Common data elements in epilepsy research: development and implementation of the NINDS epilepsy CDE project.

The Common Data Element (CDE) Project was initiated in 2006 by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) to develop standards for performing funded neuroscience-related clinical research. CDEs are intended to standardize aspects of data collection; decrease study start-up time; and provide more complete, comprehensive, and equivalent data across studies within a particular disease area. Therefore, CDEs will simplify data sharing and data aggregation across NINDS-funded clinical research, and where appropriate, facilitate the development of evidenced-based guidelines and recommendations. Epilepsy-specific CDEs were established in nine content areas: (1) Antiepileptic Drugs (AEDs) and Other Antiepileptic Therapies (AETs), (2) Comorbidities, (3) Electrophysiology, (4) Imaging, (5) Neurological Exam, (6) Neuropsychology, (7) Quality of Life, (8) Seizures and Syndromes, and (9) Surgery and Pathology. CDEs were developed as a dynamic resource that will accommodate recommendations based on investigator use, new technologies, and research findings documenting emerging critical disease characteristics. The epilepsy-specific CDE initiative can be viewed as part of the larger international movement toward "harmonization" of clinical disease characterization and outcome assessment designed to promote communication and research efforts in epilepsy. It will also provide valuable guidance for CDE improvement during further development, refinement, and implementation. This article describes the NINDS CDE Initiative, the process used in developing Epilepsy CDEs, and the benefits of CDEs for the clinical investigator and NINDS.

Curing epilepsy: progress and future directions.

During the past decade, substantial progress has been made in delineating clinical features of the epilepsies and the basic mechanisms responsible for these disorders. Eleven human epilepsy genes have been identified and many more are now known from animal models. Candidate targets for cures are now based upon newly identified cellular and molecular mechanisms that underlie epileptogenesis. However, epilepsy is increasingly recognized as a group of heterogeneous syndromes characterized by other conditions that co-exist with seizures. Cognitive, emotional and behavioral co-morbidities are common and offer fruitful areas for study. These advances in understanding mechanisms are being matched by the rapid development of new diagnostic methods and therapeutic approaches. This article reviews these areas of progress and suggests specific goals that once accomplished promise to lead to cures for epilepsy.

Outcomes research: clinical trials in the elderly.

Very few clinical trials have been done in the elderly. This report reviews results of two completed studies and describes one in progress. The largest published study was a United States Veterans Affairs Administration study in newly diagnosed patients with epilepsy. It compared carbamazepine to gabapentin and lamotrigine, and found that, although equivalent in efficacy, the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were better tolerated. This study also highlighted many of the difficulties in recruiting and retaining elderly patients in studies, the large number of comorbidities, and the problems of distinguishing seizures in the elderly from other symptoms. Another study of new-onset epilepsy suggested that a large percentage of elderly patients respond to initial AED therapy, but side effect profiles differ. More studies are needed to better define the risk/benefit relationships in elderly patients.

Models for epilepsy and epileptogenesis: report from the NIH workshop, Bethesda, Maryland.

PURPOSE: The workshop explored the current problems, needs, and potential usefulness of existing methods of discovery of new therapies to treat epilepsy patients. Resistance to medical therapy (pharmacoresistance) and the development of epilepsy (epileptogenesis) are recognized as two of the major problems in epilepsy treatment today. At the same time, there is growing awareness that the development of new therapies has slowed, a trend that has economic and scientific roots. To move toward new and more effective therapies, novel approaches to therapy discovery are needed. METHODS: A workshop was held in March 2001 with the charge to develop a plan to move the exploration and discovery process forward. Participants from academia, government, and industry reviewed the current status of epilepsy therapy and explored the identification of potential new therapies. RESULTS: At the end of the 2-day meeting, the panel made a series of recommendations. The two major recommendations were (a) to establish a means for continuing the examination of new approaches to therapy discovery, and (b) to identify models and approaches to therapy discovery that may identify treatments that are more successful than those available. Further recommendations were made to support the development of technology (miniaturization, computerization, video monitoring, etc.) to facilitate the use of the new models and to identify the mechanisms of therapy success and failure. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the epidemiology of therapy resistance and providing support for new approaches to therapy development were identified as key issues for introduction of new and more effective treatments.