Faculty Bibliography

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) presents a revised operational classification of seizure types. The purpose of such a revision is to recognize that some seizure types can have either a focal or generalized onset, to allow classification when the onset is unobserved, to include some missing seizure types, and to adopt more transparent names. Because current knowledge is insufficient to form a scientifically based classification, the 2017 Classification is operational (practical) and based on the 1981 Classification, extended in 2010. Changes include the following: (1) "partial" becomes "focal"; (2) awareness is used as a classifier of focal seizures; (3) the terms dyscognitive, simple partial, complex partial, psychic, and secondarily generalized are eliminated; (4) new focal seizure types include automatisms, behavior arrest, hyperkinetic, autonomic, cognitive, and emotional; (5) atonic, clonic, epileptic spasms, myoclonic, and tonic seizures can be of either focal or generalized onset; (6) focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizure replaces secondarily generalized seizure; (7) new generalized seizure types are absence with eyelid myoclonia, myoclonic absence, myoclonic-atonic, myoclonic-tonic-clonic; and (8) seizures of unknown onset may have features that can still be classified. The new classification does not represent a fundamental change, but allows greater flexibility and transparency in naming seizure types.

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 x 10(-8); familial non acquired focal epilepsy 3.6, 2.7-4.9, p=1.1 x 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 x 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 I 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.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of functional MRI (fMRI) in determining lateralization and predicting postsurgical language and memory outcomes. METHODS: An 11-member panel evaluated and rated available evidence according to the 2004 American Academy of Neurology process. At least 2 panelists reviewed the full text of 172 articles and selected 37 for data extraction. Case reports, reports with <15 cases, meta-analyses, and editorials were excluded. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The use of fMRI may be considered an option for lateralizing language functions in place of intracarotid amobarbital procedure (IAP) in patients with medial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE; Level C), temporal epilepsy in general (Level C), or extratemporal epilepsy (Level C). For patients with temporal neocortical epilepsy or temporal tumors, the evidence is insufficient (Level U). fMRI may be considered to predict postsurgical language deficits after anterior temporal lobe resection (Level C). The use of fMRI may be considered for lateralizing memory functions in place of IAP in patients with MTLE (Level C) but is of unclear utility in other epilepsy types (Level U). fMRI of verbal memory or language encoding should be considered for predicting verbal memory outcome (Level B). fMRI using nonverbal memory encoding may be considered for predicting visuospatial memory outcomes (Level C). Presurgical fMRI could be an adequate alternative to IAP memory testing for predicting verbal memory outcome (Level C). Clinicians should carefully advise patients of the risks and benefits of fMRI vs IAP during discussions concerning choice of specific modality in each case.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines medication adherence among women with epilepsy via use of an electronic diary, as part of a prospective multicenter observational study designed to evaluate fertility in women with epilepsy (WWE) versus age-matched controls. METHODS: WWE and healthy age-matched controls, seeking pregnancy, were given an iPod Touch using a customized mobile application (the WEPOD App) for daily data tracking. Eighty-six WWE tracked seizures and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Tracking of nonepilepsy medications was optional. Diary data were counted from enrollment date until date of delivery, or up to 12 months if pregnancy was not achieved. Each day that subjects reported missing one or more AED was counted as nonadherence. Because adherence can only be determined in women who track consistently, we elected to include adherence data only for women who tracked >80% of days in the study. RESULTS: Approximately 75% of WWE tracked >80% of days and were included in medication adherence data analysis. In this group, medication adherence rate was 97.71%; 44% of women admitted to missing an AED on at least 1 day. Among the subgroup of WWE who recorded nonepilepsy medications, AED adherence rate was 98.56%, versus 93.91% for non-AEDs. SIGNIFICANCE: The 75% compliance rate with an electronic diary suggests that it may be useful to track medication adherence in future studies and in the clinical setting. In those who tracked, the observed medication adherence rate was considerably higher than the 75% adherence rate seen in previous epilepsy studies. This might be explained in part by selection bias, but may also result from properties of the diary itself (daily reminders, real time feedback given to the provider). Women reported a higher rate of adherence to AEDs than to other prescribed medications and supplements, suggesting that perceived importance of medications likely influences medication adherence, and warrants future study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if anti-mullerian hormone (AMH), a neuroactive peptide hormone and a measure of ovarian reserve, is different between women with epilepsy (WWE) and healthy controls (HC) seeking pregnancy and to evaluate epilepsy-related factors associated with AMH concentrations. METHODS: Subjects were participants in Women with Epilepsy: Pregnancy Outcomes and Deliveries (WEPOD), a multi-center prospective, observational cohort study evaluating fecundity in WWE compared to HC, ages 18-40 years. WWE were divided into a Sz+ group or a Sz- group, dependent on whether they had seizures within the 9 months prior to enrollment. Serum was collected, and AMH concentrations were measured as an exploratory analysis. Linear and logistic regression models were used to assess associations and control for covariates. RESULTS: Serum AMH concentrations were measured in 72 out of 90 enrolled WWE and 97 out of 109 HC; the remaining subjects became pregnant before serum was obtained. Thirty WWE were in the Sz+ group and 40 in the Sz- group (retrospective seizure information was missing for two). All AMH concentrations were within the range, however, the normal inverse correlation between age and AMH was present in the HC and in the Sz- groups, but was lacking in the Sz+ group. Mean AMH concentration was higher in the Sz- group (3982pg/ml (SD+/-2452)) compared to the Sz+ group of WWE (2776pg/ml (SD+/-2308)) and HCs (3241 (SD+/-2647)). All values were within the expected range for age. In WWE, by linear regression, after controlling for age and BMI, seizure occurrence remained associated with AMH (p=0.025). In the prospective phase of the study, AMH concentrations were also associated with seizure occurrence during the menstrual cycle in which the serum sample was obtained (p=0.012). Antiepileptic drugs and other epilepsy factors were not associated with AMH concentrations. When analyzing the Sz- WWE group and the HC group by linear regression with AMH as the dependent variable, after controlling for age and BMI, the association with AMH was also present (p=0.017). AMH concentrations of the Sz+ group and HCs did not differ. SIGNIFICANCE: In this exploratory analysis, seizure freedom was associated with higher AMH concentrations compared to women with ongoing seizures and to HCs. Future studies should further investigate the mechanism of the association of AMH with seizure occurrence, whether AMH could have a direct seizure-protective neuroactive hormone effect, as well as implications of AMH concentrations as a biomarker for ovarian reserve in women with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND:Everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, has been used for various benign tumours associated with tuberous sclerosis complex. We assessed the efficacy and safety of two trough exposure concentrations of everolimus, 3-7 ng/mL (low exposure) and 9-15 ng/mL (high exposure), compared with placebo as adjunctive therapy for treatment-resistant focal-onset seizures in tuberous sclerosis complex. METHODS:In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, eligible patients aged 2-65 years with tuberous sclerosis complex and treatment-resistant seizures (≥16 in an 8-week baseline phase) receiving one to three concomitant antiepileptic drugs were recruited from 99 centres across 25 countries. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via permuted-block randomisation (block size of six) implemented by Interactive Response Technology software, to receive placebo, low-exposure everolimus, or high-exposure everolimus. Randomisation was stratified by age subgroup (<6 years, 6 to <12 years, 12 to <18 years, and ≥18 years). Patients, investigators, site personnel, and the sponsor's study team were masked to treatment allocation. The starting dose of everolimus depended on age, body-surface area, and concomitant use of cytochrome 3A4/P-glycoprotein inducers. Dose adjustments were done to attain target trough ranges during a 6-week titration period, and as needed during a 12-week maintenance period of core phase. Patients or their caregivers recorded events in a seizure diary throughout the study. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in the frequency of seizures during the maintenance period, defined as response rate (the proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) and median percentage reduction in seizure frequency, in all randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01713946. FINDINGS:Between July 3, 2013, and May 29, 2015, 366 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to placebo (n=119), low-exposure everolimus, (n=117), or high-exposure everolimus (n=130). The response rate was 15·1% with placebo (95% CI 9·2-22·8; 18 patients) compared with 28·2% for low-exposure everolimus (95% CI 20·3-37·3; 33 patients; p=0·0077) and 40·0% for high-exposure everolimus (95% CI 31·5-49·0; 52 patients; p<0·0001). The median percentage reduction in seizure frequency was 14·9% (95% CI 0·1-21·7) with placebo versus 29·3% with low-exposure everolimus (95% CI 18·8-41·9; p=0·0028) and 39·6% with high-exposure everolimus (95% CI 35·0-48·7; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 13 (11%) patients in the placebo group, 21 (18%) in the low-exposure group, and 31 (24%) in the high-exposure group. Serious adverse events were reported in three (3%) patients who received placebo, 16 (14%) who received low-exposure everolimus, and 18 (14%) who received high-exposure everolimus. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in two (2%) patients in the placebo group versus six (5%) in the low-exposure group and four (3%) in the high-exposure group. INTERPRETATION:Adjunctive everolimus treatment significantly reduced seizure frequency with a tolerable safety profile compared with placebo in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex and treatment-resistant seizures. FUNDING:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative safety and adjunctive efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency in patients with partial-onset seizures based on prestudy modeling showing superior efficacy for pregabalin. METHODS: The design of this comparative efficacy and safety study of pregabalin and gabapentin as adjunctive treatment in adults with refractory partial-onset seizures was randomized, flexible dose, double blind, and parallel group. The study included a 6-week baseline and a 21-week treatment phase. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate to the treatment phase. RESULTS: A total of 484 patients were randomized to pregabalin (n = 242) or gabapentin (n = 242). Of these, 359 patients (187 pregabalin, 172 gabapentin) completed the treatment phase. The observed median and mean in percentage change from baseline was -58.65 and -47.7 (SD 48.3) for pregabalin and -57.43 and -45.28 (SD 60.6) for gabapentin. For the primary endpoint, there was no significant difference between treatments. The Hodges-Lehman estimated median difference was 0.0 (95% confidence interval -6.0 to 7.0). Safety profiles were comparable and consistent with prior trials. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of the anticipated efficacy difference based on modeling of prior, nearly identical trials and the larger-than-expected response rates of the 2 antiepileptic drugs were unexpected. These findings raise questions that are potentially important to consider in future comparative efficacy trials. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00537940. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with partial seizures enrolled in this study, pregabalin is not superior to gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency. Because of the atypical response rates, the results of this study are poorly generalizable to other epilepsy populations.

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder in adults and requires treatment with antiepileptic medication. While the majority of patients with epilepsy can be treated with medication, about one third will fail on medical treatment. Therefore, other treatment options such as surgery, devices, and the ketogenic diet are other options to consider, in addition to medical treatment. The treatment of epilepsy requires many other factors to be taken into consideration, and these include, but are not limited to, age, gender, coexistent medical conditions, and the use of concomitant medications. The goal of treatment is to provide optimal seizure control while using the least possible number of medications, particularly for young females at reproductive age or the elderly who may suffer from other medical diseases and receive other concomitant medications. Certain conditions may co-exist with epilepsy, such as migraine, mood disorder, and memory disturbances, therefore the decision to choose the most appropriate medication for epilepsy patients should also involve treatment of these conditions. Here, we review current clinical practice in epilepsy and focus on the most common problems and conditions that clinicians face on a daily basis to treat adult patients with epilepsy. Side effect profiles, spectrum of efficacy and optimal choices per predominant type of seizures are summarized and can be used for educational purposes.

The ILAE Task Force on Classification presents a road map for the development of an updated, relevant classification of the epilepsies. Our objective is to explain the process to date and the plan moving forward as well as to invite further discussion about the newly proposed terms and concepts. Here, we present our response to feedback about the 2010 Organization of the Epilepsies and clarify the reintroduction of the word "classification" to map out a framework for epilepsy diagnosis. We introduce some new concepts and suggest four diagnostic levels: seizure type, epilepsy category, epilepsy syndrome, and epilepsy with (specific) etiology to denote specific levels of diagnosis. We expand the etiological categories to six, focusing on those with treatment implications. Finally, we discuss the changes in terminology originally suggested and modifications in response to comments from the epilepsy community. We welcome feedback and discussion from the global epilepsy community, particularly for the new suggested terms, so that we can cement a classification that both reflects current thinking and scientific understanding and provides a dynamic, evolving framework.