Faculty Bibliography

This is a summary report of clinical and regulatory issues discussed at the 2018 NINDS workshop, entitled "Accelerating Therapies for Antiepileptogenesis and Disease Modification". The intent of the workshop was to optimize and accelerate development of therapies for anti-epileptogenesis (AEG) and disease modification in the epilepsies. The working group discussed nomenclature for antiepileptogenic therapies, subdividing them into antiepileptogenic therapies" and "disease modifying therapies", both of which are urgently needed. We use the example of traumatic brain injury to explain issues and complexities in designing a trial for disease preventing antiepileptogenic therapies, including identifying timing of intervention, selecting the appropriate dose, and the need for biomarkers. We discuss the recent trials of vigabatrin to prevent onset and modify epilepsy outcome in children with tuberous sclerosis (Epistop and PreVeNT). We describe a potential approach to a disease modification trial in adults, using patients with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Finally, we discuss regulatory hurdles for antiepileptogenesis and disease modifying trials.

OBJECTIVE:To analyze electronic diary (e-diary) use in a phase 2, randomized, controlled clinical trial (OPUS; NCT03283371) of natalizumab in adult participants with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. METHODS:We developed an e-diary, which incorporated an episodic seizure diary and a daily diary reminder, for use as the primary source to record participants' daily seizure activity in the OPUS phase 2 clinical trial. Participants and/or their designated caregivers made e-diary entries by selecting seizure descriptions generated in the participants' and/or caregivers' own words at the time of screening. Seizures and seizure-free days were reported for the current day and for up to 5 and 4 retrospective days, respectively. A record of seizure symptoms entered within the prior 5-day period was displayed on accessing the diary. Changes were not permitted in the e-diary once a seizure record was saved unless a data change request was made. A paper backup diary was available. RESULTS:E-diary entries (N = 15,176) from the 6-week baseline period and subsequent 24-week placebo-controlled period were analyzed for 66 adults who were randomized and dosed in the OPUS trial. The overall e-diary compliance, defined as the total number of days with any entry out of the total number of days in the baseline and placebo-controlled periods for all participants combined, was 83.6%. Caregivers made 190 (1.3%) e-diary entries. Day-of-event e-diary entries totaled 11,248 (74.1%). At least one paper backup diary was used by 36 (54.5%) participants. SIGNIFICANCE:Our data highlight that good e-diary compliance can be achieved across participants in randomized clinical trials in adult focal epilepsy. In addition to identifying and addressing any barriers that may prevent a minority of participants from achieving good e-diary compliance, consideration of e-diary elements, such as recall period and reporting of seizure-free days, will facilitate the most accurate data capture in epilepsy clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of soticlestat, a first-in-class cholesterol 24-hydroxylase inhibitor, in adults with developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathies (DEE). METHODS:The study comprised a 30-day, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase (Part A), followed by a 55-day open-label phase (Part B) (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03166215) . In Part A, patients with DEE and at least one bilateral motor seizure during the 4-week prospective baseline period were randomized 4:1 to receive soticlestat or placebo, in addition to their usual antiseizure medication. In Part B, all patients received open-label soticlestat. Soticlestat doses were titrated according to tolerability to a maximum of 300 mg twice daily (BID). Safety evaluations included the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Plasma soticlestat concentrations were measured at various times for determination of multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and 24S-hydroxycholesterol (24HC). Efficacy was assessed by evaluation of changes in seizure frequency from baseline. RESULTS:Eighteen patients (median age, 28.5 years) were enrolled and randomized, and 14 (78 %) completed the study. In Part A, TEAEs occurred in 71.4 % of soticlestat-treated patients and 100 % of placebo-treated patients. In Part B, the overall incidence of TEAEs was 68.8 %. In Part A, TEAEs that occurred in more than one patient in the soticlestat group were dysarthria (n = 3, 21.4 %), lethargy (n = 2, 14.3 %), upper respiratory tract infection (n = 2, 14.3 %), fatigue (n = 2, 14.3 %), and headache (n = 2, 14.3 %). Four patients discontinued treatment because of TEAEs, of whom two reported drug-related seizure clusters as serious TEAEs. There were no deaths. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed dose-dependent increases in systemic exposure and peak plasma soticlestat concentrations. At the end of Part B, the overall mean percent change from baseline in plasma 24HC was -80.97 %. Changes from baseline in median seizure frequency were +16.71 % and +22.16 % in the soticlestat and placebo groups, respectively, in Part A, and -36.38 % in all participants in Part B. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Soticlestat was well tolerated at doses of up to 300 mg BID and was associated with a reduction in median seizure frequency over the study duration. Further studies are warranted to assess the possible efficacy of soticlestat as adjunctive therapy in patients with DEEs such as Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome.

OBJECTIVE:Many people with new-onset focal epilepsy initially seek evaluation in emergency departments (EDs), and treatment decisions in EDs can influence likelihood of seizure recurrence. Using data collected for the Human Epilepsy Project (HEP), we assessed the effect of clinical seizure characteristics on ED clinical management. METHODS:There were 447 participants with new-onset focal epilepsy seen within four months of treatment initiation who were eligible and enrolled in HEP. Seizure calendars and medical records were collected. Based on clinical descriptions, seizures were categorized by semiology according to International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) classifications as either focal non-motor or focal motor seizures. RESULTS:Overall, 279/447(62%) of participants had presented to an ED prior to or at time of epilepsy diagnosis. 132 /246 (53%) with initial non-motor seizures presented to an ED. Of these, 8 (6%) presented with a first-lifetime non-motor seizure. The other 124 (94%) presented after multiple seizures: 7 (5%) with multiple non-motor seizures, and 117 (89%) with a first-lifetime motor seizure after having prior non-motor seizures. 147/ 201 (73%) of participants with initial motor seizures presented to an ED. Of these, 134 (92%) presented with a first-lifetime motor seizure, and 13 (9%) with multiple motor seizures. There was no difference in the likelihood of anti-seizure medication (ASM) initiation between participants who had multiple prior non-motor seizures followed by a motor seizure (thereby fulfilling the criterion for an epilepsy diagnosis), vs those presenting with a single lifetime motor seizure (39% vs 43%). There was no difference in recognition of seizures as the presenting complaint (85% vs 87%), or whether the participant was admitted or referred to a neurologist (87% vs 79%). CONCLUSIONS:This study contributes to evidence of under-recognition of non-motor focal seizure semiologies in ED settings, which can support large-scale interventions aimed at improving recognition, specialist consultation, and treatment in ED settings.

Literature review of patients with KCNQ2 developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (KCNQ2-DEE) reveals, based on 16 reports including 139 patients, a clinical phenotype that includes age- and disease-specific stereotyped seizures. The typical seizure type of KCNQ2-DEE, focal tonic, starts within 0-5 days of life and is readily captured by video-electroencephalography VEEG for clinical and genetic diagnosis. After initial identification, KCNQ2-DEE seizures are clinically apparent and can be clearly identified without the use of EEG or VEEG. Therefore, we propose that the 2019 recommendations from the International League against Epilepsy (ILAE), the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium (PERC), for capturing and recording seizures for clinical trials (Epilepsia Open, 4, 2019, 537) are suitable for use in KCNQ2-DEE‒associated antiseizure medicine (ASM) treatment trials. The ILAE/PERC consensus guidance states that a caregiver-maintained seizure diary, completed by caregivers who are trained to recognize seizures using within-patient historical recordings, accurately captures seizures prospectively in a clinical trial. An alternative approach historically endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compares seizure counts captured on VEEG before and after treatment. A major advantage of the ILAE/PERC strategy is that it expands the numbers of eligible patients who meet inclusion criteria of clinical trials while maintaining accurate seizure counts (Epilepsia Open, 4, 2019, 537). Three recent phase 3 pivotal pediatric trials investigating ASMs to treat syndromic seizures in patients as young as 2 years of age (N Engl J Med, 17, 2017, 699; Lancet, 21, 2020, 2243; Lancet, 17, 2018, 1085); and ongoing phase 2 open-label pediatric clinical trial that includes pediatric epileptic syndromes as young as 1 month of age (Am J Med Genet A, 176, 2018, 773), have already used caregiver-maintained seizure diaries successfully. For determining the outcome of a KCNQ2-DEE ASM treatment trial, the use of a seizure diary to count seizures by trained observers is feasible because the seizures of KCNQ2-DEE are clinically apparent. This strategy is supported by successful precedent in clinical trials in similar age groups and has the endorsement of the international pediatric epilepsy community.

BACKGROUND:Among women with epilepsy, studies regarding changes in seizure frequency during pregnancy have been limited by the lack of an appropriate nonpregnant comparator group to provide data on the natural course of seizure frequency in both groups. METHODS:In this prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study, we compared the frequency of seizures during pregnancy through the peripartum period (the first 6 weeks after birth) (epoch 1) with the frequency during the postpartum period (the following 7.5 months after pregnancy) (epoch 2). Nonpregnant women with epilepsy were enrolled as controls and had similar follow-up during an 18-month period. The primary outcome was the percentage of women who had a higher frequency of seizures that impaired awareness during epoch 1 than during epoch 2. We also compared changes in the doses of antiepileptic drugs that were administered in the two groups during the first 9 months of epoch 1. RESULTS:We enrolled 351 pregnant women and 109 controls with epilepsy. Among the 299 pregnant women and 93 controls who had a history of seizures that impaired awareness and who had available data for the two epochs, seizure frequency was higher during epoch 1 than during epoch 2 in 70 pregnant women (23%) and in 23 controls (25%) (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 1.60). During pregnancy, the dose of an antiepileptic drug was changed at least once in 74% of pregnant women and in 31% of controls (odds ratio, 6.36; 95% CI, 3.82 to 10.59). CONCLUSIONS:Among women with epilepsy, the percentage who had a higher incidence of seizures during pregnancy than during the postpartum period was similar to that in women who were not pregnant during the corresponding epochs. Changes in doses of antiepileptic drugs occurred more frequently in pregnant women than in nonpregnant women during similar time periods. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; MONEAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01730170.).

OBJECTIVE:To test the hypothesis that people with focal epilepsy experience diagnostic delays that may be associated with preventable morbidity, particularly when seizures have only nonmotor symptoms, we compared time to diagnosis, injuries, and motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) in people with focal nonmotor versus focal seizures with motor involvement at epilepsy onset. METHODS:This retrospective study analyzed the enrollment data from the Human Epilepsy Project, which enrolled participants between 2012 and 2017 across 34 sites in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia, within 4 months of treatment for focal epilepsy. A total of 447 participants were grouped by initial seizure semiology (focal nonmotor or focal with motor involvement) to compare time to diagnosis and prediagnostic injuries including MVAs. RESULTS:Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. There were 246 participants (55%) with nonmotor seizures and 201 participants (45%) with motor seizures at epilepsy onset. Median time to diagnosis from first seizure was 10 times longer in patients with nonmotor seizures compared to motor seizures at onset (P < .001). The number and severity of injuries were similar between groups. However, 82.6% of MVAs occurred in patients with undiagnosed nonmotor seizures. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:This study identifies reasons for delayed diagnosis and consequences of delay in patients with new onset focal epilepsy, highlighting a treatment gap that is particularly significant in patients who experience nonmotor seizures at epilepsy onset.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused global anguish unparalleled in recent times. As cases rise, increased pressure on health services, combined with severe disruption to people's everyday lives, can adversely affect individuals living with chronic illnesses, including people with epilepsy. Stressors related to disruption to healthcare, finances, mental well-being, relationships, schooling, physical activity, and increased isolation could increase seizures and impair epilepsy self-management. We aim to understand the impact that COVID-19 has had on the health and well-being of people with epilepsy focusing on exposure to increased risk of seizures, associated comorbidity, and mortality. We designed two online surveys with one addressing people with epilepsy directly and the second for caregivers to report on behalf of a person with epilepsy. The survey is ongoing and has yielded 463 UK-based responses by the end of September 2020. Forty percent of respondents reported health changes during the pandemic (n = 185). Respondents cited a change in seizures (19%, n = 88), mental health difficulties (34%, n = 161), and sleep disruption (26%, n = 121) as the main reasons. Thirteen percent found it difficult to take medication on time. A third had difficulty accessing medical services (n = 154), with 8% having had an appointment canceled (n = 39). Only a small proportion reported having had discussions about epilepsy-related risks, such as safety precautions (16%, n = 74); mental health (29%, n = 134); sleep (30%, n = 140); and Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP; 15%, n = 69) in the previous 12 months. These findings suggest that people with epilepsy are currently experiencing health changes, coupled with inadequate access to services. Also, there seems to be a history of poor risk communication in the months preceding the pandemic. As the UK witnesses a second COVID-19 wave, those involved in healthcare delivery must ensure optimal care is provided for people with chronic conditions, such as epilepsy, to ensure that avoidable morbidity and mortality is prevented during the pandemic, and beyond.