Search

A total of 120 patients with histologically proven focal cortical dysplasias (FCD) were retrospectively analysed for prognostic factors for successful epilepsy surgery. Multivariate data analyses showed that older age at epilepsy surgery, occurrence of secondarily generalised seizures and a multilobar extent of the dysplasia were significant negative predictors. In univariate analyses, longer duration of epilepsy, need for intracranial EEG recordings and incomplete resection of the FCD were factors which significantly reduced the chance of becoming seizure free. Histological subtype of the FCD and age at epilepsy onset had no significant predictive value. These findings strongly suggest early consideration of epilepsy surgery in FCD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Photosensitivity is a phenomenon that may be elicited by standardized intermittent photic stimulation during EEG recording and is detected more frequently in children and adolescents. Nevertheless, at our Epilepsy Center, we routinely assess photosensitivity in all newly referred adult patients. In this investigation, we sought to address the diagnostic yield under the prerequisites described., Methods: We reanalyzed all routine EEG recordings among referrals to the department of adults during the first six months of 2019, including a simultaneous video that is always coregistered in our center. The prevalence of abnormal findings during photic stimulation was assessed., Results: Intermittent photic stimulation was performed on 344 patients. Photoparoxysmal response were detected in five subjects (1.5%). All patients were female. Four patients were diagnosed with idiopathic generalized epilepsy, and one with Doose syndrome. Photomyogenic responses were recorded in 1.1% and only in patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. In two subjects with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures, the typical seizure was provoked by intermittent photic stimulation (8.7% of all subjects with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures in this cohort). Photoparoxysmal response was not detected in any subject with focal epilepsy, syncope, or other nonepileptic paroxysmal events. In every case of photoparoxysmal responses, increased photosensitivity had already been reported before recording., Conclusions: In our study, photoparoxysmal responses was a rare phenomenon among adults with a preponderance of females and idiopathic generalized epilepsies. Intermittent photic stimulation may be helpful in provoking typical psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and thus abbreviate the diagnostic process. Provided a careful history, routine intermittent photic stimulation in adults with epilepsy does not appear to be mandatory., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society.)

Identifying genetic risk factors for highly heterogeneous disorders like epilepsy remains challenging. Here, we present the largest whole-exome sequencing study of epilepsy to date, with >54,000 human exomes, comprising 20,979 deeply phenotyped patients from multiple genetic ancestry groups with diverse epilepsy subtypes and 33,444 controls, to investigate rare variants that confer disease risk. These analyses implicate seven individual genes, three gene sets, and four copy number variants at exome-wide significance. Genes encoding ion channels show strong association with multiple epilepsy subtypes, including epileptic encephalopathies, generalized and focal epilepsies, while most other gene discoveries are subtype-specific, highlighting distinct genetic contributions to different epilepsies. Combining results from rare single nucleotide/short indel-, copy number-, and common variants, we offer an expanded view of the genetic architecture of epilepsy, with growing evidence of convergence among different genetic risk loci on the same genes. Top candidate genes are enriched for roles in synaptic transmission and neuronal excitability, particularly postnatally and in the neocortex. We also identify shared rare variant risk between epilepsy and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Our data can be accessed via an interactive browser, hopefully facilitating diagnostic efforts and accelerating the development of follow-up studies., Competing Interests: Competing Interests B.M.N is a member of the scientific advisory board at Deep Genomics and Neumora. No other authors have competing interests to declare

This analysis assessed the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in older (≥65 years of age) and younger (≥16 to <65 years of age) adults with epilepsy. This was a subgroup analysis from EXPERIENCE/EPD332, a pooled analysis of individual patient records from multiple independent, non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy starting BRV in Australia, Europe, and the United States. Included patients had ≥6 months of follow-up data. Outcomes included responders (≥50 % reduction from baseline in seizure frequency), seizure freedom (no seizures within 3 months before the time point), and continuous seizure freedom (no seizures from baseline) at 12 months; BRV discontinuation during the whole study follow-up; and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients with missing data after BRV discontinuation were deemed non-responders/not seizure-free. Analysis populations included the Full Analysis Set (FAS; patients who received ≥1 BRV dose and had seizure type and age documented at baseline) and the modified FAS (FAS patients who had ≥1 seizure recorded during baseline). The FAS was used for all outcomes except seizure reduction. The FAS included 147 (8.9 %) patients aged ≥65 years and 1497 (91.1 %) aged ≥16 to <65 years. Compared with the younger subgroup, patients aged ≥65 years had a longer median epilepsy duration (33.0 years [n = 144] vs 17.0 years [n = 1460]) and lower median seizure frequency at index (2.0 seizures/28 days [n = 129] vs 4.0 seizures/28 days [n = 1256]), and less commonly had >1 prior antiseizure medication (106/141 [75.2 %] vs 1265/1479 [85.5 %]). At 12 months, a numerically higher percentage of patients aged ≥65 years versus the younger subgroup achieved ≥50 % seizure reduction (46.5 % [n = 71] vs 36.0 % [n = 751]), seizure freedom (26.0 % [n = 100] vs 13.9 % [n = 1011]), and continuous seizure freedom (22.0 % [n = 100] vs 10.7 % [n = 1011]). During the whole study follow-up, 43/147 (29.3 %) patients aged ≥65 years and 508/1492 (34.0 %) aged ≥16 to <65 years discontinued BRV. The incidence of TEAEs since the prior visit was similar in both subgroups at 3 months (≥65 years vs ≥16 to <65 years: 38/138 [27.5 %] vs 356/1404 [25.4 %]), 6 months (19/119 [16.0 %] vs 176/1257 [14.0 %]), and 12 months (8/104 [7.7 %] vs 107/1128 [9.5 %]). This real-world analysis suggests BRV was effective in patients aged ≥65 years and ≥16 to <65 years, with numerically higher effectiveness in the older subgroup. BRV was well tolerated in both subgroups., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: E. Faught has received research funding from Xenon and UCB Pharma, and consulting fees from Aucta, Azurity, Biogen, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, LivaNova, Neurelis the State of Georgia, SK Life Science and Trevena, is on the editorial board of the Annals of Neurology and the executive board of The Epilepsy Consortium H. Besson, D. Bourikas, T. Daniels, F. Floricel, and C. Laloyaux are employees of UCB Pharma. W. D’Souza’s salary is part-funded by The University of Melbourne; he has received travel, investigator-initiated, scientific advisory board, and speaker’s honoraria from UCB Pharma Australia & Global; investigator-initiated, scientific advisory board, travel, and speaker’s honoraria from Eisai Australia & Global; advisory board honoraria from LivaNova and Tilray; educational grants from Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Synthélabo; educational, travel, and fellowship grants from GSK Neurology Australia; and honoraria from SciGen Pharmaceuticals; he has an equity interest in the device company EpiMinder. P. Klein has served as a consultant for Abbott, Arvelle Therapeutics, Neurelis, and SK Life Science; as a consultant, advisory board member, and speaker for Aquestive, Eisai, Sunovion, and UCB Pharma; is a member of the medical advisory board of Stratus and the scientific advisory board of OB Pharma; is the CEO of PrevEp; and has received research support from CURE and Department of Defense/Lundbeck. M. Reuber receives payment from Elsevier as editor-in-chief of Seizure; and has received research grants and speaker’s fees from Eisai, LivaNova, and UCB Pharma. F. Rosenow reports personal fees from Angelini Pharma, Arvelle Therapeutics, Eisai GmbH, and GW Pharmaceuticals; personal fees and other from Novartis; personal fees and grants from UCB Pharma; and grants from the Detlev-Wrobel-Fonds for Epilepsy Research Frankfurt, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the European Union, and the State of Hessen outside the submitted work. J. Salas-Puig has received grants from Bial and UCB Pharma; and reports personal fees from Bial, Eisai, Esteve, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma outside the submitted work. V. Soto Insuga has received speaker honoraria from Bial, Eisai, and UCB Pharma. B.J. Steinhoff has received speaker’s honoraria from Al-Jazeera, Desitin, Eisai, GW Pharmaceuticals, Hikma, Novartis, Sandoz, and UCB Pharma; and has served as a consultant for Arvelle Therapeutics, B. Braun, Bial, Desitin, Eisai, GW Pharmaceuticals, and UCB Pharma. A. Strzelczyk reports personal fees and grants from Angelini Pharma, Biocodex, Desitin Arzneimittel, Eisai, GW/Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Marinus Pharma, Precisis, Takeda, UCB Pharma, UNEEG medical, and Zogenix. He is editor-in-chief of Clinical Epileptology and section editor of Neurological Research and Practice. J.P. Szaflarski has received research funding from Biogen, the Department of Defense, Eisai, GW Pharmaceuticals companies, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, NeuroPace, Serina Therapeutics, Shor Foundation for Epilepsy Research, State of Alabama General Funds, and UCB Pharma; has served as a consultant or advisory board member for Elite Medical Experts, GW Pharmaceuticals, LivaNova, Lundbeck, Medical Association of the State of Alabama, NeuroPace, Serina Therapeutics, SK Life Science, and UCB Pharma; has served as an investigator on GW Research Ltd trials; and is an editorial board member for Epilepsy & Behavior, Epilepsy & Behavior Reports (associate editor), Epilepsy Currents (contributing editor), Folia Medica Copernicana, Journal of Epileptology (associate editor), and Journal of Medical Science. D. Friesen is an independent contractor for UCB Pharma. V. Villanueva has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Arvelle Therapeutics, Bial, Eisai, Esteve, GW Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; has received research grants from Bial, Eisai, and UCB Pharma; and has received speaker’s honoraria from Bial, Eisai, Esteve, GW Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and UCB Pharma., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In Europe, cenobamate has been approved for use as an adjunctive therapy in adult patients with epilepsy (PWE) with focal-onset seizures (FOS) who have not responded satisfactorily to treatment with at least two antiseizure medications (ASMs). Pivotal trials and real-world observational studies have demonstrated a high efficacy of cenobamate, even in very difficult-to-treat epilepsies. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy of add-on cenobamate in adult PWE who were prospectively monitored. We compared these results with those previously obtained for add-on lacosamide, perampanel, and brivaracetam therapy., Methods: Patients were enrolled from the CENKORK study, which is a prospective, non-interventional, open-label, monocenter cohort study of adult PWE experiencing FOS. The titration of cenobamate was performed according to the guidelines outlined in the summary of product characteristics. The primary outcome measure was the retention rate at 6 months and 1 year. In addition, we assessed seizure-free rates, the proportion of patients achieving at least a 50% seizure reduction, adverse events, and the reasons for treatment discontinuation. These outcome measures were compared with historical controls treated with adjunctive lacosamide, perampanel, or brivaracetam at our center., Results: Between June 2021 and 2022, 172 PWE with ongoing FOS were included. 22 cases were lost to follow-up, leaving 150 cases for the 1-year assessment. The retention rates at 6 months and 1 year were 88.7% and 80%, respectively. Seizure freedom was achieved in 14% of patients at both the 6-month and 1-year marks, while the ≥50% responder rates were 50% and 61%, respectively. The 6-month retention rate was significantly higher in cenobamate than in other ASMs (p < 0.001 for each comparator). Adverse events were significantly more common with perampanel (p < 0.001)., Significance: Add-on cenobamate proved to be particularly efficacious compared to our experience with other recently introduced ASMs., Plain Language Summary: This observational study was carried out in 172 adult patients with difficult-to-treat epilepsy who were treated with adjunctive cenobamate. After 1 year, the data of 150 patients could be analyzed. Seizure freedom, in the preceding 3 months, was achieved in 14%. The rate of PWE continuing cenobamate was 80%. In our hands, cenobamate showed promising efficacy and tolerability even when compared to other recently introduced antiseizure medications., (© 2024 The Author(s). Epilepsia Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.)

The goal of epilepsy treatment is seizure freedom, typically with antiseizure medication (ASM). If patients fail to attain seizure control despite two trials of appropriately chosen ASMs at adequate doses, they are classified as having drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Adverse events (AEs) commonly occur in people with DRE because they are typically on ⩾2 ASMs, increasing the potential for drug-drug interactions. Early emerging AEs may impact adherence, decrease quality of life, and delay achieving optimal treatment dosages. Cenobamate is an oral ASM with a long half-life which has proven to be highly effective in clinical trials. An international Delphi panel of expert epileptologists experienced in the clinical use of cenobamate and other ASMs was convened to develop consensus best practices for managing patients during and after cenobamate titration, with consideration for its known pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions, to allow patients to reach the most appropriate cenobamate dose while limiting tolerability issues. The modified Delphi process included one open-ended questionnaire and one virtual face-to-face meeting. Participants agreed that cenobamate can be prescribed for most patients experiencing focal-onset seizures. Patients initiating cenobamate therapy should have access to healthcare professionals as needed and their treatment response should be evaluated at the 100-mg dose. Patients with intellectual disabilities may need additional support to navigate the titration period. Proactive down-titration or withdrawal of sodium channel blockers (SCBs) is recommended when concomitant ASM regimens include ⩾2 SCBs. When applicable, maintaining a concomitant clobazam dose at ~5-10 mg may be beneficial. Patients taking oral contraceptives, newer oral anticoagulants, or HIV antiretroviral medications should be monitored for potential interactions. Because clinical evidence informing treatment decisions is limited, guidance regarding dose adjustments of non-ASM drugs was not developed beyond specific recommendations presented in the Summary of Product Characteristics., (© The Author(s), 2024.)

Objective: To report the interim results of the PERPRISE study (Study 509; NCT04202159), which is evaluating perampanel as the only adjunctive anti-seizure medication (ASM) in adults with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS)., Methods: PERPRISE is an ongoing 12-month multicenter, prospective, observational, non-interventional study of perampanel in a real-world setting in Germany. Patients are aged ≥18 years with FBTCS or GTCS due to focal or idiopathic generalized epilepsy. Perampanel, as an adjunctive therapy to ASM monotherapy ('add-on therapy') or as a substitute for one ASM in dual therapy ('substitution therapy'), is prescribed in line with its SmPC. The Interim Analysis Set comprises the first 100 patients who received ≥1 dose of perampanel and attended or discontinued prior to the ~6-month visit. Interim endpoints include retention rate, measures of effects on seizure frequency, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs)., Results: One hundred patients were included in the Interim Analysis Set (add-on, n = 43 [43.0%]; substitution, n = 55 [55.0%]; unknown, n = 2). The 6-month retention rate was 78.0% (add-on, 83.7%; substitution, 72.7%). For the overall population with GTCS and/or FBTCS, seizure-freedom rate at 6 months was 58.8% (add-on, 72.2%; substitution, 47.9%) and 50% responder rate at 6 months was 82.6% (add-on, 89.2%; substitution, 76.6%). Retention rates and seizure outcomes were better with perampanel as an early-line treatment than as a late-line treatment. TEAEs were reported by 48 patients (48.0%), most commonly dizziness (n = 9), fatigue (n = 7), and irritability (n = 7). Sixteen patients (16.0%) withdrew from perampanel treatment due to TEAEs., Significance: The interim analysis of PERPRISE offers insight into the real-world use of perampanel in Germany, including for the first time, clinical practice data from patients with GTCS and switching ASMs within a dual therapy. Further data from PERPRISE will be of value to inform clinical decision-making in this patient cohort., Plain Language Summary: Patients with epilepsy often take more than one medication for seizure control. This 12month study looked at patients in Germany receiving perampanel as only add-on medication. The interim analysis shows, that at 6 months, over 70% of the 100 patients continued to use perampanel; 59% experienced no seizures during treatment with perampanel, and in 83%, seizure frequency was reduced by half. Side effects occurred in 48% of patients (most commonly dizziness, fatigue, and irritability) and caused 16% to withdraw from the study. Overall, perampanel was a suitable as only add-on medication for patients with epilepsy., (© 2023 Eisai Inc. Epilepsia Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.)

Objective: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in adults with epilepsy by specific comorbidities and epilepsy etiologies., Methods: EXPERIENCE/EPD332 was a pooled analysis of individual patient records from several non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy initiating BRV in clinical practice. Outcomes included ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency, seizure freedom (no seizures within prior 3 months), continuous seizure freedom (no seizures since baseline), BRV discontinuation, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Analyses were performed for all adult patients (≥ 16 years of age) and stratified by comorbidity and by etiology at baseline (patients with cognitive/learning disability [CLD], psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, brain tumor-related epilepsy [BTRE], and traumatic brain injury-related epilepsy [TBIE])., Results: At 12 months, ≥ 50% seizure reduction was achieved in 35.6% (n = 264), 38.7% (n = 310), 41.7% (n = 24), 34.1% (n = 41), and 50.0% (n = 28) of patients with CLD, psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, BTRE, and TBIE, respectively; and continuous seizure freedom was achieved in 5.7% (n = 318), 13.7% (n = 424), 29.4% (n = 34), 11.4% (n = 44), and 13.8% (n = 29), respectively. During the study follow-up, in patients with CLD, psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, BTRE, and TBIE, 37.1% (n = 403), 30.7% (n = 605), 33.3% (n = 51), 39.7% (n = 68), and 27.1% (n = 49) of patients discontinued BRV, respectively; and TEAEs since prior visit at 12 months were reported in 11.3% (n = 283), 10.0% (n = 410), 16.7% (n = 36), 12.5% (n = 48), and 3.0% (n = 33), respectively., Conclusions: BRV as prescribed in the real world is effective and well tolerated among patients with CLD, psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, BTRE, and TBIE., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

While significant strides have been made in comprehending the pathophysiology and treatment of epilepsy, further investigation is warranted to elucidate the factors impacting its development and transmission, particularly within familial contexts. This study sought to explore the prevalence and risk factors associated with epilepsy in the offspring of patients with epilepsy who were treated at a tertiary epilepsy center. Adult patients with confirmed epilepsy (PWE) receiving outpatient care were consecutively enrolled, starting from January 2021 to January 2023. Data were recorded for various variables, including age, gender, epilepsy pathophysiology, cognitive impairment, and family history of epilepsy. Descriptive statistics, various statistical tests, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were employed to analyze the data. A total of 1456 PWE were included. Among them, 463 patients (31.8%) had children. Twenty-five patients had offspring diagnosed with epilepsy, representing a prevalence of 5.4%. Analysis of the offspring with epilepsy revealed older ages, a higher proportion of parents with idiopathic epilepsy, and a greater prevalence of a positive family history of epilepsy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated a significant association between a family history of epilepsy and increased epilepsy risk in offspring. Genetic syndrome-immanent predisposition, advanced age, and a family history of epilepsy were identified as significant risk factors for epilepsy in offspring by means of this mono-center study.

Objective: Cenobamate is approved by the European Medicine Agency for the treatment of adult patients with epilepsy (PWEs) with ongoing focal-onset seizures despite appropriate treatment with at least two established antiseizure medications. Pivotal trials and post-marketing real-world observational studies suggest high efficacy with unusually high seizure-free rates. The authors sought to investigate the plasma levels of cenobamate under steady-state conditions in seizure-free versus non-responding PWEs, and in PWEs who experienced adverse events versus those who did not. Methods: Blood samples were collected from adult PWEs who were treated with adjunct cenobamate under steady-state conditions. Daily doses, concomitant medications, efficacy, and tolerability were assessed. The plasma cenobamate levels of seizure-free versus non-responding PWEs and between PWEs with and those without clinical adverse events were compared. Results: Samples from 101 PWEs were included. Thirty-six PWEs were seizure-free and 65 were non-responders. In 31 PWEs, adverse events were apparent, whereas in the remaining 70, no tolerability issues were reported. A linear correlation was found between the daily doses (range: 100 mg-400 mg) and the plasma levels (3.8 mg/L-54.6 mg/L). Neither the daily doses nor the plasma levels differed significantly between the investigated subgroups. The main reason for this result was that the individual therapeutic ranges varied widely: seizure freedom and adverse effects were observed alongside low doses and plasma levels in some PWEs. Conversely, there were examples of PWEs who did not respond or who reported no tolerability issues at high doses or plasma levels. Conclusions: To evaluate the individual therapeutic range and to better understand the influence of other drugs in cases where concomitant medications are used, the therapeutic drug monitoring of cenobamate may be useful. A general therapeutic range cannot be defined.

Objective: Critical flicker frequency (CFF) and flicker frequency (FF) are used as indicators for the neurotoxic adverse events of drugs in pharmacology. In this pilot study, we investigated whether patients with epilepsy (PWE) treated with various antiseizure medications (ASM) had significantly different CFFs compared with healthy controls. In addition, we investigated the appropriateness of CFF as an objective measurement tool in PWE who reported adverse events according to the adverse event profile (AEP)., Methods: Patients receiving regular antiseizure treatment at our center, along with healthy controls, were included in this study. Clinical neurotoxic symptoms, AEP scores, and serum ASM levels were assessed in the PWE group. We used a CFF device that produced a red-black, green-black, blue-black, or white-black flicker. CFF and FF were compared between PWE and healthy controls. In PWE, the correlation of alterations in CFF and FF with AEP results and through ASM serum concentrations was calculated., Results: A total of 33 PWE and 20 healthy controls participated in the study. Except for two light modalities, CFF and FF were significantly reduced in PWE compared with controls. CFF and FF did not differ significantly between PWE with AEP scores >44 points and those with lower scores. CFF and FF levels did not correlate with changes in AEP scores, serum concentrations, or doses., Significance: CFF and FF distinguished PWE with ASM from healthy controls. No clinically relevant differentiation was detected in the heterogenous PWE group. To investigate whether CFF and FF may serve as subtle indicators of neurotoxicity or specific modes of action, additional studies are needed in more homogenous PWE groups., (© 2023 International League Against Epilepsy.)

Purpose: Brivaracetam is often used as an alternative to levetiracetam in patients with epilepsy (PWE) encountering efficacy issues or adverse events with levetiracetam. This study evaluated the psychological status of PWE who were switched from levetiracetam to brivaracetam due to psychiatric tolerability concerns in comparison to those who remained on levetiracetam., Methods: We used various psychological assessments including the Symptom Checklist SCL-90-R, the Beck Depression Inventory-II, and the adverse event profile. Eligible participants completed the questionnaires at baseline and again 8 days later. Psychological changes were assessed using standard statistical methods to show differences between a group that immediately switched from levetiracetam to brivaracetam and another group with unchanged levetiracetam., Results: Between May 2020 and May 2021, 63 patients participated in the study, of whom 34 switched from levetiracetam to brivaracetam. At baseline, participants who switched to brivaracetam had fewer antiseizure medications but experienced more monthly seizures. Baseline scores for anxiety (p = 0.020) and psychoticism (p = 0.046) on SCL-90-R in PWE switched to brivaracetam were higher than in the remaining group. In the subsequent assessment, all psychological scores were reduced and were no longer significantly different between both groups. Using multiple regression, initial treatment with a single antiseizure medication and male gender emerged as predictors of psychological improvement., Conclusion: Our study found no increased risk of adverse events or psychiatric symptoms after switching from levetiracetam to brivaracetam. Though statistically non-significant, a trend towards improved psychiatric outcomes in the switch group warrants further investigation in future trials with stronger designs for enhanced statistical power., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Bernhard Steinhoff has received speaker's honoraria from Al Jazeera, Angelini, Desitin, Eisai, GW Pharmaceuticals, Hikma, Medscape, Tabuk, and UCB Pharma, and has served as a paid consultant for Angelini, B. Braun Melsungen, Eisai, GW Pharmaceuticals, and UCB Pharma. Other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Purpose: This study is to report some preliminary surgical considerations and outcomes after the first implantations of a new and commercially available implantable epicranial stimulation device for focal epilepsy., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from clinical notes. Outcome parameters were as follows: wound healing, surgery time, and adverse events., Results: Five patients were included (17-52 y/o; 3 female). Epicranial systems were uneventfully implanted under neuronavigation guidance. Some minor adverse events occurred. Wound healing in primary intention was seen in all patients. Out of these surgeries, certain concepts were developed: Skin incisions had to be significantly larger than expected. S-shaped incisions appeared to be a good choice in typical locations behind the hairline. Preoperative discussions between neurologist and neurosurgeon are mandatory in order to allow for the optimal coverage of the epileptogenic zone with the electrode geometry., Conclusion: In this first small series, we were able to show safe implantation of this new epicranial stimulation device. The use of neuronavigation is strongly recommended. The procedure is simple but not trivial and ideally belongs in the hands of a neurosurgeon., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: Real-world evidence studies of brivaracetam (BRV) have been restricted in scope, location, and patient numbers. The objective of this pooled analysis was to assess effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in routine practice in a large international population., Methods: EXPERIENCE/EPD332 was a pooled analysis of individual patient records from multiple independent non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy initiating BRV in Australia, Europe, and the United States. Eligible study cohorts were identified via a literature review and engagement with country lead investigators, clinical experts, and local UCB Pharma scientific/medical teams. Included patients initiated BRV no earlier than January 2016 and no later than December 2019, and had ≥ 6 months of follow-up data. The databases for each cohort were reformatted and standardised to ensure information collected was consistent. Outcomes included ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency, seizure freedom (no seizures within 3 months before timepoint), continuous seizure freedom (no seizures from baseline), BRV discontinuation, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients with missing data after BRV discontinuation were considered non-responders/not seizure free. Analyses were performed for all adult patients (≥ 16 years), and for subgroups by seizure type recorded at baseline; by number of prior antiseizure medications (ASMs) at index; by use of BRV as monotherapy versus polytherapy at index; for patients who switched from levetiracetam to BRV versus patients who switched from other ASMs to BRV; and for patients with focal-onset seizures and a BRV dose of ≤ 200 mg/day used as add-on at index. Analysis populations included the full analysis set (FAS; all patients who received at least one BRV dose and had seizure type and age documented at baseline) and the modified FAS (all FAS patients who had at least one seizure recorded during baseline). The FAS was used for all outcomes other than ≥ 50% seizure reduction. All outcomes were summarised using descriptive statistics., Results: Analyses included 1644 adults. At baseline, 72.0% were 16-49 years of age and 92.2% had focal-onset seizures. Patients had a median (Q1, Q3) of 5.0 (2.0, 8.0) prior antiseizure medications at index. At 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, ≥ 50% seizure reduction was achieved by 32.1% (n = 619), 36.7% (n = 867), and 36.9% (n = 822) of patients; seizure freedom rates were 22.4% (n = 923), 17.9% (n = 1165), and 14.9% (n = 1111); and continuous seizure freedom rates were 22.4% (n = 923), 15.7% (n = 1165), and 11.7% (n = 1111). During the whole study follow-up, 551/1639 (33.6%) patients discontinued BRV. TEAEs since prior visit were reported in 25.6% (n = 1542), 14.2% (n = 1376), and 9.3% (n = 1232) of patients at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively., Conclusions: This pooled analysis using data from a variety of real-world settings suggests BRV is effective and well tolerated in routine clinical practice in a highly drug-resistant patient population., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Cannabidiol (CBD) is approved for treatment of Dravet syndrome (DS), Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS), and tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). Several studies suggest antiseizure effects also beyond these three epilepsy syndromes., Methods: In a retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed the efficacy and tolerability of CBD in patients with epilepsy at 16 epilepsy centers., Results: The study cohort comprised 311 patients with epilepsy with a median age of 11.3 (0-72) years (235 children and adolescents, 76 adults). Therapy with CBD was off-label in 91.3% of cases due to age, epilepsy subtype, lack of adjunct therapy with clobazam, and/or higher dose applied. CBD titration regimens were slower than recommended, with good tolerability of higher doses particularly in children. Of all patients, 36.9% experienced a reduction in seizure frequency of >50%, independent of their epilepsy subtype or clobazam co-medication. The median observation period was 15.8 months. About one third of all patients discontinued therapy within the observation period due to adverse effects or lack of efficacy. Adverse effects were reported frequently (46.9%)., Significance: Our study highlights that CBD has an antiseizure effect comparable to other antiseizure medications with a positive safety profile independent of the epilepsy subtype. Comedication with clobazam was not associated with a better outcome. Higher doses to achieve seizure frequency reduction were safe, particularly in children. These findings call for further trials for an extended approval of CBD for other epilepsy subtypes and for children <2 years of age., (© 2023 The Authors. Epilepsia Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.)

Despite the approval of ~20 additional antiseizure medications (ASMs) since the 1980s, one-third of epilepsy patients experience seizures despite therapy. Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) is associated with cognitive and psychiatric comorbidities, socioeconomic impairment, injuries, and a 9.3-13.4 times higher mortality rate than in seizure-free patients. Improved seizure control can reduce morbidity and mortality. Two new ASMs were launched in the United States in 2020: cenobamate for focal epilepsy in adults and fenfluramine for Dravet syndrome (DS). They offer markedly improved efficacy. Cenobamate achieved 21% seizure freedom with the highest dose and decreased tonic-clonic seizures by 93% during maintenance treatment in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). In long-term, open-label studies, 10%-36% of patients were seizure-free for a median duration of ~30-45 months. Fenfluramine treatment in DS reduced convulsive seizure frequency by 56% over placebo at the highest dose, with 8% of patients free of convulsive seizures, and 25% with only one convulsive seizure over 14 weeks. These results were sustained for up to 3 years in open-label extension studies. Mortality was reduced 5-fold. These results are superior to all other approved ASMs, placing these two drugs among the most effective antiseizure therapies. The adverse event profiles resemble those of other ASMs. Despite greater efficacy and similar toxicity, these medications are infrequently used. Two years after US market entry, < 5% of either adults with focal DRE or patients with DS were treated with either cenobamate or fenfluramine. We believe this is a failure of our medical system, resulting from limited knowledge about these drugs stemming partly from the separation of academia from industry; restrictions to access created by health care payors, hospitals, and regulatory agencies; and insufficient post-launch information about the efficacy and safety of these ASMs., (© 2023 International League Against Epilepsy.)

Background: De novo missense variants in KCNQ5, encoding the voltage-gated K + channel K V 7.5, have been described to cause developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (DEE) or intellectual disability (ID). We set out to identify disease-related KCNQ5 variants in genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE) and their underlying mechanisms., Methods: 1292 families with GGE were studied by next-generation sequencing. Whole-cell patch-clamp recordings, biotinylation and phospholipid overlay assays were performed in mammalian cells combined with homology modelling., Findings: We identified three deleterious heterozygous missense variants, one truncation and one splice site alteration in five independent families with GGE with predominant absence seizures; two variants were also associated with mild to moderate ID. All missense variants displayed a strongly decreased current density indicating a loss-of-function (LOF). When mutant channels were co-expressed with wild-type (WT) K V 7.5 or K V 7.5 and K V 7.3 channels, three variants also revealed a significant dominant-negative effect on WT channels. Other gating parameters were unchanged. Biotinylation assays indicated a normal surface expression of the variants. The R359C variant altered PI(4,5)P 2 -interaction., Interpretation: Our study identified deleterious KCNQ5 variants in GGE, partially combined with mild to moderate ID. The disease mechanism is a LOF partially with dominant-negative effects through functional deficits. LOF of K V 7.5 channels will reduce the M-current, likely resulting in increased excitability of K V 7.5-expressing neurons. Further studies on network level are necessary to understand which circuits are affected and how this induces generalized seizures., Funding: DFG/FNR Research Unit FOR-2715 (Germany/Luxemburg), BMBF rare disease network Treat-ION (Germany), foundation 'no epilep' (Germany)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests J. Krüger was financed by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/German Research Foundation (DFG), during the conduct of the study; Dr. Schubert has nothing to disclose; Dr. Kegele has nothing to disclose; A. Labalme has nothing to disclose; Dr. Mao has nothing to disclose; J. Heighway has nothing to disclose; Dr. Seebohm has nothing to disclose; Dr. Yan has nothing to disclose; M. Koko reports grants from DAAD, outside the submitted work; Dr. Aslan has nothing to disclose; Dr. Caglayan has nothing to disclose; Dr. Steinhoff has nothing to disclose; Dr. Weber has nothing to disclose; Dr. Keo Kosal has nothing to disclose; Dr. Berkovic reports grants from NHMRC, during the conduct of the study; grants from UCB Pharma, grants from Eisai, grants from SciGen, personal fees from Bionomics, personal fees from Athena Diagnostics, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. Berkovic has a patent Methods of treatment, and diagnosis of epilepsy by detecting mutations in the SCN1A gene with royalties paid to Patent held by Bionomics Inc. Licensed to Athena Diagnostics; Genetics Technologies Ltd, a patent Diagnostic and Therapeutic Methods for EFMR (Epilepsy and Mental Retardation Limited to Females) with royalties paid to Licensed to Athena Diagnostics, and a patent A gene and mutations thereof associated with seizure and movement disorders (PRRT2) with royalties paid to Licensed to Athena Diagnostics; Dr. Hildebrand has nothing to disclose; Dr. Petrou reports personal fees and other from Praxis Precision Medicines, outside the submitted work; and Dr. Petrou works for a company, Praxis Precision Medicines that develop therapies for neurogenetic disorders such as KCNQ5 (but this is not currently under any consideration); Drs. Krause and May has report grants from the Fond Nationale de la Recherche in Luxembourg; Dr. Lesca has nothing to disclose; Dr. Maljevic has nothing to disclose; Dr. Lerche reports grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG), from the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), grants from Foundation no epilep, during the conduct of the study; outside the submitted work, Dr. Lerche reports a grant from the Else-Kröner Fresenius Foundation (EKFS), a grant and personal fees from Bial, a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from UCB/Zogenix, personal fees from Arvelle/Angelini Pharma, personal fees from Desitin, and personal fees from IntraBio., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Cenobamate is an antiseizure medication (ASM) approved in Europe as adjunctive therapy for adults with inadequately controlled focal seizures. This post hoc analysis reports onset of efficacy and characterizes time to onset, duration, and severity of the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during cenobamate titration., Materials & Methods: Adult patients with uncontrolled focal seizures taking 1 to 3 concomitant ASMs were randomized to receive adjunctive cenobamate or placebo (double-blind studies C013 and C017) or cenobamate (open-label study C021). Outcome assessments included efficacy (median percentage change in seizure frequency and onset [studies C013 and C017]) and safety (onset, duration, and severity of TEAEs [all studies])., Results: Onset of efficacy was observed by Weeks 1 to 4 of titration in studies C013 and C017 which used a faster titration schedule than study CO21. In study C013, the median percentage seizure frequency reduction was 36.7% in patients receiving cenobamate versus 16.3% in those taking placebo (p = .002); in study C017, significant differences in seizure frequency emerged in Week 1 and continued throughout titration between all cenobamate groups and placebo (p < .001). The most commonly reported TEAEs were somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, and headache, with first onset of each reported as early as Week 1; however, the majority resolved., Conclusions: Reductions in seizure frequency occurred during titration with initial efficacy observed prior to reaching the target dose. These reductions were regarded as clinically meaningful because they may indicate early efficacy at lower doses than previously expected and had a considerable impact on patient quality of life. Long-term treatment with adjunctive cenobamate was generally safe and well-tolerated., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study was a pooled analysis of data from 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which people with epilepsy (PWE; focal and generalized) were treated with perampanel (PER). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included 50% responder rate (≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit); in PWE with status epilepticus, response was defined as seizures under control. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. The Full Analysis Set included 5193 PWE. Retention, effectiveness and safety/tolerability were assessed in 4721, 4392 and 4617, respectively. Retention on PER treatment at 3, 6, and 12 months was 90.5%, 79.8%, and 64.2%, respectively. Mean retention time on PER treatment was 10.8 months. The 50% responder rate was 58.3% at 12 months and 50.0% at the last visit, and the corresponding seizure freedom rates were 23.2% and 20.5%, respectively; 52.7% of PWE with status epilepticus responded to PER treatment. Overall, 49.9% of PWE reported AEs and the most frequently reported AEs (≥ 5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (15.2%), somnolence (10.6%), irritability (8.4%), and behavioral disorders (5.4%). At 12 months, 17.6% of PWEs had discontinued due to AEs. PERMIT demonstrated that PER is effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat people with focal and/or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To assess how efficacy and safety outcomes were affected when cenobamate was co-administered with antiseizure medications (ASMs) that use either sodium channel blocker (SCB) or non-sodium channel blocker (non-SCB) mechanisms of action (MoAs) in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures., Methods: An exploratory post-hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study (YKP3089C017) was conducted. Baseline concomitant ASMs were grouped as either those that employed an SCB or non-SCB MoA. Efficacy was examined by cenobamate dose (100 mg, 200 mg, and 400 mg/day) and concomitant ASM group using responder rates (≥50%, ≥75%, ≥90% seizure reduction; 100% seizure reduction/seizure freedom) during the maintenance phase and median percentage seizure reduction during the double-blind period. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were examined in the double-blind period., Results: When co-administered with SCBs or non-SCBs, significantly higher percentages of patients achieved ≥50%, ≥75%, and ≥90% responder rates with cenobamate 200 mg/day and/or 400 mg/day versus placebo. Additionally, significantly higher percentages of patients achieved seizure freedom with cenobamate 400 mg/day versus placebo (SCB group, 17.5% versus 1.2%; non-SCB group, 40.0% versus 0.0%). Patients receiving 200 mg/day and 400 mg/day and concomitant SCBs and all patients taking cenobamate combined with non-SCB concomitant ASMs had significantly greater median percentage reductions in focal seizure frequency versus placebo. TEAEs were similar across groups; however, dizziness was more frequently reported in the SCB group., Conclusion: Cenobamate is a highly effective new treatment option for patients with uncontrolled focal seizures when co-administered with SCB or non-SCB ASMs., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: We determined retention on open-label cenobamate therapy in the clinical development program to assess the long-term efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate in individuals with uncontrolled focal seizures., Methods: Data from two randomized, controlled cenobamate studies and one open-label safety and pharmacokinetic study were pooled. Based on the percentage of participants remaining on treatment, retention rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. We performed two additional analyses to assess factors contributing to retention, stratifying a robust data set (through 2 years) by cenobamate modal dose and frequently used concomitant anti-seizure medications. Cenobamate discontinuations and treatment-emergent adverse events were summarized., Results: Data from 1844 participants were pooled: 149 from a single-dose randomized trial, 355 from a multi-dose randomized trial, and 1340 from an open-label safety and pharmacokinetic study. Most participants from randomized trials continued in open-label extensions, and pooled data represent >95% of participants exposed to cenobamate. Baseline characteristics and disease and treatment histories were similar across studies. Median duration of cenobamate exposure was 34 months, with a median modal dose of 200 mg/day. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative cenobamate retention rates were 80% at 1 year and 72% at 2 years. Once participants reached the maintenance phase, retention rates were consistently high in participants receiving ≥100 mg/day cenobamate, and concomitant anti-seizure medications did not affect long-term retention. By 2 years, 535 (29%) had actually discontinued cenobamate; the most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (37.6%), withdrawal of consent (21.1%), and other (16.8%)., Significance: Treatment retention rates provide a proxy measure for long-term efficacy, safety, tolerability, and adherence. The consistently high retention rates we found suggest that cenobamate may be an effective and well-tolerated new treatment option for people with drug-resistant focal seizures., (© 2021 The Authors. Epilepsia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.)