Faculty Bibliography

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.

In animal models, inflammation is both a cause and consequence of seizures. Less is known about the role of inflammation in human epilepsy. We performed positron emission tomography (PET) using a radiotracer sensitive to brain inflammation in a patient with frontal epilepsy ~36 h after a seizure as well as during a seizure-free period. When statistically compared to a group of 12 matched controls, both of the patient's scans identified a frontal (supplementary motor area) region of increased inflammation corresponding to his clinically defined seizure focus, but the postseizure scan showed significantly greater inflammation intensity and spatial extent. These results provide new information about transient and chronic neuroinflammation in human epilepsy and may be relevant to understanding the process of epileptogenesis and guiding therapy.

Purpose: Patients enrolled in clinical trials should be accurately classified to meet inclusion criteria. We assessed how many patients screened for enrollment in a randomized placebo-controlled study of drug-resistant primary generalized tonic-clonic (PGTC) seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE), using the noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist perampanel, were rejected due to inaccurate classification when reviewed independently by The Epilepsy Study Consortium (TESC). Method: Patients were reviewed by TESC to ensure a clear IGE diagnosis. Sites submitted all information used to determine each diagnosis. Patients were excluded if submitted information could not confirm an IGE diagnosis (e.g. only GTC seizures and a normal EEG with no family history or supporting seizure types) or showed an incorrect IGE diagnosis (e.g. slow spike-wave, developmental delay, age of onset <1 year, or symptomatic cause). Patients considered ineligible were sent to a second, independent TESC reviewer. If both reviewers agreed, the patient was screen failed. If they disagreed, a third reviewer made the final decision. Results: Of 307 patients screened, 143 patients failed (not meeting inclusion criteria; n = 117). Of these, 70/117 patients failed only after TESC review (IGE misdiagnosis [n = 35]; insufficient information to confirm diagnosis [n = 35]). A third reviewer made the final decision twice. Ultimately 164 patients received perampanel or placebo (1:1) highlighting that TESC review eliminated 70/234 (29.9%) patients initially considered eligible. The trial demonstrated a median percent change in PGTC seizure frequency per 28 days during Titration/Maintenance Periods versus Baseline of -76.5% perampanel versus -38.4% placebo; p < 0.0001. Conclusion: TESC review eliminated 29.9% inappropriate patients from inclusion. This was the first PGTCS study that used external review to ensure appropriate classification of trial participants. Without such a review, the interpretability of results may be compromised

Despite the current availability in the market of over two dozen antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), about one third of people with epilepsy fail to achieve complete freedom from seizures with existing medications. Moreover, currently available AEDs have significant limitations in terms of safety, tolerability and propensity to cause or be a target for clinically important adverse drug interactions. A review of the evidence shows that there are many misperceptions about the viability of investing into new therapies for epilepsy. In fact, there are clear incentives to develop newer and more efficacious medications. Developing truly innovative drugs requires a shift in the paradigms for drug discovery, which is already taking place by building on greatly expanded knowledge about the mechanisms involved in epileptogenesis, seizure generation, seizure spread and development of co-morbidities. AED development can also benefit by a review of the methodology currently applied in clinical AED development, in order to address a number of ethical and scientific concerns. As discussed in this article, many processes of clinical drug development, from proof-of-concept-studies to ambitious programmes aimed at demonstrating antiepileptogenesis and disease-modification, can be facilitated by a greater integration of preclinical and clinical science, and by application of knowledge acquired during decades of controlled epilepsy trials.

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the only neurotherapeutics for which regulatory approval is consistently separated into monotherapy or adjunctive-therapy indications. Because head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (used in the European Union to approve drugs for monotherapy) have not shown substantial differences in efficacy between drugs, FDA approval for use of an AED as monotherapy has typically been based on trials with novel designs that have been criticised for reasons of ethics and clinical relevance. Many new-generation AEDs have not been approved for monotherapy, causing drug labelling and real-world use to be increasingly inconsistent, with negative consequences for patients. The regulatory requirement for separate monotherapy and adjunctive-therapy indications in epilepsy is unnecessarily restrictive. We recommend that regulatory agencies approve AEDs for the treatment of specific seizure types or epilepsy syndromes, irrespective of concomitant drug use.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) contain evidence-based recommendations to guide clinical care, policy development, and quality of care improvement. A recent systematic review of epilepsy guidelines identified considerable variability in the quality of available guidelines. Although excellent frameworks for CPG development exist, processes are not followed uniformly internationally, and resources to develop CPGs may be limited in certain settings. An International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) working group was charged with proposing methodology to guide the development of future epilepsy-specific CPGs. A comprehensive literature search (1985-2014) identified articles related to CPG development and handbooks. Guideline handbooks were included if they were publicly available, and if their methodology had been used to develop CPGs. The working group's expertise also informed the creation of methodologies and processes to develop future CPGs for the ILAE. Five handbooks from North America (American Academy of Neurology), Europe (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network & National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), Australia (National Health and Medical Research Council), World Health Organization (WHO), and additional references were identified to produce evidence-based, consensus-driven methodology for development of epilepsy-specific CPGs. Key components of CPG development include the following: identifying the topic and defining the scope; establishing a working group; identifying and evaluating the evidence; formulating recommendations and determining strength of recommendations; obtaining peer reviews; dissemination, implementation, and auditing; and updating and retiring the CPG. A practical handbook and toolkit was developed. The resulting CPG development toolkit should facilitate the development of high-quality ILAE CPGs to improve the care of persons with epilepsy.