Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:Maintaining seizure control with lamotrigine is complicated by altered pharmacokinetics and existence of subpopulations in whom clearance increases or remains constant during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to characterize the potential for particular dosing scenarios to lead to increased seizure risk or toxicity. METHODS:Lamotrigine pharmacokinetic parameters obtained from our previous study were applied to a one-compartment model structure with subpopulations (75:25%) exhibiting different clearance changes. A single-patient simulation was conducted with typical pharmacokinetic parameter values from each subpopulation. Population-level simulations (N = 48,000) included six dosing scenarios and considered four preconception doses using the R package mrgsolve (Metrum Research Group). Thresholds for efficacy and toxicity were selected as drug concentration that are 65% lower than preconception concentrations and doubling of preconception concentrations, respectively. RESULTS:Individual simulation results demonstrated that without dose increases, concentrations fell below 0.65 at 6-8 weeks in the high clearance change (HC) subpopulation, depending on preconception clearance. While no simulated dosing regimen allowed all women in both subpopulations to maintain preconception concentrations, some regimens provided a more balanced risk profile than others. Predicted concentrations suggested potential increased seizure risk for 7%-100% of women in the HC group depending on preconception dose and subpopulation. Additionally, in 63% of dosing scenarios for women with low clearance change (LC), there was an increased risk of toxicity (34%-100% of women). SIGNIFICANCE:A substantial percentage of simulated individuals had concentrations low enough to potentially increase seizure risk or high enough to create toxicity. Early clearance changes indicate possible subpopulation categorization if therapeutic drug monitoring is conducted in the first trimester. An arbitrary "one-size-fits-all" philosophy may not work well for lamotrigine dosing adjustments during pregnancy and reinforces the need for therapeutic drug monitoring until a patient is determined to be in the LC or HC group.

OBJECTIVE:This study was undertaken to ascertain the natural history and patterns of antiseizure medication (ASM) use in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy patients who were initially started on monotherapy. METHODS:The data were derived from the Human Epilepsy Project. Differences between the durations of the most commonly first prescribed ASM monotherapies were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Subjects were classified into three groups: monotherapy, sequential monotherapy, and polytherapy. RESULTS:A total of 443 patients were included in the analysis, with a median age of 32 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 20-44) and median follow-up time of 3.2 years (IQR = 2.4-4.2); 161 (36.3%) patients remained on monotherapy with their initially prescribed ASM at the time of their last follow-up. The mean (SEM) and median (IQR) duration that patients stayed on monotherapy with their initial ASM was 2.1 (2.0-2.2) and 1.9 (.3-3.5) years, respectively. The most commonly prescribed initial ASM was levetiracetam (254, 57.3%), followed by lamotrigine (77, 17.4%), oxcarbazepine (38, 8.6%), and carbamazepine (24, 5.4%). Among those who did not remain on the initial monotherapy, 167 (59.2%) transitioned to another ASM as monotherapy (sequential monotherapy) and 115 (40.8%) ended up on polytherapy. Patients remained significantly longer on lamotrigine (mean = 2.8 years, median = 3.1 years) compared to levetiracetam (mean = 2.0 years, median = 1.5 years) as a first prescribed medication (hazard ratio = 1.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.0-2.2). As the study progressed, the proportion of patients on lamotrigine, carbamazepine, and oxcarbazepine as well as other sodium channel agents increased from a little more than one third (154, 34.8%) of patients to more than two thirds (303, 68.4%) of patients. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Slightly more than one third of focal epilepsy patients remain on monotherapy with their first prescribed ASM. Approximately three in five patients transition to monotherapy with another ASM, whereas approximately two in five end up on polytherapy. Patients remain on lamotrigine for a longer duration compared to levetiracetam when it is prescribed as the initial monotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:The genetics of late seizure or epilepsy secondary to traumatic brain injury (TBI) or stroke are poorly understood. We undertook a systematic review to test the association of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with the risk of post-traumatic epilepsy (PTE) and post-stroke epilepsy (PSE). METHODS:We followed methods from our prespecified protocol on PROSPERO to identify indexed articles for this systematic review. We collated the association statistics from the included articles to assess the association of SNPs with the risk of epilepsy amongst TBI or stroke patients. We assessed study quality using the Q-Genie tool. We report odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS:The literature search yielded 420 articles. We included 16 studies in our systematic review, of which seven were of poor quality. We examined published data on 127 SNPs from 32 genes identified in PTE and PSE patients. Eleven SNPs were associated with a significantly increased risk of PTE. Three SNPs, TRMP6 rs2274924, ALDH2 rs671, and CD40 -1C/T, were significantly associated with an increased risk of PSE, while two, AT1R rs12721273 and rs55707609, were significantly associated with reduced risk. The meta-analysis for the association of the APOE ɛ4 with PTE was nonsignificant (OR 1.8, CI 0.6-5.6). CONCLUSIONS:The current evidence on the association of genetic polymorphisms in epilepsy secondary to TBI or stroke is of low quality and lacks validation. A collaborative effort to pool genetic data linked to epileptogenesis in stroke and TBI patients is warranted.

Well-designed placebo-controlled clinical trials are critical to the development of novel treatments for epilepsy, but their design has not changed for decades. Patients, clinicians, regulators, and innovators all have concerns that recruiting for trials is challenging, in part, due to the static design of maintaining participants for long periods on add-on placebo when there are an increasing number of options for therapy. A traditional trial maintains participants on blinded treatment for a static period (e.g., 12 weeks of maintenance), during which participants on placebo have an elevated risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy compared to patients on an active treatment. Time-to-event trials observe participants on blinded treatment until a key event occurs (e.g., post-randomization seizure count matches pre-randomization monthly seizure count). In this article, we review the evidence for these designs based on re-analysis of prior trials, one published trial that used a time-to-second seizure design, and experience from an ongoing blinded trial. We also discuss remaining concerns regarding time-to-event trials. We conclude that, despite potential limitations, time-to-event trials are a potential promising mechanism to make trials more patient friendly and reduce placebo exposure, which are urgent needs to improve safety and increase recruitment to trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Mood, anxiety disorders, and suicidality are more frequent in people with epilepsy than in the general population. Yet, their prevalence and the types of mood and anxiety disorders associated with suicidality at the time of the epilepsy diagnosis are not established. We sought to answer these questions in patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and to assess their association with suicidal ideation and attempts. METHODS:statistics, and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS:A total of 151 (43.5%) patients had a psychiatric diagnosis; 134 (38.6%) met the criteria for a mood and/or anxiety disorder, and 75 (21.6%) reported suicidal ideation with or without attempts. Mood (23.6%) and anxiety (27.4%) disorders had comparable prevalence rates, whereas both disorders occurred together in 43 patients (12.4%). Major depressive disorders (MDDs) had a slightly higher prevalence than bipolar disorders (BPDs) (9.5% vs 6.9%, respectively). Explanatory variables of suicidality included MDD, BPD, panic disorders, and agoraphobia, with BPD and panic disorders being the strongest variables, particularly for active suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:In patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, the prevalence of mood, anxiety disorders, and suicidality is higher than in the general population and comparable to those of patients with established epilepsy. Their recognition at the time of the initial epilepsy evaluation is of the essence.

OBJECTIVE:Alprazolam administered via the Staccato® breath-actuated device is delivered into deep lung for rapid systemic exposure and is a potential therapy for rapid epileptic seizure termination (REST). We conducted an inpatient study (ENGAGE-E-001 [NCT03478982]) in patients with stereotypic seizure episodes with prolonged or repetitive seizures to determine whether Staccato® alprazolam rapidly terminates seizures in a small observed population after administration under direct supervision. METHODS:Adult patients with established diagnosis of focal and/or generalized epilepsy with a documented history of seizure episodes with a predictable pattern were enrolled. They were randomized 1:1:1 to double-blind treatment of a single seizure event with one dose of Staccato® alprazolam 1.0 mg or 2.0 mg, or Staccato® placebo in an inpatient unit. The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of responders in each treatment group achieving seizure activity cessation within 2 mins after administration of study drug and no recurrence of seizure activity within 2 hours. RESULTS:A total of 273 patients were screened, and 116 randomized patients received treatment with study drug in the double-blind part. The proportion of treated patients who were responders was 65.8% for each of Staccato® alprazolam 1.0 mg (n=38; P=.0392) and 2.0 mg (n=38; P=.0392), compared with 42.5% for Staccato® placebo (n=40). Staccato® alprazolam was well tolerated when administered as a single dose of 1.0 or 2.0 mg: cough and somnolence were the most common adverse events (AEs) (both 14.5%), followed by dysgeusia (13.2%). AEs were mostly mild or moderate in intensity with no treatment-related serious AEs. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Both 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg doses of Staccato® alprazolam demonstrated efficacy in rapidly terminating seizures in an inpatient setting and were well tolerated. The next step is a Phase 3 confirmatory study to demonstrate efficacy and safety of Staccato® alprazolam for rapid cessation of seizures in an outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND:A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a standardised list of outcomes that should be reported as a minimum in all clinical trials. In epilepsy, the choice of outcomes varies widely among existing studies, particularly in clinical trials. This diminishes opportunities for informed decision-making, contributes to research waste and is a barrier to integrating findings in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Furthermore, the outcomes currently being measured may not reflect what is important to people with epilepsy. Therefore, we aim to develop a COS specific to clinical effectiveness research for adults with epilepsy using Delphi consensus methodology. METHODS:The EPSET Study will comprise of three phases and follow the core methodological principles as outlined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Phase 1 will include two focused literature reviews to identify candidate outcomes from the qualitative literature and current outcome measurement practice in phase III and phase IV clinical trials. Phase 2 aims to achieve international consensus to define which outcomes should be measured as a minimum in future trials, using a Delphi process including an online consensus meeting involving key stakeholders. Phase 3 will involve dissemination of the ratified COS to facilitate uptake in future trials and the planning of further research to identify the most appropriate measurement instruments to use to capture the COS in research practice. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Harmonising outcome measurement across future clinical trials should ensure that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and health services, and allow for more meaningful results to be obtained. CORE OUTCOME SET REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:COMET Initiative as study 118 .

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The lack of ideal measurement of treatment efficacy is a well acknowledged problem in the epilepsy community, both in clinical care and clinical trials. Whilst still the current gold-standard, self-reported seizure frequency significantly underestimates the true number of seizures and does not account for any other at least equally important outcome parameters, such as neurodevelopment and cognition. With the rise of disease modifying treatments, the need for more reliable endpoints in practice and clinical trials becomes more pressing. In this paper we assembled an expert panel to discuss the nature of these needs, current limitations, and obstacles based on a survey amongst these experts who were queried about the most important issues regarding the use of electroencephalography (EEG) parameters as endpoints in clinical drug and device development. METHODS:A structured survey was sent to a group of experts in the design and conduct of epilepsy trials in adults and children. This was followed by a virtual in-person meeting discussing the results of the trial and identifying a list of most important issues. RESULTS:Six clinical trialists and 5 individuals from pharmaceutical companies returned the survey containing 14 questions, and 8 clinical trialists and 10 pharma-representatives attended the meeting. Three main issues were identified (1) lack of accuracy of seizure diaries due to nocturnal seizures, subtle motor seizures, impairment of consciousness and lack of awareness of the seizure by the patient (2) inter-rater variability of EEG assessment (3) lack of standardization regarding definition(s) of seizures (clinical and electrographic), EEG recording methods and EEG data management. Recommended solutions included (1) validation of EEG parameters as biomarkers and use of wearables (2) development of a manual that describes EEG rating criteria, protocol for validation by > 1 central reader and use of a resolution of disagreements reporting template (3) standardization of EEG recording, data management and reporting. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Current developments in research and technology seem promising to advance the use of EEG parameters as potential endpoints and offer partial solutions to the current needs. However, continuous, focused and collaborative efforts of all stakeholders (academia, industry and regulatory agencies) are needed to formulate guidelines, validate emerging technologies and approve them for use in trials. It is the intent of this opinion "position paper" to stimulate those efforts.