Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The Human Epilepsy Project (HEP) is a large multinational cohort study of people with newly diagnosed and treated focal epilepsy. HEP utilized the Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) as a self-directed online assessment to examine cognitive outcomes in study participants. The CBB has previously been validated in healthy individuals and people with various brain disorders, but its use in adults participating in HEP has not been assessed. In this study, we describe how the CBB was used in the HEP cohort and assess factors associated with test completion among study participants. METHODS:Enrollment data for HEP included 408 participants with comprehensive enrollment records, of whom 249 completed CBB assessments. HEP enrolled cognitively normal-range participants between the ages of 12 and 60 from June 29, 2012, to November 7, 2017, with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and within 4 months of initial treatment. Baseline participant characteristics were analyzed, including demographics, pre-treatment seizure histories, MRI abnormalities, and the presence of any learning difficulties while in school, including formal learning disability diagnoses, repeated grades, and remediation. HEP participant characteristics for those who completed CBB testing were compared to those who did not using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS:The analysis of HEP participants who completed CBB testing showed that, after controlling for other factors, male participants were more likely to engage in testing (OR 2.14, 95 % CI 1.29 to 3.5, p < 0.01), Black subjects were less likely (OR 0.45, 95 % CI 0.22 to 0.9, p = 0.02), primary English speakers were more likely (OR 3.1, 95 % CI 1.21 to 7.96, p = 0.02), and those with a history of learning challenges were less likely (OR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.49 to 0.97, p = 0.03). There were no significant associations between completing CBB testing and age, employment (employed or student vs not), education (higher education vs not), diagnostic delay, pre-diagnostic seizure burden, or initial seizure semiology (motor vs non-motor). SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:The findings from this study highlight factors associated with the application of remote and unsupervised assessments of cognition in a prospective cohort of adults with focal epilepsy. These factors can be considered when interpreting performance on the CBB in HEP, as well as assisting the design of future studies that use similar approaches.

OBJECTIVE:To characterize the experience of people with epilepsy and aligned healthcare workers (HCWs) during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic and compare experiences in high-income countries (HICs) with non-HICs. METHODS:Separate surveys for people with epilepsy and HCWs were distributed online in April 2020. Responses were collected to September 2021. Data were collected for COVID-19 infections, the effect of COVID-related restrictions, access to specialist help for epilepsy (people with epilepsy), and the impact of the pandemic on work productivity (HCWs). The frequency of responses for non-HICs and HICs were compared using non-parametric Chi-square tests. RESULTS:Two thousand one hundred and  five individuals with epilepsy from 53 countries and 392 HCWs from 26 countries provided data. The same proportion of people with epilepsy in non-HICs and HICs reported COVID-19 infection (7%). Those in HICs were more likely to report that COVID-19 measures had affected their health (32% vs. 23%; p < 0.001). There was no difference between non-HICs and HICs in the proportion who reported difficulty in obtaining help for epilepsy. HCWs in non-HICs were more likely to report COVID-19 infection than those in HICs (18% vs 6%; p = 0.001) and that their clinical work had been affected by concerns about contracting COVID-19, lack of personal protective equipment, and the impact of the pandemic on mental health (all p < 0.001). Compared to pre-pandemic practices, there was a significant shift to remote consultations in both non-HICs and HICs (p < 0.001). SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:While the frequency of COVID-19 infection was relatively low in these data from early in the pandemic, our findings suggest broader health consequences and an increased psychosocial burden, particularly among HCWs in non-HICs. Planning for future pandemics should prioritize mental healthcare alongside ensuring access to essential epilepsy services and expanding and enhancing access to remote consultations. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:We asked people with epilepsy about the effects of COVID-19 on their health and healthcare. We wanted to compare responses from people in high-income countries and other countries. We found that people in high-income countries and other countries had similar levels of difficulty in getting help for their epilepsy. People in high-income countries were more likely to say that their general health had been affected. Healthcare workers in non-high-income settings were more likely to have contracted COVID-19 and have the care they deliver affected by the pandemic. Across all settings, COVID-19 associated with a large shift to remote consultations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Participants with treatment-resistant epilepsy who are randomized to add-on placebo and remain in a trial for the typical 3 to 5-month maintenance period may be at increased risk of adverse outcomes. A novel trial design has been suggested, time to prerandomization monthly seizure count (T-PSC), which would limit participants' time on ineffective therapy. We reanalyzed 11 completed trials to determine whether the primary efficacy conclusions at T-PSC matched each of the original, longer trials. METHODS:A total of 11 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of levetiracetam, brivaracetam, lacosamide, topiramate, and lamotrigine for either focal-onset or generalized-onset epilepsy were selected. We evaluated the group-level and individual-level efficacy of treatments including the median percent reduction (MPR) in seizure frequency and 50% responder rate (50RR) at T-PSC, time to second seizure, and time to first seizure compared with the full-length trial. RESULTS:The primary efficacy conclusions of 10 of the 11 trials would have been the same with a T-PSC design compared with the traditional design (the exception of lamotrigine had a very high initial placebo response). As a proportion of the full-length effect size, 90% of the MPR and 85% of the 50RR were seen at T-PSC (95% CI 73%-113% and 65%-110%, respectively). Using the T-PSC design, the time on blinded treatment was at least 312 participant-years shorter (40% of total duration) and 142,000 seizures occurred during this time (60% of total seizures). By contrast, the time to first or second seizure designs reproduced group-level effect size, but the primary efficacy conclusions of each trial and individual-level efficacy correspondence were fair to poor. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:These results support the use of this trial design for new epilepsy medication trials because this reanalysis of 11 randomized controlled trials demonstrated that observation until T-PSC was sufficient to demonstrate efficacy while potentially improving participant safety by reducing the time of exposure to placebo and inadequate treatment. Despite analysis of 11 trials including 3,619 participants, we did not observe a significant reduction in the group-level effect size, which is directly related to statistical power. The next step is to evaluate whether T-PSC is sufficient to evaluate safety as measured by adverse events.

OBJECTIVE:Static assignment of participants in randomized clinical trials to placebo or ineffective treatment confers risk from continued seizures. An alternative trial design of time to exceed prerandomization monthly seizure count (T-PSC) has replicated the efficacy conclusions of traditionally designed trials, with shorter exposure to placebo and ineffective treatment. Trials aim to evaluate efficacy as well as safety and tolerability; therefore, we evaluated whether this T-PSC design also could replicate the trial's safety and tolerability conclusions. METHODS:We retrospectively applied the T-PSC design to analyze treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) from a blinded, placebo-controlled trial of perampanel for primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (NCT01393743). The safety analysis set consisted of 81 and 82 participants randomized to perampanel and placebo arms, respectively. We evaluated the incidences of TEAEs, treatment-related TEAEs, serious TEAEs, and TEAEs of special interest that occurred before T-PSC relative to those observed during the full-length trial. RESULTS:Of the 67 and 59 participants who experienced TEAEs in the perampanel and placebo arms during full-length trial, 66 (99%) and 54 (92%) participants experienced TEAEs with onset occurring before T-PSC, respectively. When limited to treatment-related TEAEs, 55 of 56 (98%) and 32 of 37 (86%) participants reported treatment-related TEAEs that occurred before T-PSC in the perampanel and placebo arms, respectively. There were more TEAEs after T-PSC with placebo as compared to perampanel (Fisher exact odds ratio = 8.6, p = .035), which resulted in overestimation of the difference in TEAE rate. There was a numerical reduction in serious TEAEs (3/13 occurred after T-PSC, one in placebo and two in perampanel). SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Almost all TEAEs occurred before T-PSC. More treatment-related TEAEs occurred after T-PSC for participants randomized to placebo than perampanel, which may be due to either a shorter T-PSC or delayed time to TEAE for placebo.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Individuals with epilepsy have increased risk of suicidal ideation (SI) and behaviors when compared with the general population. This relationship has remained largely unexplored in adolescents. We investigated the prevalence of suicidality in adolescents with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy within 4 months of treatment initiation and over the following 36 months. METHODS:This was a post hoc analysis of the enrollment and follow-up data from the Human Epilepsy Project, an international, multi-institutional study that enrolled participants between 2012 and 2017. Participants enrolled were 11-17 years of age within 4 months of treatment initiation for focal epilepsy. We used data from the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), administered at enrollment and over the 36-month follow-up period, along with data from medical records. RESULTS:A total of 66 adolescent participants were enrolled and completed the C-SSRS. At enrollment, 14 (21%) had any lifetime SI and 5 (8%) had any lifetime suicidal behaviors (SBs). Over the following 36 months, 6 adolescents reported new onset SI and 5 adolescents reported new onset SB. Thus, the lifetime prevalence of SI within this population increased from 21% to 30% (14-20 adolescents), and the lifetime prevalence of SB increased from 8% to 15% (5-10). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The prevalence of suicidality in adolescents with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy reported in our study is consistent with previous findings of significant suicidality observed in epilepsy. We identify adolescents as an at-risk population at the time of epilepsy diagnosis and in the following years.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:This study aims to validate the Seizure-Related Impact Assessment Scale (SERIAS). This novel patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) compares the 'trade-off' between seizures and treatment-related adverse effects, and measures epilepsy disability qualitatively and quantitively. It fills an important gap in PROMs for epilepsy clinical trials and practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS/METHODS:Adults with epileptologist-confirmed epilepsy from two Australian Epilepsy Centres are being recruited. People with functional seizures, or who are unable to self-complete English-language validated instruments are excluded. Participants providing informed consent are invited to complete questionnaires at baseline, 3 and 6 months later. SERIAS includes five questions that ask about the number of days per month that seizures or treatment-related adverse effects partially or fully impact work/home/school and family/social/non-work activities, as well as a visual analogue scale regarding epilepsy-related disability. SERIAS is completed alongside seven internationally validated instruments measuring treatment-related adverse effects, mood disorders and quality of life. Target recruitment is n=100, ensuring>50 people complete all questionnaires at all timepoints. Comprehensive psychometric analysis will be performed. Convergent validity will be investigated using bivariate correlations with relevant measures. Reliability will be investigated using Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega and test-retest correlation coefficients. SERIAS will be a novel PROM for epilepsy clinical trials and practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION/BACKGROUND:Multisite ethics approval was granted by the Alfred Health Ethics Committee (HREC 17/23). Results of this study will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER/BACKGROUND:ACTRN12623000599673.

This practice guideline provides updated evidence-based conclusions and recommendations regarding the effects of antiseizure medications (ASMs) and folic acid supplementation on the prevalence of major congenital malformations (MCMs), adverse perinatal outcomes, and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children born to people with epilepsy of childbearing potential (PWECP). A multidisciplinary panel conducted a systematic review and developed practice recommendations following the process outlined in the 2017 edition of the American Academy of Neurology Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual. The systematic review includes studies through August 2022. Recommendations are supported by structured rationales that integrate evidence from the systematic review, related evidence, principles of care, and inferences from evidence. The following are some of the major recommendations. When treating PWECP, clinicians should recommend ASMs and doses that optimize both seizure control and fetal outcomes should pregnancy occur, at the earliest possible opportunity preconceptionally. Clinicians must minimize the occurrence of convulsive seizures in PWECP during pregnancy to minimize potential risks to the birth parent and to the fetus. Once a PWECP is already pregnant, clinicians should exercise caution in attempting to remove or replace an ASM that is effective in controlling generalized tonic-clonic or focal-to-bilateral tonic-clonic seizures. Clinicians must consider using lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or oxcarbazepine in PWECP when appropriate based on the patient's epilepsy syndrome, likelihood of achieving seizure control, and comorbidities, to minimize the risk of MCMs. Clinicians must avoid the use of valproic acid in PWECP to minimize the risk of MCMs or neural tube defects (NTDs), if clinically feasible. Clinicians should avoid the use of valproic acid or topiramate in PWECP to minimize the risk of offspring being born small for gestational age, if clinically feasible. To reduce the risk of poor neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorder and lower IQ, in children born to PWECP, clinicians must avoid the use of valproic acid in PWECP, if clinically feasible. Clinicians should prescribe at least 0.4 mg of folic acid supplementation daily preconceptionally and during pregnancy to any PWECP treated with an ASM to decrease the risk of NTDs and possibly improve neurodevelopmental outcomes in the offspring.

OBJECTIVE:A previous investigation of people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy participating in the Human Epilepsy Project 1 (HEP1) revealed an association between learning difficulties and structural brain differences, suggesting an underlying relationship prior to seizure onset. To investigate physicians' practices of documentation learning difficulties during clinical encounters, we conducted a review of initial epileptologist encounter notes from HEP1 participants who self-reported early life learning difficulties separately as part of study enrollment. METHODS:HEP1 enrolled 67 North American participants between June 2012 and November 2017 who self-reported one or more difficulties with learning (i.e., having repeated grade, receiving learning support/remediation, and/or formal diagnosis of a learning disability) prior to epilepsy diagnosis as part of the study enrollment. The epileptologist's initial encounter note was then reviewed in detail for each of these participants. Documentation of learning issues and specific diagnoses of learning disabilities was compared to participant characteristics. Regression analysis was used to test for any independent associations between participant characteristics and physician documentation of learning difficulties. RESULTS:There were significant independent relationships between age, sex, and physician documentation of learning difficulties. On average, participants ages 22 and younger were 12.12 times more likely to have their learning difficulties documented compared to those 23 years and older (95 % CI: 2.226 to 66.02, p = 0.004). Additionally, male participants had 7.2 times greater odds of having their learning difficulty documented compared to female participants (95 % CI: 1.538 to 33.717, p = 0.012). There were no significant independent associations between race, language, employment, or geographical region. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:These findings highlight disparities in physician documentation for people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and a history of learning difficulties. In the HEP1 cohort, physicians were more likely to document learning difficulties in males and in younger individuals. Systematic practice standards are important for reducing healthcare disparities across populations, improving clinical care to individuals, as well as enabling more accurate retrospective study of clinical phenomenon.

Racial disparities affect multiple dimensions of epilepsy care including epilepsy surgery. This study aims to further explore these disparities by determining the utilization of invasive neuromodulation devices according to race and ethnicity in a multicenter study of patients living with focal drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). We performed a post hoc analysis of the Human Epilepsy Project 2 (HEP2) data. HEP2 is a prospective study of patients living with focal DRE involving 10 sites distributed across the United States. There were no statistical differences in the racial distribution of the study population compared to the US population using census data except for patients reporting more than one race. Of 154 patients enrolled in HEP2, 55 (36%) underwent invasive neuromodulation for DRE management at some point in the course of their epilepsy. Of those, 36 (71%) were patients who identified as White. Patients were significantly less likely to have a device if they identified solely as Black/African American than if they did not (odds ratio = .21, 95% confidence interval = .05-.96, p = .03). Invasive neuromodulation for management of DRE is underutilized in the Black/African American population, indicating a new facet of racial disparities in epilepsy care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Many adolescents with undiagnosed focal epilepsy seek evaluation in emergency departments (EDs). Accurate history-taking is essential to prompt diagnosis and treatment. In this study, we investigated ED recognition of motor vs nonmotor seizures and its effect on management and treatment of focal epilepsy in adolescents. METHODS:This was a retrospective analysis of enrollment data from the Human Epilepsy Project (HEP), an international multi-institutional study that collected data from 34 sites between 2012 and 2017. Participants were 12 years or older, neurotypical, and within 4 months of treatment initiation for focal epilepsy. We used HEP enrollment medical records to review participants' initial diagnosis and management. RESULTS:= 0.03) and occurred in both pediatric and nonpediatric ED settings. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our study supports growing evidence that nonmotor seizures are often undiagnosed, with many individuals coming to attention only after conversion to motor seizures. We found this treatment gap is exacerbated in the adolescent population. Our study highlights a critical need for physicians to inquire about the symptoms of nonmotor seizures, even when the presenting seizure is motor. Future interventions should focus on improving nonmotor seizure recognition for this population in EDs.