Challenges and directions in epilepsy diagnostics and therapeutics: Proceedings of the 17th Epilepsy Therapies and Diagnostics Development conference.

Substantial efforts are underway toward optimizing the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of seizures and epilepsy. We describe preclinical programs in place for screening investigational therapeutic candidates in animal models, with particular attention to identifying and eliminating drugs that might paradoxically aggravate seizure burden. After preclinical development, we discuss challenges and solutions in the design and regulatory logistics of clinical trial execution, and efforts to develop disease biomarkers and interventions that may be not only seizure-suppressing, but also disease-modifying. As disease-modifying treatments are designed, there is clear recognition that, although seizures represent one critical therapeutic target, targeting nonseizure outcomes like cognitive development or functional outcomes requires changes to traditional designs. This reflects our increasing understanding that epilepsy is a disease with profound impact on quality of life for the patient and caregivers due to both seizures themselves and other nonseizure factors. This review examines selected key challenges and future directions in epilepsy diagnostics and therapeutics, from drug discovery to translational application.

Current state of the epilepsy drug and device pipeline.

The field of epilepsy has undergone substantial advances as we develop novel drugs and devices. Yet considerable challenges remain in developing broadly effective, well-tolerated treatments, but also precision treatments for rare epilepsies and seizure-monitoring devices. We summarize major recent and ongoing innovations in diagnostic and therapeutic products presented at the seventeenth Epilepsy Therapies & Diagnostics Development (ETDD) conference, which occurred May 31 to June 2, 2023, in Aventura, Florida. Therapeutics under development are targeting genetics, ion channels and other neurotransmitters, and many other potentially first-in-class interventions such as stem cells, glycogen metabolism, cholesterol, the gut microbiome, and novel modalities for delivering electrical neuromodulation.

Time to prerandomization seizure count design sufficiently assessed the safety and tolerability of perampanel for the treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Static assignment of participants in randomized clinical trials to placebo or ineffective treatment confers risk from continued seizures. An alternative trial design of time to exceed prerandomization monthly seizure count (T-PSC) has replicated the efficacy conclusions of traditionally designed trials, with shorter exposure to placebo and ineffective treatment. Trials aim to evaluate efficacy as well as safety and tolerability; therefore, we evaluated whether this T-PSC design also could replicate the trial's safety and tolerability conclusions. METHODS: We retrospectively applied the T-PSC design to analyze treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) from a blinded, placebo-controlled trial of perampanel for primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (NCT01393743). The safety analysis set consisted of 81 and 82 participants randomized to perampanel and placebo arms, respectively. We evaluated the incidences of TEAEs, treatment-related TEAEs, serious TEAEs, and TEAEs of special interest that occurred before T-PSC relative to those observed during the full-length trial. RESULTS: Of the 67 and 59 participants who experienced TEAEs in the perampanel and placebo arms during full-length trial, 66 (99%) and 54 (92%) participants experienced TEAEs with onset occurring before T-PSC, respectively. When limited to treatment-related TEAEs, 55 of 56 (98%) and 32 of 37 (86%) participants reported treatment-related TEAEs that occurred before T-PSC in the perampanel and placebo arms, respectively. There were more TEAEs after T-PSC with placebo as compared to perampanel (Fisher exact odds ratio = 8.6, p = .035), which resulted in overestimation of the difference in TEAE rate. There was a numerical reduction in serious TEAEs (3/13 occurred after T-PSC, one in placebo and two in perampanel). SIGNIFICANCE: Almost all TEAEs occurred before T-PSC. More treatment-related TEAEs occurred after T-PSC for participants randomized to placebo than perampanel, which may be due to either a shorter T-PSC or delayed time to TEAE for placebo.

Which terms should be used to describe medications used in the treatment of seizure disorders? An ILAE position paper.

A variety of terms, such as "antiepileptic," "anticonvulsant," and "antiseizure" have been historically applied to medications for the treatment of seizure disorders. Terminology is important because using terms that do not accurately reflect the action of specific treatments may result in a misunderstanding of their effects and inappropriate use. The present International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) position paper used a Delphi approach to develop recommendations on English-language terminology applicable to pharmacological agents currently approved for treating seizure disorders. There was consensus that these medications should be collectively named "antiseizure medications". This term accurately reflects their primarily symptomatic effect against seizures and reduces the possibility of health care practitioners, patients, or caregivers having undue expectations or an incorrect understanding of the real action of these medications. The term "antiseizure" to describe these agents does not exclude the possibility of beneficial effects on the course of the disease and comorbidities that result from the downstream effects of seizures, whenever these beneficial effects can be explained solely by the suppression of seizure activity. It is acknowledged that other treatments, mostly under development, can exert direct favorable actions on the underlying disease or its progression, by having "antiepileptogenic" or "disease-modifying" effects. A more-refined terminology to describe precisely these actions needs to be developed.

Long-term seizure diary tracking habits in clinical studies: Evidence from the Human Epilepsy Project.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize seizure tracking patterns of people with focal epilepsy using electronic seizure diary entries, and to assess for risk factors associated with poor tracking. METHODS: We analyzed electronic seizure diary data from 410 participants with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy in the Human Epilepsy Project 1 (HEP1). Each participant was expected to record data each day during the study, regardless of seizure occurrence. The primary outcome of this post-hoc analysis was whether each participant properly tracked a seizure diary entry each day during their study participation. Using finite mixture modeling, we grouped patient tracking trajectories into data-driven clusters. Once defined, we used multinomial modeling to test for independent risk factors of tracking group membership. RESULTS: Using over up to three years of daily seizure diary data per subject, we found four distinct seizure tracking groups: consistent, frequent at study onset, occasional, and rare. Participants in the consistent tracking group tracked a median of 92% (interquartile range, IQR: 82%, 99%) of expected days, compared to 47% (IQR:34%, 60%) in the frequent at study onset group, 37% (IQR: 26%, 49%) in the occasional group, and 9% (IQR: 3%, 15%) in the rare group. In multivariable analysis, consistent trackers had lower rates of seizure days per tracked year during their study participation, compared to other groups. SIGNIFICANCE: Future efforts need to focus on improving seizure diary tracking adherence to improve quality of outcome data, particularly in those with higher seizure burden. In addition, accounting for missing data when using seizure diary data as a primary outcome is important in research trials. If not properly accounted for, total seizure burden may be underestimated and biased, skewing results of clinical trials.

Validation of the Seizure-Related Impact Assessment Scale (SERIAS): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to validate the Seizure-Related Impact Assessment Scale (SERIAS). This novel patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) compares the 'trade-off' between seizures and treatment-related adverse effects, and measures epilepsy disability qualitatively and quantitively. It fills an important gap in PROMs for epilepsy clinical trials and practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adults with epileptologist-confirmed epilepsy from two Australian Epilepsy Centres are being recruited. People with functional seizures, or who are unable to self-complete English-language validated instruments are excluded. Participants providing informed consent are invited to complete questionnaires at baseline, 3 and 6 months later. SERIAS includes five questions that ask about the number of days per month that seizures or treatment-related adverse effects partially or fully impact work/home/school and family/social/non-work activities, as well as a visual analogue scale regarding epilepsy-related disability. SERIAS is completed alongside seven internationally validated instruments measuring treatment-related adverse effects, mood disorders and quality of life. Target recruitment is n=100, ensuring>50 people complete all questionnaires at all timepoints. Comprehensive psychometric analysis will be performed. Convergent validity will be investigated using bivariate correlations with relevant measures. Reliability will be investigated using Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega and test-retest correlation coefficients. SERIAS will be a novel PROM for epilepsy clinical trials and practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Multisite ethics approval was granted by the Alfred Health Ethics Committee (HREC 17/23). Results of this study will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623000599673.