Faculty Bibliography

Intracranial pharmacotherapy is a novel strategy to treat drug refractory, localization-related epilepsies not amenable to resective surgery. The common feature of the method is the use of some type of antiepileptic drug (AED) delivery device placed inside the cranium to prevent or stop focal seizures. This distinguishes it from other nonconventional methods, such as intrathecal pharmacotherapy, electrical neurostimulation, gene therapy, cell transplantation, and local cooling. AED-delivery systems comprise drug releasing polymers and neuroprosthetic devices that can deliver AEDs into the brain via intraparenchymal, ventricular, or transmeningeal routes. One such device is the subdural Hybrid Neuroprosthesis (HNP), designed to deliver AEDs, such as muscimol, into the subdural/subarachnoid space overlaying neocortical epileptogenic zones, with electrophysiological feedback from the treated tissue. The idea of intracranial pharmacotherapy and HNP treatment for epilepsy originated from multiple sources, including the advent of implanted medical devices, safety data for intracranial electrodes and catheters, evidence for the seizure-controlling efficacy of intracerebral AEDs, and further understanding of the pathophysiology of focal epilepsy. Successful introduction of intracranial pharmacotherapy into clinical practice depends on how the intertwined scientific, engineering, clinical, neurosurgical and regulatory challenges will be met to produce an effective and commercially viable device.

This study compared the potencies of epidurally delivered muscimol, lidocaine, midazolam, pentobarbital and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) to prevent focal neocortical seizures induced by locally applied acetylcholine (Ach), in rats (n=5). An epidural cup was chronically implanted over the right somatosensory cortex in each animal, with epidural EEG electrodes placed posterior to the edge of the cup. After recovery, either artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF; control solution) or one of the five drugs was delivered into epidural cup, followed by Ach administration into the cup to induce seizures. EEG seizure duration ratio was calculated for each drug delivery/seizure induction session to determine the potency of ACSF and the drugs to prevent the focal Ach-seizures. The concentration of all examined drug solutions was 1.0mM. ACSF, lidocaine, midazolam, pentobarbital and GABA all failed to prevent the Ach-induced neocortical EEG seizures, yielding EEG seizure duration ratios ranging from 0.41 to 0.80. In contrast, muscimol pretreatment fully prevented the development of ictal EEG in all animals. These results suggest that when used at low concentration muscimol was the best of the five drugs for transmeningeal pharmacotherapy trials for focal neocortical epilepsy

There has been an increase in the number of chronic pain clinical trials in which the treatments being evaluated did not differ significantly from placebo in the primary efficacy analyses despite previous research suggesting that efficacy could be expected. These findings could reflect a true lack of efficacy or methodological and other aspects of these trials that compromise the demonstration of efficacy. There is substantial variability among chronic pain clinical trials with respect to important research design considerations, and identifying and addressing any methodological weaknesses would enhance the likelihood of demonstrating the analgesic effects of new interventions. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was therefore convened to identify the critical research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain trials and to make recommendations for their conduct. We present recommendations for the major components of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials, including participant selection, trial phases and duration, treatment groups and dosing regimens, and types of trials. Increased attention to and research on the methodological aspects of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials has the potential to enhance their assay sensitivity and ultimately provide more meaningful evaluations of treatments for chronic pain

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Commission on Classification and Terminology has revised concepts, terminology, and approaches for classifying seizures and forms of epilepsy. Generalized and focal are redefined for seizures as occurring in and rapidly engaging bilaterally distributed networks (generalized) and within networks limited to one hemisphere and either discretely localized or more widely distributed (focal). Classification of generalized seizures is simplified. No natural classification for focal seizures exists; focal seizures should be described according to their manifestations (e. g., dyscognitive, focal motor). The concepts of generalized and focal do not apply to electroclinical syndromes. Genetic, structural-metabolic, and unknown represent modified concepts to replace idiopathic, symptomatic, and cryptogenic. Not all epilepsies are recognized as electroclinical syndromes. Organization of forms of epilepsy is first by specificity: electroclinical syndromes, nonsyndromic epilepsies with structural-metabolic causes, and epilepsies of unknown cause. Further organization within these divisions can be accomplished in a flexible manner depending on purpose. Natural classes (e. g., specific underlying cause, age at onset, associated seizure type), or pragmatic groupings (e. g., epileptic encephalopathies, self-limited electroclinical syndromes) may serve as the basis for organizing knowledge about recognized forms of epilepsy and facilitate identification of new forms

OBJECTIVE: To explore efficacy and safety/tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV), a novel, high-affinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand, which also inhibits neuronal voltage-dependent sodium channels, in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures (POS). METHODS: This was an exploratory, phase IIb, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study in patients 16-65 years with epilepsy experiencing > or =4 POS during 4-week baseline despite 1-2 concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to placebo, BRV 5 mg/day (BRV5), BRV 20 mg/day (BRV20), or BRV 50 mg/day (BRV50), administered BID without uptitration during a 7-week treatment period. Primary efficacy endpoint was POS frequency/week during the treatment period relative to placebo. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients constituted the intention-to-treat population; 197 completed the study. Estimated percentage reductions over placebo in POS frequency/week were 9.8% (BRV5; p = 0.240), 14.9% (BRV20; p = 0.062), and 22.1% (BRV50; p = 0.004). Median percent reductions from baseline in POS frequency/week were 21.7% (placebo), 29.9% (BRV5; p = 0.086), 42.6% (BRV20; p = 0.014), and 53.1% (BRV50; p < 0.001); > or =50% responder rates were 16.7% (placebo), 32.0% (BRV5; p = 0.047), 44.2% (BRV20; p = 0.002), and 55.8% (BRV50; p < 0.001); seizure freedom rates (POS) during the 7-week treatment period were 1.9% (placebo), 8.0% (BRV5; p = 0.193), 7.7% (BRV20; p = 0.193), and 7.7% (BRV50; p = 0.201). BRV was well-tolerated. Most adverse events were mild to moderate and occurred with similar incidence in placebo and BRV groups, and discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events were infrequent (placebo 3.7%; BRV 2.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This interventional study provides preliminary Class I evidence that adjunctive BRV was efficacious and well-tolerated in patients aged 16-65 years with POS

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the study of the relative effects of treatments to determine which will be most likely to improve overall health for a specific condition. This area has received a great deal of political focus, and substantial funding for CER is included in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009. The results of CER are intended to inform evidence-based guidelines and to improve the quality and effectiveness of medical care. In the absence of such research, guidelines often depend on consensus to rank available therapies. We believe that an increase in CER would clearly enhance evidence-based guidelines. However, the research must be performed and analyzed with great care to avoid reaching unhelpful, or even harmful, conclusions. Specifically, individual patient characteristics must be taken into account, study endpoints must approximate the most important patient outcomes, therapies must be used optimally within the studies, and the most relevant therapies for a given indication must be included for comparison. CER that is not performed or interpreted correctly could have the potential to affect negatively our choices of therapies. The neurology community must help inform the process of CER to ensure the highest-quality research, which in turn will result in the most valid outcomes