Faculty Bibliography

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) classification of the epilepsies has been updated to reflect the gain in understanding of the epilepsies and their underlying mechanisms following the major scientific advances that have taken place since the last ratified classification in 1989. As a critical tool for the practicing clinician, epilepsy classification must be relevant and dynamic to changes in thinking, yet robust and translatable to all areas of the globe. Its primary purpose is for the clinical diagnosis of patients but it is also critical for epilepsy research, development of antiepileptic treatment and communication around the world. The new classification is based on a draft document submitted for public comments in 2013, which was revised to incorporate extensive feedback from the international epilepsy community over several rounds of consultation. It consists of three levels starting with seizure type, where it is assumed that the epileptic seizures of the patient are defined by the new 2017 ILAE seizure classification. After diagnosis of the seizure type, the next step is the diagnosis of the epilepsy type, which includes focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy, combined generalized and focal epilepsy and also an unclassified epilepsy group. At the third level the disease is assigned to a specific epilepsy syndrome. The new classification incorporates etiology at each stage, emphasizing the need to consider etiology at each step of the diagnosis, as it often carries significant treatment implications. The various etiologies can be assigned to six subgroups, defined with respect to the potential therapeutic consequences. New terminology is introduced, such as developmental and epileptic encephalopathy. The term benign is replaced by the terms self-limiting and pharmacoresponsive, to be used where appropriate. It is hoped that this new framework will assist in improving epilepsy care and research in the twenty-first century.

Purpose: Evaluate efficacy of CBD added to antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy for the treatment of seizures associated with LGS. Method: Eligible patients were 2-55 years old and had a clinical diagnosis of LGS, >=8 drop seizures during 4 week baseline (>=2/week), and documented failures on >=1 AED. Patients were randomised (1:1) to receive 20 mg/kg/day CBD (oral solution) or matched placebo for 14 weeks (2-week titration; 12-week maintenance). The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change from baseline in drop seizure frequency over the entire 14-week treatment period for patients on CBD vs. placebo. Results: 171 patients were randomised (86 CBD; 85 placebo); 14 CBD and 1 placebo patient withdrew. Groups were similar at baseline; mean age was 15 years (34% of patients >=18 years) and median drop seizures/month was 74. Patients had previously taken a median of 6 AEDs, and were taking a median of 3 concomitant AEDs. CBD resulted in a significantly greater median percent reduction in monthly drop seizures than placebo (44% vs. 22%; p = 0.0135) and a significantly greater >=50% responder rate (44% vs. 24%; p = 0.0043). The treatment difference was established in first 4 weeks of the maintenance period. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 86% of CBD and 69% of placebo patients, and were mostly mild to moderate; those >10% were diarrhoea, somnolence, pyrexia, decreased appetite, and vomiting. Treatment-related serious AEs were reported in 9 CBD patients and 1 placebo patient. Some elevations in transaminases were noted without elevations of bilirubin; most were on concomitant valproate and all resolved. There was 1 death (CBD group), considered unrelated to treatment. Conclusion: Results from this trial suggest that CBD add-on therapy for the treatment of drop seizures associated with LGS may be efficacious, with more AEs than placebo, but generally well tolerated

The major objective of preclinical translational epilepsy research is to advance laboratory findings toward clinical application by testing potential treatments in animal models of seizures and epilepsy. Recently there has been a focus on the failure of preclinical discoveries to translate reliably, or even to be reproduced in different laboratories. One potential cause is a lack of standardization in preclinical data collection. The resulting difficulties in comparing data across studies have led to high cost and missed opportunity, which in turn impede clinical trials and advances in medical care. Preclinical epilepsy research has successfully brought numerous antiseizure treatments into the clinical practice, yet the unmet clinical needs have prompted the reconsideration of research strategies to optimize epilepsy therapy development. In the field of clinical epilepsy there have been successful steps to improve such problems, such as generation of common data elements (CDEs) and case report forms (CRFs and standards of data collection and reporting) by a team of leaders in the field. Therefore, the Translational Task Force was appointed by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) and the American Epilepsy Society (AES), in partnership with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to define CDEs for animal epilepsy research studies and prepare guidelines for data collection and experimental procedures. If adopted, the preclinical CDEs could facilitate collaborative epilepsy research, comparisons of data across different laboratories, and promote rigor, transparency, and impact, particularly in therapy development.

OBJECTIVE:. METHODS:method on three datasets (SeizureTracker: n=3016, Human Epilepsy Project: n=107, and NeuroVista: n=15). An additional independent SeizureTracker validation dataset was used to generate a set of 200 simulated trials each for 5 different sample sizes (total N=100 to 500 by 100), assuming 20% dropout and 30% drug efficacy. "Power" was determined as the percentage of trials successfully distinguishing placebo from drug (p<0.05). RESULTS:analysis achieved >90% power at N=100 per arm while RR50 required N=200 per arm. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:may increase the statistical power of an RCT relative to the traditional RR50.

Among the priority next steps outlined during the first translational epilepsy research workshop in London, United Kingdom (2012), jointly organized by the American Epilepsy Society (AES) and the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE), are the harmonization of research practices used in preclinical studies and the development of infrastructure that facilitates multicenter preclinical studies. The AES/ILAE Translational Task Force of the ILAE has been pursuing initiatives that advance these goals. In this supplement, we present the first reports of the working groups of the Task Force that aim to improve practices of performing rodent video-electroencephalography (vEEG) studies in experimental controls, generate systematic reviews of preclinical research data, and develop preclinical common data elements (CDEs) for epilepsy research in animals.

The randomized controlled trial is the unequivocal gold standard for demonstrating clinical efficacy and safety of investigational therapies. Recently there have been concerns raised about prolonged exposure to placebo and ineffective therapy during the course of an add-on regulatory trial for new antiepileptic drug approval (typically approximately 6 months in duration), due to the potential risks of continued uncontrolled epilepsy for that period. The first meeting of the Research Roundtable in Epilepsy on May 19-20, 2016, focused on "Reducing placebo exposure in epilepsy clinical trials," with a goal of considering new designs for epilepsy regulatory trials that may be added to the overall development plan to make it, as a whole, safer for participants while still providing rigorous evidence of effect. This topic was motivated in part by data from a meta-analysis showing a 3- to 5-fold increased rate of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy in participants randomized to placebo or ineffective doses of new antiepileptic drugs. The meeting agenda included rationale and discussion of different trial designs, including active-control add-on trials, placebo add-on to background therapy with adjustment, time to event designs, adaptive designs, platform trials with pooled placebo control, a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic approach to reducing placebo exposure, and shorter trials when drug tolerance has been ruled out. The merits and limitations of each design were discussed and are reviewed here.