to bilateral versus generalized epilepsy proves more challenging.
 

AI Improves Efficiency in National Language Generation

Large language models (LLM) look at first drafts and can save time on formatting, image selection, and construction. Perhaps ChatGPT is the most famous LLM, but other tools in this category include Open AI and Bard. LLMs are trained on “the whole internet” and use publicly accessible text.

In these cases, prompts serve as input data. Output data are predictions of the first and subsequent words.

Many users appreciate the foundation LLMs provide in terms of facilitating and collating research and summarizing ideas. The LLM-generated text actually serves as a first draft, saving users time on more clerical tasks such as formatting, image selection, and structure. Notwithstanding, these tools still require human supervision to screen for hallucinations or to add specialized content.

“LLMs are a great starting place to save time but are loaded with errors,” Dr. Kerr said.

Even if the tools could produce error-free content, ethics still come into play when using AI-generated content without any alterations. Any ML/AI that has not been modified or supervised is considered plagiarism.

Yet, interestingly enough, Dr. Kerr found that patients respond more positively to AI than physicians when interacting.

“Patients felt that AI was more sensitive and compassionate because it was longer-winded and humans are short,” he said. He went on to argue that AI might actually prove useful in helping physicians to improve the quality of their patient interactions.

Dr. Kerr left the audience with these key takeaways:

• ML/AI is just one type of clinical tool with benefits and limitations. The technology conveys the advantages of freeing up the clinician’s time to focus on more human-centered tasks, improving clinical decisions in challenging situations, and improving efficiency.
• However, healthcare systems should understand that ML/AI is not 100% foolproof, as the software’s knowledge is limited to its training exposure, and proper use requires supervision.

ORLANDO — Experts shed light on the applications, benefits, and pitfalls of artificial intelligence (AI) during the Merrit-Putnam Symposium at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES).

In a session titled “Artificial Intelligence Fundamentals and Breakthrough Applications in Epilepsy,” University of Pittsburgh neurologist and assistant professor Wesley Kerr, MD, PhD, provided an overview of AI as well its applications in neurology. He began by addressing perhaps one of the most controversial topics regarding AI in the medical community: clinicians’ fear of being replaced by technology.

“Artificial intelligence will not replace clinicians, but clinicians assisted by artificial intelligence will replace clinicians without artificial intelligence,” he told the audience.
 

To Optimize AI, Clinicians Must Lay the Proper Foundation

Dr. Kerr’s presentation focused on providing audience members with tools to help them evaluate new technologies, recognize benefits, and identify key costs and limitations associated with AI implementation and integration into clinical practice.

Before delving deeper, one must first understand basic terminology regarding AI. Without this knowledge, clinicians may inadvertently introduce bias or errata or fail to understand how to best leverage the technology to enhance the quality of the practice while improving patient outcomes.

Machine learning (ML) describes the process of using data to learn a specific task. Deep learning (DL) stacks multiple layers of ML to improve performance on the task. Lastly, generative AI generates content such as text, images, and media.

Utilizing AI effectively in clinical applications involves tapping into select features most related to prediction (for example, disease factors) and grouping features into categories based on measuring commonalities such as factor composition in a population. This information should be used in training data only.

Fully understanding ML/AI allows clinicians to use it as a diagnostic test by exploiting a combination of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, along with positive and negative predictive values.
 

Data Fidelity and Integrity Hinge on Optimal Data Inputs

In the case of epilepsy, calibration curves can provide practical guidance in terms of predicting impending seizures.

“ML/AI needs gold-standard labels for evaluation,” Dr. Kerr said. He went on to stress the importance of quality data inputs to optimize the fidelity of AI’s predictive analytics.

“If you input garbage, you’ll get garbage out,” he said. “So a lot of garbage going in means a lot of garbage out.”

Such “garbage” can result in missed or erroneous diagnoses, or even faulty predictions. Even when the data are complete, AI can draw incorrect conclusions based on trends for which it lacks proper context.

Dr. Kerr used epilepsy trends in the Black population to illustrate this problem.

“One potential bias is that AI can figure out a patient is Black without being told, and based on data that Black patients are less likely to get epilepsy surgery,” he said, “AI would say they don’t need it because they’re Black, which isn’t true.”

In other words, ML/AI can use systematic determinants of health, such as race, to learn what Dr. Kerr referred to as an “inappropriate association.”

For that reason, ML/AI users must test for bias.

Such data are often retrieved from electronic health records (EHR), which serve as an important source of data ML/AI input. Using EHR makes sense, as they are a major source of missed potential in improving prompt treatment. According to Dr. Kerr, 20% of academic neurologists’ notes miss seizure frequency, and 30% miss the age of onset.

In addition, International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes create another hurdle depending on the type of code used. For example, epilepsy with G40 or 2 codes of R56 is reliable, while focal to bilateral versus generalized epilepsy proves more challenging.
 

AI Improves Efficiency in National Language Generation

Large language models (LLM) look at first drafts and can save time on formatting, image selection, and construction. Perhaps ChatGPT is the most famous LLM, but other tools in this category include Open AI and Bard. LLMs are trained on “the whole internet” and use publicly accessible text.

In these cases, prompts serve as input data. Output data are predictions of the first and subsequent words.

Many users appreciate the foundation LLMs provide in terms of facilitating and collating research and summarizing ideas. The LLM-generated text actually serves as a first draft, saving users time on more clerical tasks such as formatting, image selection, and structure. Notwithstanding, these tools still require human supervision to screen for hallucinations or to add specialized content.

“LLMs are a great starting place to save time but are loaded with errors,” Dr. Kerr said.

Even if the tools could produce error-free content, ethics still come into play when using AI-generated content without any alterations. Any ML/AI that has not been modified or supervised is considered plagiarism.

Yet, interestingly enough, Dr. Kerr found that patients respond more positively to AI than physicians when interacting.

“Patients felt that AI was more sensitive and compassionate because it was longer-winded and humans are short,” he said. He went on to argue that AI might actually prove useful in helping physicians to improve the quality of their patient interactions.

Dr. Kerr left the audience with these key takeaways:

• ML/AI is just one type of clinical tool with benefits and limitations. The technology conveys the advantages of freeing up the clinician’s time to focus on more human-centered tasks, improving clinical decisions in challenging situations, and improving efficiency.
• However, healthcare systems should understand that ML/AI is not 100% foolproof, as the software’s knowledge is limited to its training exposure, and proper use requires supervision.

ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.

Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.

“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
 

Guidelines Differ

The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.

However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.

Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
 

Personal Experience

Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.

“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”

Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.

Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.

“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
 

Variants of Uncertain Significance

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.

In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.

Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.

For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.

In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.

“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”

ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.

Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.

“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
 

Guidelines Differ

The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.

However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.

Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
 

Personal Experience

Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.

“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”

Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.

Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.

“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
 

Variants of Uncertain Significance

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.

In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.

Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.

For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.

In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.

“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”

ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.

Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.

“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
 

Guidelines Differ

The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.

However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.

Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
 

Personal Experience

Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.

“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”

Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.

Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.

“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
 

Variants of Uncertain Significance

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.

In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.

Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.

For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.

In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.

“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”