Faculty Bibliography

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.

Epilepsy diagnosis is often delayed or inaccurate, exposing people to ongoing seizures and their substantial consequences until effective treatment is initiated. Important factors contributing to this problem include delayed recognition of seizure symptoms by patients and eyewitnesses; cultural, geographical, and financial barriers to seeking health care; and missed or delayed diagnosis by health-care providers. Epilepsy diagnosis involves several steps. The first step is recognition of epileptic seizures; next is classification of epilepsy type and whether an epilepsy syndrome is present; finally, the underlying epilepsy-associated comorbidities and potential causes must be identified, which differ across the lifespan. Clinical history, elicited from patients and eyewitnesses, is a fundamental component of the diagnostic pathway. Recent technological advances, including smartphone videography and genetic testing, are increasingly used in routine practice. Innovations in technology, such as artificial intelligence, could provide new possibilities for directly and indirectly detecting epilepsy and might make valuable contributions to diagnostic algorithms in the future.

Substantial efforts are underway towards optimizing the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of seizures and epilepsy. We describe preclinical programs in place for screening investigational therapeutic candidates in animal models, with particular attention to identifying and eliminating drugs that might paradoxically aggravate seizure burden. After preclinical development, we discuss challenges and solutions in the design and regulatory logistics of clinical trials execution, and efforts to develop disease biomarkers and interventions that may be not only seizure-suppressing, but also disease-modifying. As disease-modifying treatments are designed, there is clear recognition that, while seizures represent one critical therapeutic target, targeting non-seizure outcomes like cognitive development or functional outcomes requires changes to traditional designs. This reflects our increasing understanding that epilepsy is a disease with profound impact on quality of life for the patient and caregivers due to both seizures themselves as well as other non-seizure factors. This review examines selected key challenges and future directions in epilepsy diagnostics and therapeutics from drug discovery to translational application.

The field of epilepsy has undergone substantial advances as we develop novel drugs and devices. Yet considerable challenges remain in developing broadly effective, well-tolerated treatments, but also precision treatments for rare epilepsies and seizure-monitoring devices. We summarize major recent and ongoing innovations in diagnostic and therapeutic products presented at the seventeenth Epilepsy Therapies & Diagnostics Development (ETDD) conference, which occurred May 31 to June 2, 2023, in Aventura, Florida. Therapeutics under development are targeting genetics, ion channels and other neurotransmitters, and many other potentially first-in-class interventions such as stem cells, glycogen metabolism, cholesterol, the gut microbiome, and novel modalities for delivering electrical neuromodulation.

A variety of terms, such as "antiepileptic," "anticonvulsant," and "antiseizure" have been historically applied to medications for the treatment of seizure disorders. Terminology is important because using terms that do not accurately reflect the action of specific treatments may result in a misunderstanding of their effects and inappropriate use. The present International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) position paper used a Delphi approach to develop recommendations on English-language terminology applicable to pharmacological agents currently approved for treating seizure disorders. There was consensus that these medications should be collectively named "antiseizure medications". This term accurately reflects their primarily symptomatic effect against seizures and reduces the possibility of health care practitioners, patients, or caregivers having undue expectations or an incorrect understanding of the real action of these medications. The term "antiseizure" to describe these agents does not exclude the possibility of beneficial effects on the course of the disease and comorbidities that result from the downstream effects of seizures, whenever these beneficial effects can be explained solely by the suppression of seizure activity. It is acknowledged that other treatments, mostly under development, can exert direct favorable actions on the underlying disease or its progression, by having "antiepileptogenic" or "disease-modifying" effects. A more-refined terminology to describe precisely these actions needs to be developed.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of common interview questions used to distinguish a diagnosis of epilepsy from seizure mimics including non-epileptic seizures (NES), migraine, and syncope. METHODS:200 outpatients were recruited with an established diagnosis of focal epilepsy (n = 50), NES (n = 50), migraine (n = 50), and syncope (n = 50). Patients completed an eight-item, yes-or-no online questionnaire about symptoms related to their events. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Using a weighted scoring for the questions alone with baseline characteristics, the overall questionnaire was tested for diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS:Of individual questions, the most sensitive one asked if events are sudden in onset (98 % sensitive for epilepsy (95 % CI: 89 %, 100 %)). The least sensitive question asked if events are stereotyped (46 % sensitive for epilepsy (95 % CI: 32 %, 60 %)). Overall, three of the eight questions showed an association with epilepsy as opposed to mimics. These included questions about "sudden onset" (OR 10.76, 95 % CI: (1.66, 449.21) p = 0.0047), "duration < 5 min" (OR 3.34, 95 % CI: (1.62, 6.89), p = 0.0008), and "duration not > 30 min" (OR 4.44, 95 % CI: (1.94, 11.05), p = <0.0001). When individual seizure mimics were compared to epilepsy, differences in responses were most notable between the epilepsy and migraine patients. Syncope and NES were most similar in responses to epilepsy. The overall weighted questionnaire incorporating patient age and sex produced an area under the ROC curve of 0.80 (95 % CI: 0.74, 0.87)). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this study, we examined the ability of common interview questions used by physicians to distinguish between epilepsy and prevalent epilepsy mimics, specifically NES, migraines, and syncope. Using a weighted scoring system for questions, and including age and sex, produced a sensitive and specific predictive model for the diagnosis of epilepsy. In contrast to many prior studies which evaluated either a large number of questions or used methods with difficult practical application, our study is unique in that we tested a small number of easy-to-understand "yes" or "no" questions that can be implemented in most clinical settings by non-specialists.