Search

Diagnostic Exome Sequencing in 100 Consecutive Patients With Both Epilepsy and Intellectual Disability Snoeijen-Schouwenaars FM, van Ool JS, Verhoeven JS, et al. Epilepsia. 2019;60(1):155-164. doi:10.1111/epi.14618. Epub December 7, 2018. PMID: 30525188.Objective:Epilepsy is highly prevalent among patients with intellectual disability (ID), and seizure control is often difficult. Identification of the underlying etiology in this patient group is important for daily clinical care. We assessed the diagnostic yield of whole-exome sequencing (WES). In addition, we evaluated which clinical characteristics influence the likelihood of identifying a genetic cause and we assessed the potential impact of the genetic diagnosis on (antiepileptic) treatment strategy.Methods:One hundred patients with both unexplained epilepsy and (borderline) ID (intelligence quotient ≤85) were included. All patients were evaluated by a clinical geneticist, a (pediatric) neurologist, and/or a specialist ID physician. Whole-exome sequencing analysis was performed in 2 steps. In step 1, analysis was restricted to the latest versions of ID and/or epilepsy gene panels. In step 2, exome analysis was extended to all genes (so-called full exome analysis). The results were classified according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guidelines. Results: In 58 patients, the diagnostic WES analysis reported one or more variant(s). In 25 of the 100 patients, these were classified as (likely) pathogenic, in 24 patients as variants of uncertain significance, and in the remaining patients the variant was most likely not related to the phenotype. In 10 (40%) of 25 patients with a (likely) pathogenic variant, the genetic diagnosis might have an impact on the treatment strategy in the future.Significance:This study illustrates the clinical diagnostic relevance of WES for patients with both epilepsy and ID. It also demonstrates that implementing WES diagnostics might have impact on the (antiepileptic) treatment strategy in this population. Confirmation of variants of uncertain significance in (candidate) genes may further increase the yield. Diagnostic Yield of Genetic Tests in Epilepsy: A Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Study Sánchez Fernández I, Loddenkemper T, Gaínza-Lein M, Sheidley BR, Poduri A. Neurology. 2019. Epub ahead of print. pii: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006850. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000006850. PMID: 30610098 Objective:To compare the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing strategies in patients with epilepsy of unknown etiology.Methods:This meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness study compared strategies involving 3 genetic tests: chromosomal microarray (CMA), epilepsy panel (EP) with deletion/duplication testing, and whole-exome sequencing (WES) in a cost-effectiveness model, using “no genetic testing”“ as a point of comparison.Results:Twenty studies provided information on the diagnostic yield of CMA (8 studies), EP (9 studies), and WES (6 studies). The diagnostic yield was highest for WES: 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33-0.57; 0.32 [95% CI: 0.22-0.44] adjusting for potential publication bias), followed by EP: 0.23 (95% CI: 0.18-0.29) and CMA: 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06-0.12). The most cost-effective test was WES with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$15 000/diagnosis. However, after adjusting for potential publication bias, the most cost-effective test was EP (ICER: US$15 848/diagnosis) followed by WES (ICER: US$34 500/diagnosis). Among combination strategies, the most cost-effective strategy was WES, then if nondiagnostic, EP, then if nondiagnostic, CMA (ICER: US$15 336/diagnosis); although adjusting for potential publication bias, the most cost-effective strategy was EP ± CMA ± WES (ICER: US$18 385/diagnosis). Although the cost-effectiveness of individual tests and testing strategies overlapped, CMA was consistently less cost-effective than WES and EP.Conclusion:Whole-exome sequencing and EP are the most cost-effective genetic tests for epilepsy. Our analyses support for a broad population of patients with unexplained epilepsy, starting with these tests. Although less expensive, CMA has lower yield, and its use as the first-tier test is thus not supported from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

Objective: The diagnosis of epilepsy cannot be reliably made prior to a patient's second seizure in most cases. Therefore, adequate diagnostic tools are needed to differentiate subjects with a first seizure from those with a seizure preceding the onset of epilepsy. The objective was to explore spontaneous blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) fluctuations in subjects with a first-ever seizure and patients with new-onset epilepsy (NOE), and to find characteristic biomarkers for seizure recurrence after the first seizure.Methods: We examined 17 first-seizure subjects, 19 patients with new-onset epilepsy (NOE), and 18 healthy controls. All subjects underwent clinical investigation and received electroencephalography and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The BOLD time series were analyzed in terms of regional homogeneity (ReHo) and fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (fALFFs).Results: We found significantly stronger amplitudes (higher fALFFs) in patients with NOE relative to first-seizure subjects and healthy controls. The frequency range of 73-198 mHz (slow-3 subband) appeared most useful for discriminating patients with NOE from first-seizure subjects. The ReHo measure did not show any significant differences.Significance: The fALFF appears to be a noninvasive measure that characterizes spontaneous BOLD fluctuations and shows stronger amplitudes in the slow-3 subband of patients with NOE relative first-seizure subjects and healthy controls. A larger study population with follow-up is required to determine whether fALFF holds promise as a potential biomarker for identifying subjects at increased risk to develop epilepsy.