Has the Time Come to Stratify and Score SUDEP Risk to Inform People With Epilepsy of Their Changes in Safety?

Recent publication of the American Academy of Neurology SUDEP guidance highlighted the importance to American clinicians of making people with epilepsy aware of SUDEP risk. It is the first guideline to do this in the United States. It follows precedent set out in the UK by National Institute of Clinical Excellence in 2004. While a significant achievement, the lack of clarity of how to deliver this guidance in an enduring and person-centered manner, raises concerns on how its long-term effectiveness in risk mitigation. Shared decision-making with an emphasis on delivering person-centered communication to foster self-management strategies is increasingly recognized as the ideal model of patient-clinician communication in chronic diseases such as epilepsy. The tension between delivering evidence-based risk information, yet, tailoring it to the individual is complex. It needs to incorporate the potential for change not only in seizure factors but also other health and social factors. Safety advice needs to be dynamic and situation sensitive as opposed to a "one off" discussion. As a significant minority of people with epilepsy have drug-resistant seizures, the importance of keeping the advice contextual at different intervals of the person's life cannot be overstated as many of them are managed in primary care. We present some exploratory work, which identifies the need to improve communication at a primary care level and to review risks regularly. Regular reviews using a structured risk factor checklist as a screening tool could identify, sooner, people who's health issues are worsening and justify referrals to specialists.

Digital Care in Epilepsy: A Conceptual Framework for Technological Therapies.

Epilepsy is associated with a significant increase in morbidity and mortality. The likelihood is significantly greater for those patients with specific risk factors. Identifying those at greatest risk of injury and providing expert management from the earliest opportunity is made more challenging by the circumstances in which many such patients present. Despite increasing recognition of the importance of earlier identification of those at risk, there is little or no improvement in outcomes over more than 30 years. Despite ever increasing sophistication of drug development and delivery, there has been no meaningful improvement in 1-year seizure freedom rates over this time. However, in the last few years, there has been an increase in patient-triggered interventions based on automated monitoring of indicators and risk factors facilitated by technological advances. The opportunities such approaches provide will only be realized if accompanied by current working practice changes. Replacing traditional follow-up appointments at arbitrary intervals with dynamic interventions, remotely and at the point and place of need provides a better chance of a substantial reduction in seizures for people with epilepsy. Properly implemented, electronic platforms can offer new opportunities to provide expert advice and management from first presentation thus improving outcomes. This perspective paper provides and proposes an informed critical opinion built on current evidence base of an outline techno-therapeutic approach to harnesses these technologies. This conceptual framework is generic, rather than tied to a specific product or solution, and the same generalized approach could be beneficially applied to other long-term conditions.

Eslicarbazepine acetate as a replacement for levetiracetam in people with epilepsy developing behavioral adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric and behavioral side effects (PBSEs) are a major cause of antiepileptic drug (AED) withdrawal. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a recognized first-line AED with good seizure outcomes but recognized with PBSEs. Eslicarbazepine (ESL) is considered to function similarly to an active metabolite of the commonly used carbamazepine (CBZ). Carbamazepine is used as psychotropic medication to assist in various psychiatric illnesses such as mood disorders, aggression, and anxiety. AIM: The aim was to evaluate the psychiatric profile of ESL in people who had LEV withdrawn due to PBSEs in routine clinical practice to see if ESL can be used as a possible alternative to LEV. METHODS: A retrospective observational review was conducted in two UK epilepsy centers looking at all cases exposed to ESL since its licensing in 2010. The ESL group was all patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy who developed intolerable PBSEs to LEV, subsequently trialed on ESL. The ESL group was matched to a group who tolerated LEV without intolerable PBSEs. Psychiatric disorders were identified from case notes. The Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) was used to outcome change in mood. Clinical diagnoses of a mental disorder were compared between groups using the Fisher's exact test. Group differences in HAM-D scores were assessed using the independent samples t-test (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: The total number of people with active epilepsy in the two centers was 2142 of whom 46 had been exposed to ESL. Twenty-six had previous exposure to LEV and had intolerable PBSEs who were matched to a person tolerating LEV. There was no statistical differences in the two groups for mental disorders including mood as measured by HAM-D (Chi-square test: p=0.28). CONCLUSION: The ESL was well tolerated and did not produce significant PBSEs in those who had PBSEs with LEV leading to withdrawal of the drug. Though numbers were small, the findings suggest that ESL could be a treatment option in those who develop PBSEs with LEV and possibly other AEDs.

Clinical phenotype and outcome of hepatitis E virus-associated neuralgic amyotrophy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical phenotype and outcome in hepatitis E virus-associated neuralgic amyotrophy (HEV-NA). METHODS: Cases of NA were identified in 11 centers from 7 European countries, with retrospective analysis of demographics, clinical/laboratory findings, and treatment and outcome. Cases of HEV-NA were compared with NA cases without evidence of HEV infection. RESULTS: Fifty-seven cases of HEV-NA and 61 NA cases without HEV were studied. Fifty-six of 57 HEV-NA cases were anti-HEV IgM positive; 53/57 were IgG positive. In 38 cases, HEV RNA was recovered from the serum and in 1 from the CSF (all genotype 3). Fifty-one of 57 HEV-NA cases were anicteric; median alanine aminotransferase 259 IU/L (range 12-2,961 IU/L); in 6 cases, liver function tests were normal. HEV-NA cases were more likely to have bilateral involvement (80.0% vs 8.6%, p < 0.001), damage outside the brachial plexus (58.5% vs 10.5%, p < 0.01), including phrenic nerve and lumbosacral plexus injury (25.0% vs 3.5%, p = 0.01, and 26.4% vs 7.0%, p = 0.001), reduced reflexes (p = 0.03), sensory symptoms (p = 0.04) with more extensive damage to the brachial plexus. There was no difference in outcome between the 2 groups at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HEV-NA are usually anicteric and have a distinct clinical phenotype, with predominately bilateral asymmetrical involvement of, and more extensive damage to, the brachial plexus. Involvement outside the brachial plexus is more common in HEV-NA. The relationship between HEV and NA is likely to be causal, but is easily overlooked. Patients presenting with NA should be tested for HEV, irrespective of liver function test results. Prospective treatment/outcome studies of HEV-NA are warranted.

Hepatitis E virus infection and acute non-traumatic neurological injury: A prospective multicentre study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatitis E virus (HEV) has been associated with a number of neurological syndromes, but causality has not yet been established. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between HEV and neurological illness by prospective HEV testing of patients presenting with acute non-traumatic neurological injury. METHODS: Four hundred and sixty-four consecutive patients presenting to hospital with acute non-traumatic neurological illnesses were tested for HEV by serology and PCR from four centres in the UK, France and the Netherlands. RESULTS: Eleven of 464 patients (2.4%) had evidence of current/recent HEV infection. Seven had HEV RNA identified in serum and four were diagnosed serologically. Neurological cases in which HEV infection was found included neuralgic amyotrophy (n=3, all PCR positive); cerebral ischemia or infarction (n=4); seizure (n=2); encephalitis (n=1); and an acute combined facial and vestibular neuropathy (n=1). None of these cases were clinically jaundiced and median ALT at presentation was 24IU/L (range 8-145). Cases of HEV-associated neuralgic amyotrophy were found in each of the participating countries: all were middle-aged males with bilateral involvement of the brachial plexus. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with non-traumatic neurological injury, 2.4% had evidence of HEV infection. Symptoms of hepatitis were mild or absent and no patients were jaundiced. The cases of HEV-associated neuralgic amyotrophy had similarities with other HEV-associated cases described in a large retrospective study. This observation supports a causal relationship between HEV and neuralgic amyotrophy. To further understand the relevance of HEV infection in patients with acute neurological illnesses, case-control studies are warranted. Lay summary: Hepatitis E virus (HEV), as its name suggests, is a hepatotropic virus, i.e. it causes damage to the liver (hepatitis). Our findings show that HEV can also be associated with a range of injury to the nervous system.

Hepatitis E virus and neurological disorders.

Hepatitis E is the most common cause of hepatitis worldwide. While originally considered a disease of developing countries, it is increasingly recognised in developed countries, probably related to contaminated pork meat, and where infection is often asymptomatic. However, several non-liver manifestations have become apparent, the most important of which are neurological, including Guillain-Barré syndrome (acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (AIDP)), neuralgic amyotrophy and meningoencephalitis. We recommend testing all patients with AIDP and neuralgic amyotrophy for hepatitis E and consider testing any patient with an unexplained neurological illness and abnormal liver function tests for the virus.

Hepatitis E virus and neurological injury.

Hepatitis E is hyperendemic in many developing countries in Asia and Africa, and is caused by hepatitis E virus (HEV) genotypes 1 and 2, which are spread via the faecal-oral route by contaminated water. Recent data show that HEV infection is also endemic in developed countries. In such geographical settings, hepatitis E is caused by HEV genotypes 3 and 4, and is mainly a porcine zoonosis. In a minority of cases, HEV causes acute and chronic hepatitis, but infection is commonly asymptomatic or unrecognized. HEV infection is associated with a number of extrahepatic manifestations, including a range of neurological injuries. To date, 91 cases of HEV-associated neurological injury--most commonly, Guillain-Barré syndrome, neuralgic amyotrophy, and encephalitis/myelitis--have been reported. Here, we review the reported cases, discuss possible pathogenic mechanisms, and present our perspectives on future directions and research questions.