Search

Abstract: Cenobamate is a novel antiseizure medication (ASM) commercially available in Europe and in the U.S. for the treatment of focal seizures in adults. The mechanisms responsible for its antiseizure activity include enhancement of the inactivated state of voltage-gated sodium channels with blockade of the persistent sodium current and positive allosteric modulation of GABAA receptors at a non-benzodiazepine binding site. Cenobamate has a high oral bioavailability that is not influenced by food intake. The terminal half-life is 50-60 hours, allowing for once-daily dosing. Cenobamate is a CYP2C19 inhibitor and an inducer of CYP3A4 and CYP2B6, and consequently, it can cause a number of drug-drug interactions. Efficacy and safety have been evaluated in two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled adjunctive therapy trials in adults with focal seizures. In both trials, cenobamate decreased significantly the frequency of focal seizures, with relatively high seizure freedom rates. Adverse events most commonly reported in double-blind trials included dizziness, somnolence, headache, fatigue, and diplopia. The occurrence of three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) during early clinical development led to the conduction of a Phase 3 open-label long-term safety study in a total of 1339 patients. In this study, no serious idiosyncratic adverse reactions were observed using a start-low and go-slow approach. Further studies are required to determine whether the clinical activity profile of cenobamate extends to protection against other seizure types and to evaluate its efficacy and safety profile in special patient groups such as infants, children, the elderly, and patients with comorbid conditions.

Cenobamate is a new antiseizure medication (ASM) recently introduced in the USA for the treatment of adults with focal-onset seizures. In March 2021, the European Commission authorized its use for the adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization (focal seizures with or without progression to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, according to current ILAE terminology) in adults with epilepsy not adequately controlled despite the treatment with at least two ASMs. This review summarizes the mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety of Cenobamate. The authors provide their expert opinions on the use of this drug. The aim of this paper is to report on the Italian preliminary experience with the use of cenobamate, focusing on treatment goals, optimal dosing and titration schedules, strategies to minimize adverse effects, and identification of suitable candidates for treatment. There was agreement that slow titration may improve tolerability, and that clinically significant benefit can be achieved in many patients at relatively low doses. A favorable response to relatively low doses of cenobamate could be an early predictor of ultimate responsiveness. Overall, cenobamate is a welcome new treatment for adults with focal seizures resistant to conventional ASMs.

Major disruption in the delivery of healthcare services can occur in exceptional situations such as natural disasters, conflicts, periods of severe economic hardship, and epidemics. These disruptions typically affect to the greatest extent the most vulnerable segments of the population, including people with epilepsy. Inability to access healthcare services can lead to failure to undergo necessary diagnostic investigations, or to receive needed therapeutic interventions, including epilepsy surgery. Stress and other factors associated with the nature or the cause of the disruption can adversely affect seizure control status, or precipitate the occurrence of psychiatric disorders and other comorbid conditions. Failure to access antiseizure medications is a common occurrence in these situations and can result in loss of seizure control, withdrawal seizures, and status epilepticus. In this article, we provide examples of recent disruptions in healthcare and their implications for people with epilepsy. We discuss the consequences of natural disasters, conflicts, economic sanctions, and focus in greater detail on lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also discuss possible mitigation procedures, focusing in particular on the application of telemedicine to epilepsy care. Finally, we underline the need for governments, healthcare authorities, and international organizations to improve their preparedness to deal with exceptional situations that may arise in the future.

Lorcaserin, a selective serotonin 5-HT

The 2017 International League Against Epilepsy classification has defined a three‐tier system with epilepsy syndrome identification at the third level. Although a syndrome cannot be determined in all children with epilepsy, identification of a specific syndrome provides guidance on management and prognosis. In this paper, we describe the childhood onset epilepsy syndromes, most of which have both mandatory seizure type(s) and interictal electroencephalographic (EEG) features. Based on the 2017 Classification of Seizures and Epilepsies, some syndrome names have been updated using terms directly describing the seizure semiology. Epilepsy syndromes beginning in childhood have been divided into three categories: (1) self‐limited focal epilepsies, comprising four syndromes: self‐limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes, self‐limited epilepsy with autonomic seizures, childhood occipital visual epilepsy, and photosensitive occipital lobe epilepsy; (2) generalized epilepsies, comprising three syndromes: childhood absence epilepsy, epilepsy with myoclonic absence, and epilepsy with eyelid myoclonia; and (3) developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathies, comprising five syndromes: epilepsy with myoclonic–atonic seizures, Lennox–Gastaut syndrome, developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathy with spike‐and‐wave activation in sleep, hemiconvulsion–hemiplegia–epilepsy syndrome, and febrile infection‐related epilepsy syndrome. We define each, highlighting the mandatory seizure(s), EEG features, phenotypic variations, and findings from key investigations.

The Eilat Conferences have provided a forum for discussion of novel treatments of epilepsy among basic and clinical scientists, clinicians, and representatives from regulatory agencies as well as from the pharmaceutical industry for 3 decades. Initially with a focus on pharmacological treatments, the Eilat Conferences now also include sessions dedicated to devices for treatment and monitoring. The Sixteenth Eilat Conference on New Antiepileptic Drugs and Devices (EILAT XVI) was held in Madrid, Spain, on May 22-25, 2022 and was attended by 157 delegates from 26 countries. As in previous Eilat Conferences, the core of EILAT XVI consisted of a sequence of sessions where compounds under development were presented and discussed. This progress report summarizes preclinical and, when available, phase 1 clinical data on five different investigational compounds in preclinical or early clinical development, namely GAO-3-02, GRT-X, NBI-921352 (formerly XEN901), OV329, and XEN496 (a pediatric granular formulation of retigabine/ezogabine). Overall, the data presented in this report illustrate novel strategies for developing antiseizure medications, including an interest in novel molecular targets, and a trend to pursue potential new treatments for rare and previously neglected severe epilepsy syndromes.

The Sixteenth Eilat Conference on New Antiepileptic Drugs and Devices (EILAT XVI) was held in Madrid, Spain on May 22-25, 2022 and was attended by 157 delegates from 26 countries representing basic and clinical science, regulatory agencies, and pharmaceutical industries. One day of the conference was dedicated to sessions presenting and discussing investigational compounds under development for the treatment of seizures and epilepsy. The current progress report summarizes recent findings and current knowledge for seven of these compounds in more advanced clinical development for which either novel preclinical or patient data are available. These compounds include bumetanide and its derivatives, darigabat, ganaxolone, lorcaserin, soticlestat, STK-001, and XEN1101. Of these, ganaxolone was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in March 2022 for the treatment of seizures associated with cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 deficiency disorder in patients 2 years of age and older.

Ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (RBN) has been authorized recently in several countries as an orally active anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatment for patients at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19 disease. Nirmatrelvir is the active component against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, whereas ritonavir, a potent CYP3A inhibitor, is intended to boost the activity of nirmatrelvir by increasing its concentration in plasma to ensure persistence of antiviral concentrations during the 12-hour dosing interval. RBN is involved in many clinically important drug-drug interactions both as perpetrator and as victim, which can complicate its use in patients treated with antiseizure medications (ASMs). Interactions between RBN and ASMs are bidirectional. As perpetrator, RBN may increase the plasma concentration of a number of ASMs that are CYP3A4 substrates, possibly leading to toxicity. As victims, both nirmatrelvir and ritonavir are subject to metabolic induction by concomitant treatment with potent enzyme-inducing ASMs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital and primidone). According to US and European prescribing information, treatment with these ASMs is a contraindication to the use of RBN. Although remdesivir is a valuable alternative to RBN, it may not be readily accessible in some settings due to cost and/or need for intravenous administration. If remdesivir is not an appropriate option, either bebtelovimab or molnupiravir may be considered. However, evidence about the clinical efficacy of bebtelovimab is still limited, and molnupiravir, the only orally active alternative, is deemed to have appreciably lower efficacy than RBN and remdesivir.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Nosology and Definitions proposes a classification and definition of epilepsy syndromes in the neonate and infant with seizure onset up to 2 years of age. The incidence of epilepsy is high in this age group and epilepsy is frequently associated with significant comorbidities and mortality. The licensing of syndrome specific antiseizure medications following randomized controlled trials and the development of precision, gene-related therapies are two of the drivers defining the electroclinical phenotypes of syndromes with onset in infancy. The principal aim of this proposal, consistent with the 2017 ILAE Classification of the Epilepsies, is to support epilepsy diagnosis and emphasize the importance of classifying epilepsy in an individual both by syndrome and etiology. For each syndrome, we report epidemiology, clinical course, seizure types, electroencephalography (EEG), neuroimaging, genetics, and differential diagnosis. Syndromes are separated into self-limited syndromes, where there is likely to be spontaneous remission and developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, diseases where there is developmental impairment related to both the underlying etiology independent of epileptiform activity and the epileptic encephalopathy. The emerging class of etiology-specific epilepsy syndromes, where there is a specific etiology for the epilepsy that is associated with a clearly defined, relatively uniform, and distinct clinical phenotype in most affected individuals as well as consistent EEG, neuroimaging, and/or genetic correlates, is presented. The number of etiology-defined syndromes will continue to increase, and these newly described syndromes will in time be incorporated into this classification. The tables summarize mandatory features, cautionary alerts, and exclusionary features for the common syndromes. Guidance is given on the criteria for syndrome diagnosis in resource-limited regions where laboratory confirmation, including EEG, MRI, and genetic testing, might not be available.

The goal of this paper is to provide updated diagnostic criteria for the epilepsy syndromes that have a variable age of onset, based on expert consensus of the International League Against Epilepsy Nosology and Definitions Taskforce (2017-2021). We use language consistent with current accepted epilepsy and seizure classifications and incorporate knowledge from advances in genetics, electroencephalography, and imaging. Our aim in delineating the epilepsy syndromes that present at a variable age is to aid diagnosis and to guide investigations for etiology and treatments for these patients.

In 2017, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Classification of Epilepsies described the “genetic generalized epilepsies” (GGEs), which contained the “idiopathic generalized epilepsies” (IGEs). The goal of this paper is to delineate the four syndromes comprising the IGEs, namely childhood absence epilepsy, juvenile absence epilepsy, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, and epilepsy with generalized tonic–clonic seizures alone. We provide updated diagnostic criteria for these IGE syndromes determined by the expert consensus opinion of the ILAE’s Task Force on Nosology and Definitions (2017–2021) and international external experts outside our Task Force. We incorporate current knowledge from recent advances in genetic, imaging, and electroencephalographic studies, together with current terminology and classification of seizures and epilepsies. Patients that do not fulfill criteria for one of these syndromes, but that have one, or a combination, of the following generalized seizure types: absence, myoclonic, tonic‐clonic and myoclonic‐tonic‐clonic seizures, with 2.5–5.5 Hz generalized spike‐wave should be classified as having GGE. Recognizing these four IGE syndromes as a special grouping among the GGEs is helpful, as they carry prognostic and therapeutic implications.

Epilepsy syndromes have been recognized for >50 years, as distinct electroclinical phenotypes with therapeutic and prognostic implications. Nonetheless, no formally accepted International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) classification of epilepsy syndromes has existed. The ILAE Task Force on Nosology and Definitions was established to reach consensus regarding which entities fulfilled criteria for an epilepsy syndrome and to provide definitions for each syndrome. We defined an epilepsy syndrome as “a characteristic cluster of clinical and electroencephalographic features, often supported by specific etiological findings (structural, genetic, metabolic, immune, and infectious).” The diagnosis of a syndrome in an individual with epilepsy frequently carries prognostic and treatment implications. Syndromes often have age‐dependent presentations and a range of specific comorbidities. This paper describes the guiding principles and process for syndrome identification in both children and adults, and the template of clinical data included for each syndrome. We divided syndromes into typical age at onset, and further characterized them based on seizure and epilepsy types and association with developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathy or progressive neurological deterioration. Definitions for each specific syndrome are contained within the corresponding position papers.

This article was prepared to outline the article collection submitted on behalf of Lega Italiana Contro l'Epilepsia, or LICE, for the 50th anniversary of the founding of the ILAE Italian Chapter, and provides a brief summary of the history, with its landmark achievements and challenges. LICE is a multidisciplinary, inclusive, educational, informative and multifaceted organization. Initially in 1955 and then formally in 1972, LICE was born in Milano, with the mission to devote itself to people suffering with epilepsy and by promoting appropriate treatment and care, integration into society, to promote and pursue all kinds of activities designed to achieve those aims. The LICE is currently composed of more than 1000 members including neurologists, pediatric neurologists, neurosurgeons, neurophysiologists, and neuropsychologists who function throughout Italy dealing mainly or exclusively with the diagnosis and treatment of people with epilepsy.

The lack of ideal measurement of treatment efficacy is a well acknowledged problem in the epilepsy community, both in clinical care and clinical trials. Whilst still the current gold-standard, self-reported seizure frequency significantly underestimates the true number of seizures and does not account for any other at least equally important outcome parameters, such as neurodevelopment and cognition. With the rise of disease modifying treatments, the need for more reliable endpoints in practice and clinical trials becomes more pressing. In this paper we assembled an expert panel to discuss the nature of these needs, current limitations, and obstacles based on a survey amongst these experts who were queried about the most important issues regarding the use of electroencephalography (EEG) parameters as endpoints in clinical drug and device development.A structured survey was sent to a group of experts in the design and conduct of epilepsy trials in adults and children. This was followed by a virtual in-person meeting discussing the results of the trial and identifying a list of most important issues.Six clinical trialists and 5 individuals from pharmaceutical companies returned the survey containing 14 questions, and 8 clinical trialists and 10 pharma-representatives attended the meeting. Three main issues were identified (1) lack of accuracy of seizure diaries due to nocturnal seizures, subtle motor seizures, impairment of consciousness and lack of awareness of the seizure by the patient (2) inter-rater variability of EEG assessment (3) lack of standardization regarding definition(s) of seizures (clinical and electrographic), EEG recording methods and EEG data management. Recommended solutions included (1) validation of EEG parameters as biomarkers and use of wearables (2) development of a manual that describes EEG rating criteria, protocol for validation by 1 central reader and use of a resolution of disagreements reporting template (3) standardization of EEG recording, data management and reporting.Current developments in research and technology seem promising to advance the use of EEG parameters as potential endpoints and offer partial solutions to the current needs. However, continuous, focused and collaborative efforts of all stakeholders (academia, industry and regulatory agencies) are needed to formulate guidelines, validate emerging technologies and approve them for use in trials. It is the intent of this opinion "position paper" to stimulate those efforts.