Search

Alprazolam administered via the Staccato® breath-actuated device is delivered into the deep lung for rapid systemic exposure and is a potential therapy for rapid epileptic seizure termination (REST). We conducted an inpatient study (ENGAGE-E-001 [NCT03478982]) in patients with stereotypic seizure episodes with prolonged or repetitive seizures to determine whether Staccato alprazolam rapidly terminates seizures in a small observed population after administration under direct supervision.Adult patients with established diagnosis of focal and/or generalized epilepsy with a documented history of seizure episodes with a predictable pattern were enrolled. They were randomized 1:1:1 to double-blind treatment of a single seizure event with one dose of Staccato alprazolam 1.0 mg or 2.0 mg, or Staccato placebo in an inpatient unit. The primary end point of the study was the proportion of responders in each treatment group achieving seizure activity cessation within 2 min after administration of study drug and no recurrence of seizure activity within 2 h.A total of 273 patients were screened, and 116 randomized patients received treatment with the study drug in the double-blind part. The proportion of treated patients who were responders was 65.8% for each of Staccato alprazolam 1.0 mg (n = 38; p = .0392) and 2.0 mg (n = 38; p = .0392), compared with 42.5% for Staccato placebo (n = 40). Staccato alprazolam was well tolerated when administered as a single dose of 1.0 or 2.0 mg: cough and somnolence were the most common adverse events (AEs) (both 14.5%), followed by dysgeusia (13.2%). AEs were mostly mild or moderate in intensity; there were no treatment-related serious AEs.Both 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg doses of Staccato alprazolam demonstrated efficacy in rapidly terminating seizures in an inpatient setting and were well tolerated. The next step is a Phase 3 confirmatory study to demonstrate efficacy and safety of Staccato alprazolam for rapid cessation of seizures in an outpatient setting.

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.

ObjectiveTo update the 2004 American Academy of Neurology guideline for managing treatment-resistant (TR) epilepsy with second- and third-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).Methods2004 criteria were used to systemically review literature (January 2003 to November 2015), classify pertinent studies according to the therapeutic rating scheme, and link recommendations to evidence strength.ResultsForty-two articles were included.RecommendationsThe following are established as effective to reduce seizure frequency (Level A): immediate-release pregabalin and perampanel for TR adult focal epilepsy (TRAFE); vigabatrin for TRAFE (not first-line treatment); rufinamide for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) (add-on therapy). The following should be considered to decrease seizure frequency (Level B): lacosamide, eslicarbazepine, and extended-release topiramate for TRAFE (ezogabine production discontinued); immediate- and extended-release lamotrigine for generalized epilepsy with TR generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures in adults; levetiracetam (add-on therapy) for TR childhood focal epilepsy (TRCFE) (1 month–16 years), TR GTC seizures, and TR juvenile myoclonic epilepsy; clobazam for LGS (add-on therapy); zonisamide for TRCFE (6–17 years); oxcarbazepine for TRCFE (1 month–4 years). The text presents Level C recommendations. AED selection depends on seizure/syndrome type, patient age, concomitant medications, and AED tolerability, safety, and efficacy. This evidence-based assessment informs AED prescription guidelines for TR epilepsy and indicates seizure types and syndromes needing more evidence. A recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) strategy allows extrapolation of efficacy across populations; therefore, for focal epilepsy, eslicarbazepine and lacosamide (oral only for pediatric use) as add-on or monotherapy in persons ≥4 years of age and perampanel as monotherapy received FDA approval.

Objective: To update the 2004 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline for treating new-onset focal or generalized epilepsy (GE) with second- and third-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Methods: The 2004 AAN criteria was used to systematically review literature (January 2003 to November 2015), classify pertinent studies according to the therapeutic rating scheme, and link recommendations to evidence strength. Results: Several second-generation AEDs are effective for new-onset focal epilepsy. Data are lacking on efficacy in new-onset generalized tonic–clonic seizures, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, or juvenile absence epilepsy, and on efficacy of third-generation AEDs in new-onset epilepsy. Recommendations: Lamotrigine (LTG) should (Level B) and levetiracetam (LEV) and zonisamide (ZNS) may (Level C) be considered in decreasing seizure frequency in adults with new-onset focal epilepsy. LTG should (Level B) and gabapentin (GBP) may (Level C) be considered in decreasing seizure frequency in patients ≥60 years with new-onset focal epilepsy. Unless there are compelling adverse-effect–related concerns, ethosuximide (ETS) or valproic acid (VPA) should be considered before LTG to decrease seizure frequency in treating absence seizures in childhood absence epilepsy (Level B). No high-quality studies suggest clobazam, eslicarbazepine, ezogabine, felbamate, GBP, lacosamide, LEV, LTG, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, pregabalin, rufinamide, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, or ZNS is effective in treating new-onset epilepsy because no high-quality studies exist in adults of various ages. A recent FDA strategy allows extrapolation of efficacy across populations; therefore, for focal epilepsy, eslicarbazepine and lacosamide (oral only for pediatric use) as add-on or monotherapy in persons ≥4 years old and perampanel as monotherapy received FDA approval.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy. Methods: This post hoc pooled analysis of 2 randomized double-blind studies (093-045 and -046) included adults with partial-onset seizures medically uncontrolled by 1 or 2 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Following the baseline period (8 weeks), eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ESL 1,600 mg or 1,200 mg once daily for 18 weeks; the primary endpoint was study exit by meeting predefined exit criteria (signifying worsening seizure control). In each study, treatment was considered effective if the upper 95% confidence limit for exit rate was lower than the historical control threshold (65.3%). Results: Pooled exit rates were as follows: ESL 1,600 mg = 20.6% (95% confidence interval: 15.6%–26.8%); ESL 1,200 mg = 30.8% (23.0%–40.5%). Use of 2 baseline AEDs or rescue medication, US location, epilepsy duration ≥20 years, and higher maximum baseline seizure frequency were associated with higher exit risks. Median percent reductions in standardized seizure frequency between baseline and the 18-week double-blind period were as follows: ESL 1,600 mg = 43.2%; ESL 1,200 mg = 35.7%; baseline carbamazepine use was associated with smaller reductions. Safety profiles were similar between ESL doses. Conclusions: Exit rates for ESL monotherapy (1,600 mg and 1,200 mg once daily) were lower than the historical control threshold, irrespective of baseline AED use and region, with no additional safety concerns identified. Clinical factors and location clearly influence treatment responses in conversion-to-monotherapy trials. Classification of evidence: This pooled analysis provides Class IV evidence that for adults with medically uncontrolled partial-onset seizures, ESL monotherapy is well tolerated and effective.

Objective: To report long-term efficacy and safety results of the SANTE trial investigating deep brain stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT) for treatment of localization-related epilepsy. Methods: This long-term follow-up is a continuation of a previously reported trial of 5- vs 0-V ANT stimulation. Long-term follow-up began 13 months after device implantation with stimulation parameters adjusted at the investigators9 discretion. Seizure frequency was determined using daily seizure diaries. Results: The median percent seizure reduction from baseline at 1 year was 41%, and 69% at 5 years. The responder rate (≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) at 1 year was 43%, and 68% at 5 years. In the 5 years of follow-up, 16% of subjects were seizure-free for at least 6 months. There were no reported unanticipated adverse device effects or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages. The Liverpool Seizure Severity Scale and 31-item Quality of Life in Epilepsy measure showed statistically significant improvement over baseline by 1 year and at 5 years ( p Conclusion: Long-term follow-up of ANT deep brain stimulation showed sustained efficacy and safety in a treatment-resistant population. Classification of evidence: This long-term follow-up provides Class IV evidence that for patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy, anterior thalamic stimulation is associated with a 69% reduction in seizure frequency and a 34% serious device-related adverse event rate at 5 years.

TM ) as adjunctive therapy in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Neurol Scand 2014: 129: 143‐153. © 2013 The Authors. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Objective – To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oncedaily 1200 mg and 2400 mg SPN-804 (Oxtellar XR TM , Supernus Pharmaceuticals), an extended-release tablet formulation of oxcarbazepine (OXC), added to 1-3 concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in adults with refractory partial-onset seizures, with or without secondary generalization. Methods – The Prospective, Randomized Study of OXC XR in Subjects with Partial Epilepsy Refractory (PROSPER) study was a multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group Phase 3 study. The primary efficacy endpoint was median percent reduction from baseline in monthly (28-day) seizure frequency for the 16-week double-blind treatment period in the intentto-treat (ITT) population with analyzable seizure data. Other efficacy analyses included proportion of patients with ≥ 50% seizure reduction, proportion of patients seizure free, and the relationship between clinical response and plasma concentration. Results – Median percent reduction was -28.7% for placebo, 38.2% (P = 0.08 vs placebo) for once-daily SPN-804 1200 mg, and 42.9% (P = 0.003) for SPN-804 2400 mg. Responder rates were 28.1%, 36.1% (P = 0.08), and 40.7% (P = 0.02); 16-week seizure-free rates in a pragmatic ITT analysis were 3.3%, 4.9% (P = 0.59), and 11.4% (P = 0.008), respectively. When data were analyzed separately for study site clusters, a post hoc analysis demonstrated that both SPN-804 dosages were significantly superior to placebo in median percent seizure reduction (placebo: 13.3%; 1200 mg: 34.5%, P = 0.02; 2400 mg: 52.7%, P = 0.006) in the North American study site cluster. A concentration–response analysis also supported a clinically meaningful effect for 1200 mg. Adverse event types reflected the drug’s established profile. Adverse event frequency was consistent with a pharmacokinetic profile in which SPN-804 produces lower peak plasma concentrations vs immediate-release OXC. Once-daily dosing was not associated with any new safety signals. Conclusions – Adjunctive once-daily SPN-804 improved seizure control in patients with inadequately controlled partial-onset seizures. Adverse event occurrence and discontinuations due to adverse events suggest improved tolerability vs previously published data with immediaterelease OXC.

Summary Background Despite progress in understanding the genetics of rare epilepsies, the more common epilepsies have proven less amenable to traditional gene-discovery analyses. We aimed to assess the contribution of ultra-rare genetic variation to common epilepsies. Methods We did a case-control sequencing study with exome sequence data from unrelated individuals clinically evaluated for one of the two most common epilepsy syndromes: familial genetic generalised epilepsy, or familial or sporadic non-acquired focal epilepsy. Individuals of any age were recruited between Nov 26, 2007, and Aug 2, 2013, through the multicentre Epilepsy Phenome/Genome Project and Epi4K collaborations, and samples were sequenced at the Institute for Genomic Medicine (New York, USA) between Feb 6, 2013, and Aug 18, 2015. To identify epilepsy risk signals, we tested all protein-coding genes for an excess of ultra-rare genetic variation among the cases, compared with control samples with no known epilepsy or epilepsy comorbidity sequenced through unrelated studies. Findings We separately compared the sequence data from 640 individuals with familial genetic generalised epilepsy and 525 individuals with familial non-acquired focal epilepsy to the same group of 3877 controls, and found significantly higher rates of ultra-rare deleterious variation in genes established as causative for dominant epilepsy disorders (familial genetic generalised epilepsy: odd ratio [OR] 2·3, 95% CI 1·7–3·2, p=9·1 × 10 −8 ; familial non-acquired focal epilepsy 3·6, 2·7–4·9, p=1·1 × 10 −17 ). Comparison of an additional cohort of 662 individuals with sporadic non-acquired focal epilepsy to controls did not identify study-wide significant signals. For the individuals with familial non-acquired focal epilepsy, we found that five known epilepsy genes ranked as the top five genes enriched for ultra-rare deleterious variation. After accounting for the control carrier rate, we estimate that these five genes contribute to the risk of epilepsy in approximately 8% of individuals with familial non-acquired focal epilepsy. Our analyses showed that no individual gene was significantly associated with familial genetic generalised epilepsy; however, known epilepsy genes had lower p values relative to the rest of the protein-coding genes (p=5·8 × 10 −8 ) that were lower than expected from a random sampling of genes. Interpretation We identified excess ultra-rare variation in known epilepsy genes, which establishes a clear connection between the genetics of common and rare, severe epilepsies, and shows that the variants responsible for epilepsy risk are exceptionally rare in the general population. Our results suggest that the emerging paradigm of targeting of treatments to the genetic cause in rare devastating epilepsies might also extend to a proportion of common epilepsies. These findings might allow clinicians to broadly explain the cause of these syndromes to patients, and lay the foundation for possible precision treatments in the future. Funding National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), and Epilepsy Research UK.

Emerging evidence indicates that epileptic encephalopathies are genetically highly heterogeneous, underscoring the need for large cohorts of well-characterized individuals to further define the genetic landscape. Through a collaboration between two consortia (EuroEPINOMICS and Epi4K/EPGP), we analyzed exome-sequencing data of 356 trios with the "classical" epileptic encephalopathies, infantile spasms and Lennox Gastaut syndrome, including 264 trios previously analyzed by the Epi4K/EPGP consortium. In this expanded cohort, we find 429 de nova mutations, including de novo mutations in DNM1 in five individuals and de nova mutations in GABBR2, FASN, and RYR3 in two individuals each. Unlike previous studies, this cohort is sufficiently large to show a significant excess of de nova mutations in epileptic encephalopathy probands compared to the general population using a likelihood analysis (p = 8.2 x 10(-4)), supporting a prominent role for de novo mutations in epileptic encephalopathies. We bring statistical evidence that mutations in DNM1 cause epileptic encephalopathy, find suggestive evidence for a role of three additional genes, and show that at least 12% of analyzed individuals have an identifiable causal de novo mutation. Strikingly, 75% of mutations in these probands are predicted to disrupt a protein involved in regulating synaptic transmission, and there is a significant enrichment of de nova mutations in genes in this pathway in the entire cohort as well. These findings emphasize an important role for synaptic dysregulation in epileptic encephalopathies, above and beyond that caused by ion channel dysfunction.

Background Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder that affects approximately 50 million people worldwide. Both risk of epilepsy and response to treatment partly depend on genetic factors, and gene identification is a promising approach to target new prediction, treatment, and prevention strategies. However, despite significant progress in the identification of genes causing epilepsy in families with a Mendelian inheritance pattern, there is relatively little known about the genetic factors responsible for common forms of epilepsy and so-called epileptic encephalopathies. Study design The Epilepsy Phenome/Genome Project (EPGP) is a multi-institutional, retrospective phenotype–genotype study designed to gather and analyze detailed phenotypic information and DNA samples on 5250 participants, including probands with specific forms of epilepsy and, in a subset, parents of probands who do not have epilepsy. Results EPGP is being executed in four phases: study initiation, pilot, study expansion/establishment, and close-out. This article discusses a number of key challenges and solutions encountered during the first three phases of the project, including those related to (1) study initiation and management, (2) recruitment and phenotyping, and (3) data validation. The study has now enrolled 4223 participants. Conclusions EPGP has demonstrated the value of organizing a large network into cores with specific roles, managed by a strong Administrative Core that utilizes frequent communication and a collaborative model with tools such as study timelines and performance-payment models. The study also highlights the critical importance of an effective informatics system, highly structured recruitment methods, and expert data review.

We investigated the cumulative probability of seizure remission and relapse in an adult population with drug-resistant epilepsy and frequent seizures. In addition, we determined clinical predictors of remission and relapse in this population.IN 2003, we identified 246 patients at a single center with drug-resistant epilepsy defined as at least one seizure per month and failure of at least two antiepileptic drugs. These patients were followed prospectively (cohort design). We examined the cumulative probability of seizure remission and relapse in this population using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Clinical predictors of remission and relapse were also evaluated using Cox regression analysis.The estimated cumulative probability of 12-month seizure remission was 34.6% at 7 years in the entire population and 33.4% when limited to those without surgery. The risk for relapse after a 12-month period of seizure remission was 71.2% at 5 years. Negative predictors of seizure remission included developmental delay, symptomatic generalized epilepsy syndrome, duration of intractability, and number of antiepileptic drugs failed. Localization-related epilepsy was the only negative predictor of relapse.Among patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, 5% per year enter seizure remission even with a follow-up of 6 years. However, a substantial proportion of these patients relapse after the first year following a remission. The large proportion of patients entering a significant remission gives these patients hope; however, caution should be advised when discussing the likelihood of future seizures.

We report a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of bilateral stimulation of the anterior nuclei of the thalamus for localization-related epilepsy.Participants were adults with medically refractory partial seizures, including secondarily generalized seizures. Half received stimulation and half no stimulation during a 3-month blinded phase; then all received unblinded stimulation.One hundred ten participants were randomized. Baseline monthly median seizure frequency was 19.5. In the last month of the blinded phase the stimulated group had a 29% greater reduction in seizures compared with the control group, as estimated by a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model (p = 0.002). Unadjusted median declines at the end of the blinded phase were 14.5% in the control group and 40.4% in the stimulated group. Complex partial and "most severe" seizures were significantly reduced by stimulation. By 2 years, there was a 56% median percent reduction in seizure frequency; 54% of patients had a seizure reduction of at least 50%, and 14 patients were seizure-free for at least 6 months. Five deaths occurred and none were from implantation or stimulation. No participant had symptomatic hemorrhage or brain infection. Two participants had acute, transient stimulation-associated seizures. Cognition and mood showed no group differences, but participants in the stimulated group were more likely to report depression or memory problems as adverse events.Bilateral stimulation of the anterior nuclei of the thalamus reduces seizures. Benefit persisted for 2 years of study. Complication rates were modest. Deep brain stimulation of the anterior thalamus is useful for some people with medically refractory partial and secondarily generalized seizures.

Epilepsy and pregnancy registries have been operational for more than 10 years, have accrued considerable experience, and collected an impressive amount of data. As findings have been published, it has become important to understand how observations from the different registries are comparable, especially since their methodologies differ somewhat. In September 2008, representatives of the UK Epilepsy and Pregnancy Register, the North American AED Pregnancy Registry (NAAPR), and the European and International Registry of Antiepileptic Drugs in Pregnancy (EURAP) met for a workshop. Their objectives were to exchange information on their methodologies and to discuss areas where harmonization might be possible. This report summarizes these discussions.

To examine evidence for effectiveness of anteromesial temporal lobe and localized neocortical resections for disabling complex partial seizures.Systemic review and analysis of the literature since 1990.One intention-to-treat Class I randomized controlled trial of surgery for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy found that 58% of patients randomized to be evaluated for surgical therapy (64% of those who received surgery) were free of disabling seizures and 10 to 15% were unimproved at the end of 1 year, compared with 8% free of disabling seizures in the group randomized to continued medical therapy. There was a significant improvement in quantitative quality-of-life scores and a trend toward better social function at the end of 1 year for patients in the surgical group, no surgical mortality, and infrequent morbidity. Twenty-four Class IV series of temporal lobe resections yielded essentially identical results. There are similar Class IV results for localized neocortical resections; no Class I or II studies are available.A single Class I study and 24 Class IV studies indicate that the benefits of anteromesial temporal lobe resection for disabling complex partial seizures is greater than continued treatment with antiepileptic drugs, and the risks are at least comparable. For patients who are compromised by such seizures, referral to an epilepsy surgery center should be strongly considered. Further studies are needed to determine if neocortical seizures benefit from surgery, and whether early surgical intervention should be the treatment of choice for certain surgically remediable epileptic syndromes.

A subset of the 27 safety and pharmacokinetic studies of levetiracetam has been conducted in selected special populations: children, the elderly, and people with renal or hepatic impairment. The results of these studies indicate that higher doses need to be used for children (on a per-weight basis), and individuals with renal dysfunction require dosage modifications related to creatinine clearance. Individuals with hepatic impairment do not require modifications from standard doses. Little information is available on the effect of levetiracetam on the developing fetus, so cautious use during pregnancy is recommended until more information is available. Additional studies will refine the recommendations for use of levetiracetam in these special populations.