User login
Epilepsy
Can Antihistamines Trigger Seizures in Young Kids?
TOPLINE:
new research shows. The risk appears to be most pronounced in children aged 6-24 months.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers in Korea used a self-controlled case-crossover design to assess the risk for seizures associated with prescriptions of first-generation antihistamines.
- They analyzed data from 11,729 children who had a seizure event (an emergency department visit with a diagnosis of epilepsy, status epilepticus, or convulsion) and had previously received a prescription for a first-generation antihistamine, including chlorpheniramine maleate, mequitazine, oxatomide, piprinhydrinate, or hydroxyzine hydrochloride.
- Prescriptions during the 15 days before a seizure were considered to have been received during a hazard period, whereas earlier prescriptions were considered to have been received during a control period.
- The researchers excluded patients with febrile seizures.
TAKEAWAY:
- In an adjusted analysis, a prescription for an antihistamine during the hazard period was associated with a 22% higher risk for seizures in children (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.31).
- The seizure risk was significant in children aged 6-24 months, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.31-1.70).
- For older children, the risk was not statistically significant.
IN PRACTICE:
“The study underscores a substantial increase in seizure risk associated with antihistamine prescription among children aged 6-24 months,” the authors of the study wrote. “We are not aware of any other studies that have pointed out the increased risk of seizures with first-generation antihistamines in this particular age group. ... The benefits and risks of antihistamine use should always be carefully considered, especially when prescribing H1 antihistamines to vulnerable infants.”
The findings raise a host of questions for clinicians, including how a “relatively small risk” should translate into practice, and whether the risk may be attenuated with newer antihistamines, wrote Frank Max Charles Besag, MB, ChB, with East London NHS Foundation Trust in England, in an editorial accompanying the study. “It would be reasonable to inform families that at least one study has suggested a relatively small increase in the risk of seizures with first-generation antihistamines, adding that there are still too few data to draw any firm conclusions and also providing families with the information on what to do if the child were to have a seizure.”
SOURCE:
Seonkyeong Rhie, MD, and Man Yong Han, MD, both with the Department of Pediatrics at CHA University School of Medicine, in Seongnam, South Korea, were the corresponding authors on the study. The research was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The researchers did not have details about seizure symptoms, did not include children seen in outpatient clinics, and were unable to verify the actual intake of the prescribed antihistamines. Although second-generation antihistamines may be less likely to cross the blood-brain barrier, one newer medication, desloratadine, has been associated with seizures.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
new research shows. The risk appears to be most pronounced in children aged 6-24 months.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers in Korea used a self-controlled case-crossover design to assess the risk for seizures associated with prescriptions of first-generation antihistamines.
- They analyzed data from 11,729 children who had a seizure event (an emergency department visit with a diagnosis of epilepsy, status epilepticus, or convulsion) and had previously received a prescription for a first-generation antihistamine, including chlorpheniramine maleate, mequitazine, oxatomide, piprinhydrinate, or hydroxyzine hydrochloride.
- Prescriptions during the 15 days before a seizure were considered to have been received during a hazard period, whereas earlier prescriptions were considered to have been received during a control period.
- The researchers excluded patients with febrile seizures.
TAKEAWAY:
- In an adjusted analysis, a prescription for an antihistamine during the hazard period was associated with a 22% higher risk for seizures in children (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.31).
- The seizure risk was significant in children aged 6-24 months, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.31-1.70).
- For older children, the risk was not statistically significant.
IN PRACTICE:
“The study underscores a substantial increase in seizure risk associated with antihistamine prescription among children aged 6-24 months,” the authors of the study wrote. “We are not aware of any other studies that have pointed out the increased risk of seizures with first-generation antihistamines in this particular age group. ... The benefits and risks of antihistamine use should always be carefully considered, especially when prescribing H1 antihistamines to vulnerable infants.”
The findings raise a host of questions for clinicians, including how a “relatively small risk” should translate into practice, and whether the risk may be attenuated with newer antihistamines, wrote Frank Max Charles Besag, MB, ChB, with East London NHS Foundation Trust in England, in an editorial accompanying the study. “It would be reasonable to inform families that at least one study has suggested a relatively small increase in the risk of seizures with first-generation antihistamines, adding that there are still too few data to draw any firm conclusions and also providing families with the information on what to do if the child were to have a seizure.”
SOURCE:
Seonkyeong Rhie, MD, and Man Yong Han, MD, both with the Department of Pediatrics at CHA University School of Medicine, in Seongnam, South Korea, were the corresponding authors on the study. The research was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The researchers did not have details about seizure symptoms, did not include children seen in outpatient clinics, and were unable to verify the actual intake of the prescribed antihistamines. Although second-generation antihistamines may be less likely to cross the blood-brain barrier, one newer medication, desloratadine, has been associated with seizures.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
new research shows. The risk appears to be most pronounced in children aged 6-24 months.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers in Korea used a self-controlled case-crossover design to assess the risk for seizures associated with prescriptions of first-generation antihistamines.
- They analyzed data from 11,729 children who had a seizure event (an emergency department visit with a diagnosis of epilepsy, status epilepticus, or convulsion) and had previously received a prescription for a first-generation antihistamine, including chlorpheniramine maleate, mequitazine, oxatomide, piprinhydrinate, or hydroxyzine hydrochloride.
- Prescriptions during the 15 days before a seizure were considered to have been received during a hazard period, whereas earlier prescriptions were considered to have been received during a control period.
- The researchers excluded patients with febrile seizures.
TAKEAWAY:
- In an adjusted analysis, a prescription for an antihistamine during the hazard period was associated with a 22% higher risk for seizures in children (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.31).
- The seizure risk was significant in children aged 6-24 months, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.31-1.70).
- For older children, the risk was not statistically significant.
IN PRACTICE:
“The study underscores a substantial increase in seizure risk associated with antihistamine prescription among children aged 6-24 months,” the authors of the study wrote. “We are not aware of any other studies that have pointed out the increased risk of seizures with first-generation antihistamines in this particular age group. ... The benefits and risks of antihistamine use should always be carefully considered, especially when prescribing H1 antihistamines to vulnerable infants.”
The findings raise a host of questions for clinicians, including how a “relatively small risk” should translate into practice, and whether the risk may be attenuated with newer antihistamines, wrote Frank Max Charles Besag, MB, ChB, with East London NHS Foundation Trust in England, in an editorial accompanying the study. “It would be reasonable to inform families that at least one study has suggested a relatively small increase in the risk of seizures with first-generation antihistamines, adding that there are still too few data to draw any firm conclusions and also providing families with the information on what to do if the child were to have a seizure.”
SOURCE:
Seonkyeong Rhie, MD, and Man Yong Han, MD, both with the Department of Pediatrics at CHA University School of Medicine, in Seongnam, South Korea, were the corresponding authors on the study. The research was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The researchers did not have details about seizure symptoms, did not include children seen in outpatient clinics, and were unable to verify the actual intake of the prescribed antihistamines. Although second-generation antihistamines may be less likely to cross the blood-brain barrier, one newer medication, desloratadine, has been associated with seizures.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AI Matches Expert Interpretation of Routine EEGs
, according to investigators.
These findings suggest that SCORE-AI, the model tested, can reliably interpret common EEGs in real-world practice, supporting its recent FDA approval, reported lead author Daniel Mansilla, MD, a neurologist at Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, and colleagues.
“Overinterpretation of clinical EEG is the most common cause of misdiagnosing epilepsy,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia. “AI tools may be a solution for this challenge, both as an additional resource for confirmation and classification of epilepsy, and as an aid for the interpretation of EEG in critical care medicine.”
To date, however, AI tools have struggled with the variability encountered in real-world neurology practice.“When tested on external data from different centers and diverse patient populations, and using equipment distinct from the initial study, medical AI models frequently exhibit modest performance, and only a few AI tools have successfully transitioned into medical practice,” the investigators wrote.
SCORE-AI Matches Expert Interpretation of Routine EEGs
The present study put SCORE-AI to the test with EEGs from 104 patients between 16 and 91 years. These individuals hailed from “geographically distinct” regions, while recording equipment and conditions also varied widely, according to Dr. Mansilla and colleagues.
To set an external gold-standard for comparison, EEGs were first interpreted by three human expert raters, who were blinded to all case information except the EEGs themselves. The dataset comprised 50% normal and 50% abnormal EEGs. Four major classes of EEG abnormalities were included: focal epileptiform, generalized epileptiform, focal nonepileptiform, and diffuse nonepileptiform.
Comparing SCORE-AI interpretations with the experts’ interpretations revealed no significant difference in any metric or category. The AI tool had an overall accuracy of 92%, compared with 94% for the human experts. Of note, SCORE-AI maintained this level of performance regardless of vigilance state or normal variants.
“SCORE-AI has obtained FDA approval for routine clinical EEGs and is presently being integrated into broadly available EEG software (Natus NeuroWorks),” the investigators wrote.
Further Validation May Be Needed
Wesley T. Kerr, MD, PhD, functional (nonepileptic) seizures clinic lead epileptologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and handling associate editor for this study in Epilepsia, said the present findings are important because they show that SCORE-AI can perform in scenarios beyond the one in which it was developed.
Still, it may be premature for broad commercial rollout.
In a written comment, Dr. Kerr called for “much larger studies” to validate SCORE-AI, noting that seizures can be caused by “many rare conditions,” and some patients have multiple EEG abnormalities.
Since SCORE-AI has not yet demonstrated accuracy in those situations, he predicted that the tool will remain exactly that – a tool – before it replaces human experts.
“They have only looked at SCORE-AI by itself,” Dr. Kerr said. “Practically, SCORE-AI is going to be used in combination with a neurologist for a long time before SCORE-AI can operate semi-independently or independently. They need to do studies looking at this combination to see how this tool impacts the clinical practice of EEG interpretation.”
Daniel Friedman, MD, an epileptologist and associate clinical professor of neurology at NYU Langone, pointed out another limitation of the present study: The EEGs were collected at specialty centers.
“The technical standards of data collection were, therefore, pretty high,” Dr. Friedman said in a written comment. “The majority of EEGs performed in the world are not collected by highly skilled EEG technologists and the performance of AI classification algorithms under less-than-ideal technical conditions is unknown.”
AI-Assisted EEG Interpretation Is Here to Stay
When asked about the long-term future of AI-assisted EEG interpretation, Dr. Friedman predicted that it will be “critical” for helping improve the accuracy of epilepsy diagnoses, particularly because most EEGs worldwide are interpreted by non-experts, leading to the known issue with epilepsy misdiagnosis.
“However,” he added, “it is important to note that epilepsy is a clinical diagnosis ... [EEG] is only one piece of evidence in neurologic decision making. History and accurate eyewitness description of the events of concern are extremely critical to the diagnosis and cannot be replaced by AI yet.”
Dr. Kerr offered a similar view, highlighting the potential for SCORE-AI to raise the game of non-epileptologists.
“My anticipation is that neurologists who don’t use SCORE-AI will be replaced by neurologists who use SCORE-AI well,” he said. “Neurologists who use it well will be able to read more EEGs in less time without sacrificing quality. This will allow the neurologist to spend more time talking with the patient about the interpretation of the tests and how that impacts clinical care.”
Then again, that time spent talking with the patient may also one day be delegated to a machine.
“It is certainly imaginable that AI chatbots using large language models to interact with patients and family could be developed to extract consistent epilepsy histories for diagnostic support,” Dr. Wesley said.
This work was supported by a project grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Duke Neurology start-up funding. The investigators and interviewees reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
, according to investigators.
These findings suggest that SCORE-AI, the model tested, can reliably interpret common EEGs in real-world practice, supporting its recent FDA approval, reported lead author Daniel Mansilla, MD, a neurologist at Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, and colleagues.
“Overinterpretation of clinical EEG is the most common cause of misdiagnosing epilepsy,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia. “AI tools may be a solution for this challenge, both as an additional resource for confirmation and classification of epilepsy, and as an aid for the interpretation of EEG in critical care medicine.”
To date, however, AI tools have struggled with the variability encountered in real-world neurology practice.“When tested on external data from different centers and diverse patient populations, and using equipment distinct from the initial study, medical AI models frequently exhibit modest performance, and only a few AI tools have successfully transitioned into medical practice,” the investigators wrote.
SCORE-AI Matches Expert Interpretation of Routine EEGs
The present study put SCORE-AI to the test with EEGs from 104 patients between 16 and 91 years. These individuals hailed from “geographically distinct” regions, while recording equipment and conditions also varied widely, according to Dr. Mansilla and colleagues.
To set an external gold-standard for comparison, EEGs were first interpreted by three human expert raters, who were blinded to all case information except the EEGs themselves. The dataset comprised 50% normal and 50% abnormal EEGs. Four major classes of EEG abnormalities were included: focal epileptiform, generalized epileptiform, focal nonepileptiform, and diffuse nonepileptiform.
Comparing SCORE-AI interpretations with the experts’ interpretations revealed no significant difference in any metric or category. The AI tool had an overall accuracy of 92%, compared with 94% for the human experts. Of note, SCORE-AI maintained this level of performance regardless of vigilance state or normal variants.
“SCORE-AI has obtained FDA approval for routine clinical EEGs and is presently being integrated into broadly available EEG software (Natus NeuroWorks),” the investigators wrote.
Further Validation May Be Needed
Wesley T. Kerr, MD, PhD, functional (nonepileptic) seizures clinic lead epileptologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and handling associate editor for this study in Epilepsia, said the present findings are important because they show that SCORE-AI can perform in scenarios beyond the one in which it was developed.
Still, it may be premature for broad commercial rollout.
In a written comment, Dr. Kerr called for “much larger studies” to validate SCORE-AI, noting that seizures can be caused by “many rare conditions,” and some patients have multiple EEG abnormalities.
Since SCORE-AI has not yet demonstrated accuracy in those situations, he predicted that the tool will remain exactly that – a tool – before it replaces human experts.
“They have only looked at SCORE-AI by itself,” Dr. Kerr said. “Practically, SCORE-AI is going to be used in combination with a neurologist for a long time before SCORE-AI can operate semi-independently or independently. They need to do studies looking at this combination to see how this tool impacts the clinical practice of EEG interpretation.”
Daniel Friedman, MD, an epileptologist and associate clinical professor of neurology at NYU Langone, pointed out another limitation of the present study: The EEGs were collected at specialty centers.
“The technical standards of data collection were, therefore, pretty high,” Dr. Friedman said in a written comment. “The majority of EEGs performed in the world are not collected by highly skilled EEG technologists and the performance of AI classification algorithms under less-than-ideal technical conditions is unknown.”
AI-Assisted EEG Interpretation Is Here to Stay
When asked about the long-term future of AI-assisted EEG interpretation, Dr. Friedman predicted that it will be “critical” for helping improve the accuracy of epilepsy diagnoses, particularly because most EEGs worldwide are interpreted by non-experts, leading to the known issue with epilepsy misdiagnosis.
“However,” he added, “it is important to note that epilepsy is a clinical diagnosis ... [EEG] is only one piece of evidence in neurologic decision making. History and accurate eyewitness description of the events of concern are extremely critical to the diagnosis and cannot be replaced by AI yet.”
Dr. Kerr offered a similar view, highlighting the potential for SCORE-AI to raise the game of non-epileptologists.
“My anticipation is that neurologists who don’t use SCORE-AI will be replaced by neurologists who use SCORE-AI well,” he said. “Neurologists who use it well will be able to read more EEGs in less time without sacrificing quality. This will allow the neurologist to spend more time talking with the patient about the interpretation of the tests and how that impacts clinical care.”
Then again, that time spent talking with the patient may also one day be delegated to a machine.
“It is certainly imaginable that AI chatbots using large language models to interact with patients and family could be developed to extract consistent epilepsy histories for diagnostic support,” Dr. Wesley said.
This work was supported by a project grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Duke Neurology start-up funding. The investigators and interviewees reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
, according to investigators.
These findings suggest that SCORE-AI, the model tested, can reliably interpret common EEGs in real-world practice, supporting its recent FDA approval, reported lead author Daniel Mansilla, MD, a neurologist at Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, and colleagues.
“Overinterpretation of clinical EEG is the most common cause of misdiagnosing epilepsy,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia. “AI tools may be a solution for this challenge, both as an additional resource for confirmation and classification of epilepsy, and as an aid for the interpretation of EEG in critical care medicine.”
To date, however, AI tools have struggled with the variability encountered in real-world neurology practice.“When tested on external data from different centers and diverse patient populations, and using equipment distinct from the initial study, medical AI models frequently exhibit modest performance, and only a few AI tools have successfully transitioned into medical practice,” the investigators wrote.
SCORE-AI Matches Expert Interpretation of Routine EEGs
The present study put SCORE-AI to the test with EEGs from 104 patients between 16 and 91 years. These individuals hailed from “geographically distinct” regions, while recording equipment and conditions also varied widely, according to Dr. Mansilla and colleagues.
To set an external gold-standard for comparison, EEGs were first interpreted by three human expert raters, who were blinded to all case information except the EEGs themselves. The dataset comprised 50% normal and 50% abnormal EEGs. Four major classes of EEG abnormalities were included: focal epileptiform, generalized epileptiform, focal nonepileptiform, and diffuse nonepileptiform.
Comparing SCORE-AI interpretations with the experts’ interpretations revealed no significant difference in any metric or category. The AI tool had an overall accuracy of 92%, compared with 94% for the human experts. Of note, SCORE-AI maintained this level of performance regardless of vigilance state or normal variants.
“SCORE-AI has obtained FDA approval for routine clinical EEGs and is presently being integrated into broadly available EEG software (Natus NeuroWorks),” the investigators wrote.
Further Validation May Be Needed
Wesley T. Kerr, MD, PhD, functional (nonepileptic) seizures clinic lead epileptologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and handling associate editor for this study in Epilepsia, said the present findings are important because they show that SCORE-AI can perform in scenarios beyond the one in which it was developed.
Still, it may be premature for broad commercial rollout.
In a written comment, Dr. Kerr called for “much larger studies” to validate SCORE-AI, noting that seizures can be caused by “many rare conditions,” and some patients have multiple EEG abnormalities.
Since SCORE-AI has not yet demonstrated accuracy in those situations, he predicted that the tool will remain exactly that – a tool – before it replaces human experts.
“They have only looked at SCORE-AI by itself,” Dr. Kerr said. “Practically, SCORE-AI is going to be used in combination with a neurologist for a long time before SCORE-AI can operate semi-independently or independently. They need to do studies looking at this combination to see how this tool impacts the clinical practice of EEG interpretation.”
Daniel Friedman, MD, an epileptologist and associate clinical professor of neurology at NYU Langone, pointed out another limitation of the present study: The EEGs were collected at specialty centers.
“The technical standards of data collection were, therefore, pretty high,” Dr. Friedman said in a written comment. “The majority of EEGs performed in the world are not collected by highly skilled EEG technologists and the performance of AI classification algorithms under less-than-ideal technical conditions is unknown.”
AI-Assisted EEG Interpretation Is Here to Stay
When asked about the long-term future of AI-assisted EEG interpretation, Dr. Friedman predicted that it will be “critical” for helping improve the accuracy of epilepsy diagnoses, particularly because most EEGs worldwide are interpreted by non-experts, leading to the known issue with epilepsy misdiagnosis.
“However,” he added, “it is important to note that epilepsy is a clinical diagnosis ... [EEG] is only one piece of evidence in neurologic decision making. History and accurate eyewitness description of the events of concern are extremely critical to the diagnosis and cannot be replaced by AI yet.”
Dr. Kerr offered a similar view, highlighting the potential for SCORE-AI to raise the game of non-epileptologists.
“My anticipation is that neurologists who don’t use SCORE-AI will be replaced by neurologists who use SCORE-AI well,” he said. “Neurologists who use it well will be able to read more EEGs in less time without sacrificing quality. This will allow the neurologist to spend more time talking with the patient about the interpretation of the tests and how that impacts clinical care.”
Then again, that time spent talking with the patient may also one day be delegated to a machine.
“It is certainly imaginable that AI chatbots using large language models to interact with patients and family could be developed to extract consistent epilepsy histories for diagnostic support,” Dr. Wesley said.
This work was supported by a project grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Duke Neurology start-up funding. The investigators and interviewees reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM EPILEPSIA
In Some Patients, Antiseizure Medications Can Cause Severe Skin Reactions
according to authors of a recent review. And if putting higher-risk patients on drugs most associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–related reaction risk before test results are available, authors advised starting at low doses and titrating slowly.
“When someone is having a seizure drug prescribed,” said senior author Ram Mani, MD, MSCE, chief of epilepsy at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, “it’s often a tense clinical situation because the patient has either had the first few seizures of their life, or they’ve had a worsening in their seizures.”
To help physicians optimize choices, Dr. Mani and colleagues reviewed literature regarding 31 ASMs. Their study was published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology.
Overall, said Dr. Mani, incidence of benign skin reactions such as morbilliform exanthematous eruptions, which account for 95% of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), ranges from a few percent up to 15%. “It’s a somewhat common occurrence. Fortunately, the reactions that can lead to morbidity and mortality are fairly rare.”
Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions
Among the five ASMs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2018, cenobamate has sparked the greatest concern. In early clinical development for epilepsy, a fast titration schedule (starting at 50 mg/day and increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks to at least 200 mg/day) resulted in three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS, also called drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction/DIHS), including one fatal case. Based on a phase 3 trial, the drug’s manufacturer now recommends starting at 12.5 mg and titrating more slowly.
DRESS/DIHS appears within 2-6 weeks of drug exposure. Along with malaise, fever, and conjunctivitis, symptoms can include skin eruptions ranging from morbilliform to hemorrhagic and bullous. “Facial edema and early facial rash are classic findings,” the authors added. DRESS also can involve painful lymphadenopathy and potentially life-threatening damage to the liver, heart, and other organs.
Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is characterized by detached skin measuring less than 10% of the entire body surface area, typically happens within the first month of drug exposure. Flu-like symptoms can appear 1-3 days before erythematous to dusky macules, commonly on the chest, as well as cutaneous and mucosal erosions. Along with the skin and conjunctiva, SJS can affect the eyes, lungs, liver, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract.
When patients present with possible DRESS or SJS, the authors recommended inpatient multidisciplinary care. Having ready access to blood tests can help assess severity and prognosis, Dr. Mani explained. Inpatient evaluation and treatment also may allow faster access to other specialists as needed, and monitoring of potential seizure exacerbation in patients with uncontrolled seizures for whom the drug provided benefit but required abrupt discontinuation.
Often, he added, all hope is not lost for future use of the medication after a minor skin reaction. A case series and literature review of mild lamotrigine-associated CADRs showed that most patients could reintroduce and titrate lamotrigine by waiting at least 4 weeks, beginning at 5 mg/day, and gradually increasing to 25 mg/day.
Identifying Those at Risk
With millions of patients being newly prescribed ASMs annually, accurately screening out all people at risk of severe cutaneous adverse reactions based on available genetic information is impossible. The complexity of evolving recommendations for HLA testing makes them hard to remember, Dr. Mani said. “Development and better use of clinical decision support systems can help.”
Accordingly, he starts with a thorough history and physical examination, inquiring about prior skin reactions or hypersensitivity, which are risk factors for future reactions to drugs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and zonisamide. “Most of the medicines that the HLA tests are being done for are not the initial medicines I typically prescribe for a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy,” said Dr. Mani. For ASM-naive patients with moderate or high risk of skin hypersensitivity reactions, he usually starts with lacosamide, levetiracetam, or brivaracetam. Additional low-risk drugs he considers in more complex cases include valproate, topiramate, and clobazam.
Only if a patient’s initial ASM causes problems will Dr. Mani consider higher-risk options and order HLA tests for patients belonging to indicated groups — such as testing for HLA-B*15:02 in Asian patients being considered for carbamazepine. About once weekly, he must put a patient on a potentially higher-risk drug before test results are available. If after a thorough risk-benefit discussion, he and the patient agree that the higher-risk drug is warranted, Dr. Mani starts at a lower-than-labeled dose, with a slower titration schedule that typically extends the ramp-up period by 1 week.
Fortunately, Dr. Mani said that, in 20 years of practice, he has seen more misdiagnoses — involving rashes from poison ivy, viral infections, or allergies — than actual ASM-induced reactions. “That’s why the patient, family, and practitioner need to be open-minded about what could be causing the rash.”
Dr. Mani reported no relevant conflicts. The study authors reported no funding sources.
according to authors of a recent review. And if putting higher-risk patients on drugs most associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–related reaction risk before test results are available, authors advised starting at low doses and titrating slowly.
“When someone is having a seizure drug prescribed,” said senior author Ram Mani, MD, MSCE, chief of epilepsy at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, “it’s often a tense clinical situation because the patient has either had the first few seizures of their life, or they’ve had a worsening in their seizures.”
To help physicians optimize choices, Dr. Mani and colleagues reviewed literature regarding 31 ASMs. Their study was published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology.
Overall, said Dr. Mani, incidence of benign skin reactions such as morbilliform exanthematous eruptions, which account for 95% of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), ranges from a few percent up to 15%. “It’s a somewhat common occurrence. Fortunately, the reactions that can lead to morbidity and mortality are fairly rare.”
Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions
Among the five ASMs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2018, cenobamate has sparked the greatest concern. In early clinical development for epilepsy, a fast titration schedule (starting at 50 mg/day and increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks to at least 200 mg/day) resulted in three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS, also called drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction/DIHS), including one fatal case. Based on a phase 3 trial, the drug’s manufacturer now recommends starting at 12.5 mg and titrating more slowly.
DRESS/DIHS appears within 2-6 weeks of drug exposure. Along with malaise, fever, and conjunctivitis, symptoms can include skin eruptions ranging from morbilliform to hemorrhagic and bullous. “Facial edema and early facial rash are classic findings,” the authors added. DRESS also can involve painful lymphadenopathy and potentially life-threatening damage to the liver, heart, and other organs.
Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is characterized by detached skin measuring less than 10% of the entire body surface area, typically happens within the first month of drug exposure. Flu-like symptoms can appear 1-3 days before erythematous to dusky macules, commonly on the chest, as well as cutaneous and mucosal erosions. Along with the skin and conjunctiva, SJS can affect the eyes, lungs, liver, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract.
When patients present with possible DRESS or SJS, the authors recommended inpatient multidisciplinary care. Having ready access to blood tests can help assess severity and prognosis, Dr. Mani explained. Inpatient evaluation and treatment also may allow faster access to other specialists as needed, and monitoring of potential seizure exacerbation in patients with uncontrolled seizures for whom the drug provided benefit but required abrupt discontinuation.
Often, he added, all hope is not lost for future use of the medication after a minor skin reaction. A case series and literature review of mild lamotrigine-associated CADRs showed that most patients could reintroduce and titrate lamotrigine by waiting at least 4 weeks, beginning at 5 mg/day, and gradually increasing to 25 mg/day.
Identifying Those at Risk
With millions of patients being newly prescribed ASMs annually, accurately screening out all people at risk of severe cutaneous adverse reactions based on available genetic information is impossible. The complexity of evolving recommendations for HLA testing makes them hard to remember, Dr. Mani said. “Development and better use of clinical decision support systems can help.”
Accordingly, he starts with a thorough history and physical examination, inquiring about prior skin reactions or hypersensitivity, which are risk factors for future reactions to drugs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and zonisamide. “Most of the medicines that the HLA tests are being done for are not the initial medicines I typically prescribe for a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy,” said Dr. Mani. For ASM-naive patients with moderate or high risk of skin hypersensitivity reactions, he usually starts with lacosamide, levetiracetam, or brivaracetam. Additional low-risk drugs he considers in more complex cases include valproate, topiramate, and clobazam.
Only if a patient’s initial ASM causes problems will Dr. Mani consider higher-risk options and order HLA tests for patients belonging to indicated groups — such as testing for HLA-B*15:02 in Asian patients being considered for carbamazepine. About once weekly, he must put a patient on a potentially higher-risk drug before test results are available. If after a thorough risk-benefit discussion, he and the patient agree that the higher-risk drug is warranted, Dr. Mani starts at a lower-than-labeled dose, with a slower titration schedule that typically extends the ramp-up period by 1 week.
Fortunately, Dr. Mani said that, in 20 years of practice, he has seen more misdiagnoses — involving rashes from poison ivy, viral infections, or allergies — than actual ASM-induced reactions. “That’s why the patient, family, and practitioner need to be open-minded about what could be causing the rash.”
Dr. Mani reported no relevant conflicts. The study authors reported no funding sources.
according to authors of a recent review. And if putting higher-risk patients on drugs most associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–related reaction risk before test results are available, authors advised starting at low doses and titrating slowly.
“When someone is having a seizure drug prescribed,” said senior author Ram Mani, MD, MSCE, chief of epilepsy at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, “it’s often a tense clinical situation because the patient has either had the first few seizures of their life, or they’ve had a worsening in their seizures.”
To help physicians optimize choices, Dr. Mani and colleagues reviewed literature regarding 31 ASMs. Their study was published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology.
Overall, said Dr. Mani, incidence of benign skin reactions such as morbilliform exanthematous eruptions, which account for 95% of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), ranges from a few percent up to 15%. “It’s a somewhat common occurrence. Fortunately, the reactions that can lead to morbidity and mortality are fairly rare.”
Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions
Among the five ASMs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2018, cenobamate has sparked the greatest concern. In early clinical development for epilepsy, a fast titration schedule (starting at 50 mg/day and increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks to at least 200 mg/day) resulted in three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS, also called drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction/DIHS), including one fatal case. Based on a phase 3 trial, the drug’s manufacturer now recommends starting at 12.5 mg and titrating more slowly.
DRESS/DIHS appears within 2-6 weeks of drug exposure. Along with malaise, fever, and conjunctivitis, symptoms can include skin eruptions ranging from morbilliform to hemorrhagic and bullous. “Facial edema and early facial rash are classic findings,” the authors added. DRESS also can involve painful lymphadenopathy and potentially life-threatening damage to the liver, heart, and other organs.
Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is characterized by detached skin measuring less than 10% of the entire body surface area, typically happens within the first month of drug exposure. Flu-like symptoms can appear 1-3 days before erythematous to dusky macules, commonly on the chest, as well as cutaneous and mucosal erosions. Along with the skin and conjunctiva, SJS can affect the eyes, lungs, liver, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract.
When patients present with possible DRESS or SJS, the authors recommended inpatient multidisciplinary care. Having ready access to blood tests can help assess severity and prognosis, Dr. Mani explained. Inpatient evaluation and treatment also may allow faster access to other specialists as needed, and monitoring of potential seizure exacerbation in patients with uncontrolled seizures for whom the drug provided benefit but required abrupt discontinuation.
Often, he added, all hope is not lost for future use of the medication after a minor skin reaction. A case series and literature review of mild lamotrigine-associated CADRs showed that most patients could reintroduce and titrate lamotrigine by waiting at least 4 weeks, beginning at 5 mg/day, and gradually increasing to 25 mg/day.
Identifying Those at Risk
With millions of patients being newly prescribed ASMs annually, accurately screening out all people at risk of severe cutaneous adverse reactions based on available genetic information is impossible. The complexity of evolving recommendations for HLA testing makes them hard to remember, Dr. Mani said. “Development and better use of clinical decision support systems can help.”
Accordingly, he starts with a thorough history and physical examination, inquiring about prior skin reactions or hypersensitivity, which are risk factors for future reactions to drugs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and zonisamide. “Most of the medicines that the HLA tests are being done for are not the initial medicines I typically prescribe for a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy,” said Dr. Mani. For ASM-naive patients with moderate or high risk of skin hypersensitivity reactions, he usually starts with lacosamide, levetiracetam, or brivaracetam. Additional low-risk drugs he considers in more complex cases include valproate, topiramate, and clobazam.
Only if a patient’s initial ASM causes problems will Dr. Mani consider higher-risk options and order HLA tests for patients belonging to indicated groups — such as testing for HLA-B*15:02 in Asian patients being considered for carbamazepine. About once weekly, he must put a patient on a potentially higher-risk drug before test results are available. If after a thorough risk-benefit discussion, he and the patient agree that the higher-risk drug is warranted, Dr. Mani starts at a lower-than-labeled dose, with a slower titration schedule that typically extends the ramp-up period by 1 week.
Fortunately, Dr. Mani said that, in 20 years of practice, he has seen more misdiagnoses — involving rashes from poison ivy, viral infections, or allergies — than actual ASM-induced reactions. “That’s why the patient, family, and practitioner need to be open-minded about what could be causing the rash.”
Dr. Mani reported no relevant conflicts. The study authors reported no funding sources.
FROM CURRENT TREATMENT OPTIONS IN NEUROLOGY
TBI Significantly Increases Mortality Rate Among Veterans With Epilepsy
, according to recent research published in Epilepsia.
In a retrospective cohort study, Ali Roghani, PhD, of the division of epidemiology at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, and colleagues evaluated 938,890 veterans between 2000 and 2019 in the Defense Health Agency and the Veterans Health Administration who served in the US military after the September 11 attacks. Overall, 27,436 veterans met criteria for a diagnosis of epilepsy, 264,890 had received a diagnosis for a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the remaining patients had neither epilepsy nor TBI.
Among the veterans with no epilepsy, 248,714 veterans had a TBI diagnosis, while in the group of patients with epilepsy, 10,358 veterans experienced a TBI before their epilepsy diagnosis, 1598 were diagnosed with a TBI within 6 months of epilepsy, and 4310 veterans had a TBI 6 months after an epilepsy diagnosis. The researchers assessed all-cause mortality in each group, calculating cumulative mortality rates compared with the group of veterans who had no TBI and no epilepsy diagnosis.
Dr. Roghani and colleagues found a significantly higher mortality rate among veterans who developed epilepsy compared with a control group with neither epilepsy nor TBI (6.26% vs. 1.12%; P < .01), with a majority of veterans in the group who died being White (67.4%) men (89.9%). Compared with veterans who were deceased, nondeceased veterans were significantly more likely to have a history of being deployed (70.7% vs. 64.8%; P < .001), were less likely to be in the army (52.2% vs. 55.0%; P < .001), and were more likely to reach the rank of officer or warrant officer (8.1% vs. 7.6%; P = .014).
There were also significant differences in clinical characteristics between nondeceased and deceased veterans, including a higher rate of substance abuse disorder, smoking history, cardiovascular disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cancer, liver disease, kidney disease, or other injury as well as overdose, suicidal ideation, and homelessness. “Most clinical conditions were significantly different between deceased and nondeceased in part due to the large cohort size,” the researchers said.
After performing Cox regression analyses, the researchers found a higher mortality risk in veterans with epilepsy and/or TBIs among those who developed a TBI within 6 months of an epilepsy diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR], 5.02; 95% CI, 4.21-5.99), had a TBI prior to epilepsy (HR, 4.25; 95% CI, 3.89-4.58), had epilepsy alone (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 3.67-4.36), had a TBI more than 6 months after an epilepsy diagnosis (HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.17-2.85), and those who had epilepsy alone (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.36) compared with veterans who had neither epilepsy nor a TBI.
“The temporal relationship with TBI that occurred within 6 months after epilepsy diagnosis may suggest an increased vulnerability to accidents, severe injuries, or TBI resulting from seizures, potentially elevating mortality risk,” Dr. Roghani and colleagues wrote.
The researchers said the results “raise concerns” about the subgroup of patients who are diagnosed with epilepsy close to experiencing a TBI.
“Our results provide information regarding the temporal relationship between epilepsy and TBI regarding mortality in a cohort of post-9/11 veterans, which highlights the need for enhanced primary prevention, such as more access to health care among people with epilepsy and TBI,” they said. “Given the rising incidence of TBI in both the military and civilian populations, these findings suggest close monitoring might be crucial to develop effective prevention strategies for long-term complications, particularly [post-traumatic epilepsy].”
Reevaluating the Treatment of Epilepsy
Juliann Paolicchi, MD, a neurologist and member of the epilepsy team at Northwell Health in New York, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that TBIs have been studied more closely since the beginning of conflicts in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Afghanistan, where “newer artillery causes more diffuse traumatic injury to the brain and the body than the effects of more typical weaponry.”
The study by Roghani and colleagues, she said, “is groundbreaking in that it looks at the connection and timing of these two disruptive forces, epilepsy and TBI, on the brain,” she said. “The study reveals that timing is everything: The combination of two disrupting circuitry effects in proximity can have a deadly effect. The summation is greater than either alone in veterans, and has significant effects on the brain’s ability to sustain the functions that keep us alive.”
The 6 months following either a diagnosis of epilepsy or TBI is “crucial,” Dr. Paolicchi noted. “Military and private citizens should be closely monitored during this period, and the results suggest they should refrain from activities that could predispose to further brain injury.”
In addition, current standards for treatment of epilepsy may need to be reevaluated, she said. “Patients are not always treated with a seizure medication after a first seizure, but perhaps, especially in patients at higher risk for brain injury such as the military and athletes, that policy warrants further examination.”
The findings by Roghani and colleagues may also extend to other groups, such as evaluating athletes after a concussion, patients after they are in a motor vehicle accident, and infants with traumatic brain injury, Dr. Paolicchi said. “The results suggest a reexamining of the proximity [of TBI] and epilepsy in these and other areas,” she noted.
The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of research support and other financial compensation from AbbVie, Biohaven, CURE, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Eisai, Engage, National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, SCS Consulting, Sunovion, and UCB. This study was supported by funding from the Department of Defense, VA Health Systems, and the VA HSR&D Informatics, Decision Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences Center of Innovation. Dr. Paolicchi reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
, according to recent research published in Epilepsia.
In a retrospective cohort study, Ali Roghani, PhD, of the division of epidemiology at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, and colleagues evaluated 938,890 veterans between 2000 and 2019 in the Defense Health Agency and the Veterans Health Administration who served in the US military after the September 11 attacks. Overall, 27,436 veterans met criteria for a diagnosis of epilepsy, 264,890 had received a diagnosis for a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the remaining patients had neither epilepsy nor TBI.
Among the veterans with no epilepsy, 248,714 veterans had a TBI diagnosis, while in the group of patients with epilepsy, 10,358 veterans experienced a TBI before their epilepsy diagnosis, 1598 were diagnosed with a TBI within 6 months of epilepsy, and 4310 veterans had a TBI 6 months after an epilepsy diagnosis. The researchers assessed all-cause mortality in each group, calculating cumulative mortality rates compared with the group of veterans who had no TBI and no epilepsy diagnosis.
Dr. Roghani and colleagues found a significantly higher mortality rate among veterans who developed epilepsy compared with a control group with neither epilepsy nor TBI (6.26% vs. 1.12%; P < .01), with a majority of veterans in the group who died being White (67.4%) men (89.9%). Compared with veterans who were deceased, nondeceased veterans were significantly more likely to have a history of being deployed (70.7% vs. 64.8%; P < .001), were less likely to be in the army (52.2% vs. 55.0%; P < .001), and were more likely to reach the rank of officer or warrant officer (8.1% vs. 7.6%; P = .014).
There were also significant differences in clinical characteristics between nondeceased and deceased veterans, including a higher rate of substance abuse disorder, smoking history, cardiovascular disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cancer, liver disease, kidney disease, or other injury as well as overdose, suicidal ideation, and homelessness. “Most clinical conditions were significantly different between deceased and nondeceased in part due to the large cohort size,” the researchers said.
After performing Cox regression analyses, the researchers found a higher mortality risk in veterans with epilepsy and/or TBIs among those who developed a TBI within 6 months of an epilepsy diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR], 5.02; 95% CI, 4.21-5.99), had a TBI prior to epilepsy (HR, 4.25; 95% CI, 3.89-4.58), had epilepsy alone (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 3.67-4.36), had a TBI more than 6 months after an epilepsy diagnosis (HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.17-2.85), and those who had epilepsy alone (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.36) compared with veterans who had neither epilepsy nor a TBI.
“The temporal relationship with TBI that occurred within 6 months after epilepsy diagnosis may suggest an increased vulnerability to accidents, severe injuries, or TBI resulting from seizures, potentially elevating mortality risk,” Dr. Roghani and colleagues wrote.
The researchers said the results “raise concerns” about the subgroup of patients who are diagnosed with epilepsy close to experiencing a TBI.
“Our results provide information regarding the temporal relationship between epilepsy and TBI regarding mortality in a cohort of post-9/11 veterans, which highlights the need for enhanced primary prevention, such as more access to health care among people with epilepsy and TBI,” they said. “Given the rising incidence of TBI in both the military and civilian populations, these findings suggest close monitoring might be crucial to develop effective prevention strategies for long-term complications, particularly [post-traumatic epilepsy].”
Reevaluating the Treatment of Epilepsy
Juliann Paolicchi, MD, a neurologist and member of the epilepsy team at Northwell Health in New York, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that TBIs have been studied more closely since the beginning of conflicts in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Afghanistan, where “newer artillery causes more diffuse traumatic injury to the brain and the body than the effects of more typical weaponry.”
The study by Roghani and colleagues, she said, “is groundbreaking in that it looks at the connection and timing of these two disruptive forces, epilepsy and TBI, on the brain,” she said. “The study reveals that timing is everything: The combination of two disrupting circuitry effects in proximity can have a deadly effect. The summation is greater than either alone in veterans, and has significant effects on the brain’s ability to sustain the functions that keep us alive.”
The 6 months following either a diagnosis of epilepsy or TBI is “crucial,” Dr. Paolicchi noted. “Military and private citizens should be closely monitored during this period, and the results suggest they should refrain from activities that could predispose to further brain injury.”
In addition, current standards for treatment of epilepsy may need to be reevaluated, she said. “Patients are not always treated with a seizure medication after a first seizure, but perhaps, especially in patients at higher risk for brain injury such as the military and athletes, that policy warrants further examination.”
The findings by Roghani and colleagues may also extend to other groups, such as evaluating athletes after a concussion, patients after they are in a motor vehicle accident, and infants with traumatic brain injury, Dr. Paolicchi said. “The results suggest a reexamining of the proximity [of TBI] and epilepsy in these and other areas,” she noted.
The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of research support and other financial compensation from AbbVie, Biohaven, CURE, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Eisai, Engage, National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, SCS Consulting, Sunovion, and UCB. This study was supported by funding from the Department of Defense, VA Health Systems, and the VA HSR&D Informatics, Decision Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences Center of Innovation. Dr. Paolicchi reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
, according to recent research published in Epilepsia.
In a retrospective cohort study, Ali Roghani, PhD, of the division of epidemiology at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, and colleagues evaluated 938,890 veterans between 2000 and 2019 in the Defense Health Agency and the Veterans Health Administration who served in the US military after the September 11 attacks. Overall, 27,436 veterans met criteria for a diagnosis of epilepsy, 264,890 had received a diagnosis for a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the remaining patients had neither epilepsy nor TBI.
Among the veterans with no epilepsy, 248,714 veterans had a TBI diagnosis, while in the group of patients with epilepsy, 10,358 veterans experienced a TBI before their epilepsy diagnosis, 1598 were diagnosed with a TBI within 6 months of epilepsy, and 4310 veterans had a TBI 6 months after an epilepsy diagnosis. The researchers assessed all-cause mortality in each group, calculating cumulative mortality rates compared with the group of veterans who had no TBI and no epilepsy diagnosis.
Dr. Roghani and colleagues found a significantly higher mortality rate among veterans who developed epilepsy compared with a control group with neither epilepsy nor TBI (6.26% vs. 1.12%; P < .01), with a majority of veterans in the group who died being White (67.4%) men (89.9%). Compared with veterans who were deceased, nondeceased veterans were significantly more likely to have a history of being deployed (70.7% vs. 64.8%; P < .001), were less likely to be in the army (52.2% vs. 55.0%; P < .001), and were more likely to reach the rank of officer or warrant officer (8.1% vs. 7.6%; P = .014).
There were also significant differences in clinical characteristics between nondeceased and deceased veterans, including a higher rate of substance abuse disorder, smoking history, cardiovascular disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cancer, liver disease, kidney disease, or other injury as well as overdose, suicidal ideation, and homelessness. “Most clinical conditions were significantly different between deceased and nondeceased in part due to the large cohort size,” the researchers said.
After performing Cox regression analyses, the researchers found a higher mortality risk in veterans with epilepsy and/or TBIs among those who developed a TBI within 6 months of an epilepsy diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR], 5.02; 95% CI, 4.21-5.99), had a TBI prior to epilepsy (HR, 4.25; 95% CI, 3.89-4.58), had epilepsy alone (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 3.67-4.36), had a TBI more than 6 months after an epilepsy diagnosis (HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.17-2.85), and those who had epilepsy alone (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.36) compared with veterans who had neither epilepsy nor a TBI.
“The temporal relationship with TBI that occurred within 6 months after epilepsy diagnosis may suggest an increased vulnerability to accidents, severe injuries, or TBI resulting from seizures, potentially elevating mortality risk,” Dr. Roghani and colleagues wrote.
The researchers said the results “raise concerns” about the subgroup of patients who are diagnosed with epilepsy close to experiencing a TBI.
“Our results provide information regarding the temporal relationship between epilepsy and TBI regarding mortality in a cohort of post-9/11 veterans, which highlights the need for enhanced primary prevention, such as more access to health care among people with epilepsy and TBI,” they said. “Given the rising incidence of TBI in both the military and civilian populations, these findings suggest close monitoring might be crucial to develop effective prevention strategies for long-term complications, particularly [post-traumatic epilepsy].”
Reevaluating the Treatment of Epilepsy
Juliann Paolicchi, MD, a neurologist and member of the epilepsy team at Northwell Health in New York, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that TBIs have been studied more closely since the beginning of conflicts in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Afghanistan, where “newer artillery causes more diffuse traumatic injury to the brain and the body than the effects of more typical weaponry.”
The study by Roghani and colleagues, she said, “is groundbreaking in that it looks at the connection and timing of these two disruptive forces, epilepsy and TBI, on the brain,” she said. “The study reveals that timing is everything: The combination of two disrupting circuitry effects in proximity can have a deadly effect. The summation is greater than either alone in veterans, and has significant effects on the brain’s ability to sustain the functions that keep us alive.”
The 6 months following either a diagnosis of epilepsy or TBI is “crucial,” Dr. Paolicchi noted. “Military and private citizens should be closely monitored during this period, and the results suggest they should refrain from activities that could predispose to further brain injury.”
In addition, current standards for treatment of epilepsy may need to be reevaluated, she said. “Patients are not always treated with a seizure medication after a first seizure, but perhaps, especially in patients at higher risk for brain injury such as the military and athletes, that policy warrants further examination.”
The findings by Roghani and colleagues may also extend to other groups, such as evaluating athletes after a concussion, patients after they are in a motor vehicle accident, and infants with traumatic brain injury, Dr. Paolicchi said. “The results suggest a reexamining of the proximity [of TBI] and epilepsy in these and other areas,” she noted.
The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of research support and other financial compensation from AbbVie, Biohaven, CURE, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Eisai, Engage, National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, SCS Consulting, Sunovion, and UCB. This study was supported by funding from the Department of Defense, VA Health Systems, and the VA HSR&D Informatics, Decision Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences Center of Innovation. Dr. Paolicchi reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM EPILEPSIA
Clinical Prediction Models in Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy
, 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.
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.
, 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.
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.
, 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.
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.
FROM EPILEPSIA
Novel Treatment Options for Epilepsy
DENVER — , 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 — , 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 — , 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.
FROM AAN 2024
‘Compelling’ Results for AI EEG to Predict Functional Outcomes
DENVER —
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 —
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 —
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.
FROM AAN 2024
Epilepsy Linked to Higher COVID Hospitalization, Death Rates
, 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 .
, 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 .
, 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 .
FROM EPILEPSIA
Service Dogs Lead to Fewer Seizures 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.
, 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.
, 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.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Seizure Risk Is Nearly Double in Patients With MS
TOPLINE:
, 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:
, 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:
, 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.