Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Evidence suggests that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) predict cognitive dysfunction, possibly through direct (e.g., brain structure/function changes) and indirect (e.g., increased psychopathology risk) pathways. However, extant studies have focused on young and older adults, with limited understanding of how ACEs affect cognitive health in midadulthood. OBJECTIVE:This study compared psychiatric and cognitive differences between adults at high- and low-risk of adverse health outcomes based on the ACE risk classification scheme. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING/METHODS: METHOD/METHODS:Patients were divided into high and low ACE groups based on the number of ACEs endorsed. Subsequently, a series of one-way analyses of variances were conducted to compare high versus low ACE groups on the Test of Premorbid Functioning, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition Digit Span Test, Trail Making Test-Parts A and B, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Beck Depression Inventory-II, and Beck Anxiety Inventory scores. RESULTS:Significant group differences were detected for anxiety and depression with the high ACE group endorsing significantly greater depression and anxiety symptoms relative to the low ACE group. High and low ACE groups did not significantly differ on any cognitive measures. CONCLUSIONS:Results indicate that an individual's psychological health, but not cognitive functioning, is impacted by the level of ACE exposure. Study findings highlight the importance of including ACE measures in neuropsychological evaluations, as it will aid in case conceptualization and tailoring treatment recommendations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Whether high-frequency phase-locked oscillations facilitate integration ('binding') of information across widespread cortical areas is controversial. Here we show with intracranial electroencephalography that cortico-cortical co-ripples (~100-ms-long ~90 Hz oscillations) increase during reading and semantic decisions, at the times and co-locations when and where binding should occur. Fusiform wordform areas co-ripple with virtually all language areas, maximally from 200 to 400 ms post-word-onset. Semantically specified target words evoke strong co-rippling between wordform, semantic, executive and response areas from 400 to 800 ms, with increased co-rippling between semantic, executive and response areas prior to correct responses. Co-ripples were phase-locked at zero lag over long distances (>12 cm), especially when many areas were co-rippling. General co-activation, indexed by non-oscillatory high gamma, was mainly confined to early latencies in fusiform and earlier visual areas, preceding co-ripples. These findings suggest that widespread synchronous co-ripples may assist the integration of multiple cortical areas for sustained periods during cognition.

OBJECTIVE:To characterize the experience of people with epilepsy and aligned healthcare workers (HCWs) during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic and compare experiences in high-income countries (HICs) with non-HICs. METHODS:Separate surveys for people with epilepsy and HCWs were distributed online in April 2020. Responses were collected to September 2021. Data were collected for COVID-19 infections, the effect of COVID-related restrictions, access to specialist help for epilepsy (people with epilepsy), and the impact of the pandemic on work productivity (HCWs). The frequency of responses for non-HICs and HICs were compared using non-parametric Chi-square tests. RESULTS:Two thousand one hundred and  five individuals with epilepsy from 53 countries and 392 HCWs from 26 countries provided data. The same proportion of people with epilepsy in non-HICs and HICs reported COVID-19 infection (7%). Those in HICs were more likely to report that COVID-19 measures had affected their health (32% vs. 23%; p < 0.001). There was no difference between non-HICs and HICs in the proportion who reported difficulty in obtaining help for epilepsy. HCWs in non-HICs were more likely to report COVID-19 infection than those in HICs (18% vs 6%; p = 0.001) and that their clinical work had been affected by concerns about contracting COVID-19, lack of personal protective equipment, and the impact of the pandemic on mental health (all p < 0.001). Compared to pre-pandemic practices, there was a significant shift to remote consultations in both non-HICs and HICs (p < 0.001). SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:While the frequency of COVID-19 infection was relatively low in these data from early in the pandemic, our findings suggest broader health consequences and an increased psychosocial burden, particularly among HCWs in non-HICs. Planning for future pandemics should prioritize mental healthcare alongside ensuring access to essential epilepsy services and expanding and enhancing access to remote consultations. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:We asked people with epilepsy about the effects of COVID-19 on their health and healthcare. We wanted to compare responses from people in high-income countries and other countries. We found that people in high-income countries and other countries had similar levels of difficulty in getting help for their epilepsy. People in high-income countries were more likely to say that their general health had been affected. Healthcare workers in non-high-income settings were more likely to have contracted COVID-19 and have the care they deliver affected by the pandemic. Across all settings, COVID-19 associated with a large shift to remote consultations.

Cenobamate has demonstrated efficacy in patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy, including patients who continued to have seizures after epilepsy surgery. This article provides recommendations for cenobamate use in patients referred for epilepsy surgery evaluation. A panel of six senior epileptologists from the United States and Europe with experience in presurgical evaluation of patients with epilepsy and in the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs) was convened to provide consensus recommendations for the use of cenobamate in patients referred for epilepsy surgery evaluation. Many patients referred for surgical evaluation may benefit from ASM optimization; both ASM and surgical treatment should be individualized. Based on previous clinical studies and the authors' clinical experience with cenobamate, a substantial proportion of patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy can become seizure-free with cenobamate. We recommend a cenobamate trial and ASM optimization in parallel with presurgical evaluations. Cenobamate can be started before phase two monitoring, especially in patients who are found to be suboptimal surgery candidates. As neurostimulation therapies are generally palliative, we recommend trying cenobamate before vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation, or responsive neurostimulation (RNS). In surgically remediable cases (mesial temporal sclerosis, benign discrete lesion in non-eloquent cortex, cavernous angioma, etc.), cenobamate use should not delay imminent surgery; however, a patient may decide to defer or even cancel surgery should they achieve sustained seizure freedom with cenobamate. This decision should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis based on seizure etiology, patient preferences, potential surgical risks (mortality and morbidity), and likely surgical outcome. The addition of cenobamate after unsuccessful surgery or palliative neuromodulation may also be associated with better outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:The CDKL5 Clinical Severity Assessment (CCSA) is a comprehensive, content-validated measurement tool capturing the diverse challenges of cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5) deficiency disorder (CDD), a genetically caused developmental epileptic encephalopathy (DEE). The CCSA is divided into clinician-reported (CCSA-Clinician) and caregiver-reported (CCSA-Caregiver) assessments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the factor structure of these measures through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and evaluate their validity and reliability. METHODS:Participants were recruited from the International CDKL5 Clinical Research Network to take part in an in-clinic CCSA-Clinician evaluation (n = 148) and/or complete the CCSA-Caregiver questionnaire (n = 198). CFA was used to determine domains, and factor loadings and validity were assessed. For the CCSA-Clinician, inter-rater reliability was assessed by nine CDD experienced clinicians via 14 pre-recorded evaluations. Eight clinicians re-viewed and re-scored the videos after 4 weeks to evaluate intra-rater reliability. The CCSA-Caregiver was completed on a second occasion by 34 caregivers after 2-4 weeks to assess test-retest reliability. RESULTS:CFA resulted in three domains for the CCSA-Clinician (motor and movement, communication, vision) and four domains for the CCSA-Caregiver (seizures, behavior, alertness, feeding), with good item loadings across both measures. Structural statistics, internal consistency, discriminant validity, and reliability were satisfactory for both measures, and scores were consistent between known groups. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:This study provides strong evidence that the CCSA measures are suitable to assess the clinical severity of individuals with CDD, supporting their use in clinical trials. Further evaluation of responsiveness to change in a longitudinal assessment is planned. Use may also be appropriate in similar DEEs but would require validation in those populations.

OBJECTIVE:The Human Epilepsy Project (HEP) is a large multinational cohort study of people with newly diagnosed and treated focal epilepsy. HEP utilized the Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) as a self-directed online assessment to examine cognitive outcomes in study participants. The CBB has previously been validated in healthy individuals and people with various brain disorders, but its use in adults participating in HEP has not been assessed. In this study, we describe how the CBB was used in the HEP cohort and assess factors associated with test completion among study participants. METHODS:Enrollment data for HEP included 408 participants with comprehensive enrollment records, of whom 249 completed CBB assessments. HEP enrolled cognitively normal-range participants between the ages of 12 and 60 from June 29, 2012, to November 7, 2017, with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and within 4 months of initial treatment. Baseline participant characteristics were analyzed, including demographics, pre-treatment seizure histories, MRI abnormalities, and the presence of any learning difficulties while in school, including formal learning disability diagnoses, repeated grades, and remediation. HEP participant characteristics for those who completed CBB testing were compared to those who did not using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS:The analysis of HEP participants who completed CBB testing showed that, after controlling for other factors, male participants were more likely to engage in testing (OR 2.14, 95 % CI 1.29 to 3.5, p < 0.01), Black subjects were less likely (OR 0.45, 95 % CI 0.22 to 0.9, p = 0.02), primary English speakers were more likely (OR 3.1, 95 % CI 1.21 to 7.96, p = 0.02), and those with a history of learning challenges were less likely (OR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.49 to 0.97, p = 0.03). There were no significant associations between completing CBB testing and age, employment (employed or student vs not), education (higher education vs not), diagnostic delay, pre-diagnostic seizure burden, or initial seizure semiology (motor vs non-motor). SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:The findings from this study highlight factors associated with the application of remote and unsupervised assessments of cognition in a prospective cohort of adults with focal epilepsy. These factors can be considered when interpreting performance on the CBB in HEP, as well as assisting the design of future studies that use similar approaches.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a devastating, age-associated neurodegenerative disorder and the most common cause of dementia. The clinical continuum of AD spans from preclinical disease to subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages (mild, moderate, and severe). Neuropathologically, AD is defined by the accumulation of amyloid β (Aβ) into extracellular plaques in the brain parenchyma and in the cerebral vasculature, and by abnormally phosphorylated tau that accumulates intraneuronally forming neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs). Development of treatment approaches that prevent or even reduce the cognitive decline because of AD has been slow compared to other major causes of death. Recently, the United States Food and Drug Administration gave full approval to 2 different Aβ-targeting monoclonal antibodies. However, this breakthrough disease modifying approach only applies to a limited subset of patients in the AD continuum and there are stringent eligibility criteria. Furthermore, these approaches do not prevent progression of disease, because other AD-related pathologies, such as NFTs, are not directly targeted. A non-mutually exclusive alternative is to address lifestyle interventions that can help reduce the risk of AD and AD-related dementias (ADRD). It is estimated that addressing such modifiable risk factors could potentially delay up to 40% of AD/ADRD cases. In this review, we discuss some of the many modifiable risk factors that may be associated with prevention of AD/ADRD and/or increasing brain resilience, as well as other factors that may interact with these modifiable risk factors to influence AD/ADRD progression. ANN NEUROL 2024.

As neuropalliative care is better recognized and more widely utilized, there is as great a need for clinicians trained in the field as there is for disease-specific symptom management, advance care planning, and end-of-life care. In this manuscript, we describe potential career trajectories in neuropalliative care. For clinicians, this includes educational and training opportunities within primary neuropalliative care (integrating palliative care principles into usual neurology practice), specialty neuropalliative care (completing a hospice and palliative medicine fellowship), and hospice. We also describe considerations for establishing new clinical neuropalliative practices and highlight neuropalliative education and research as key areas for advancing the field.