Assessing the risk of subsequent tonic-clonic seizures in patients with a history of simple or complex partial seizures.

BACKGROUND: Patients who present with only simple or complex partial seizures have a poorly documented prognosis. Treatment may be advocated to prevent future secondary generalised seizures, reduce the frequency of further simple or complex partial seizures or a combination of both. METHODS: A full statistical analysis on 1334 patients was carried out. The outcomes measured were post-randomisation times to first seizure of any type and first tonic-clonic seizure. Methodology was adopted that accounted for individuals' underlying pre-randomisation seizure counts and allowed for the possibility that there may be a proportion of the sample that will not experience post-randomisation seizure recurrence. RESULTS: 103 subjects randomised to the MESS (Multicentre Study of Early Epilepsy and Single Seizures) study had only partial seizures at randomisation. Only 17 of these had a tonic-clonic seizure during follow-up. The presence of an abnormal EEG at randomisation influenced this risk: an estimated 23% of those with EEG abnormality were at risk of tonic-clonic seizures during follow-up compared with 16% of those with a normal EEG. The group did, however, continue to have partial seizures during follow-up, and modelling showed that the impact of treatment on these seizures was significantly less than the effects of treatment on the frequency of tonic-clonic seizures in those patients with such pre-randomisation seizures. CONCLUSION: Patients presenting with a history of only partial seizures are at low risk of subsequent tonic-clonic seizures in the period of time to which therapeutic decisions are relevant. The effects of the antiepileptic drugs used in the MESS study are greater for tonic-clonic seizures than they are for partial seizures.

The SANAD study of effectiveness of carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate for treatment of partial epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carbamazepine is widely accepted as a drug of first choice for patients with partial onset seizures. Several newer drugs possess efficacy against these seizure types but previous randomised controlled trials have failed to inform a choice between these drugs. We aimed to assess efficacy with regards to longer-term outcomes, quality of life, and health economic outcomes. METHODS: SANAD was an unblinded randomised controlled trial in hospital-based outpatient clinics in the UK. Arm A recruited 1721 patients for whom carbamazepine was deemed to be standard treatment, and they were randomly assigned to receive carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate. Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure, and time to 12-months remission, and assessment was by both intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN38354748. FINDINGS: For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was significantly better than carbamazepine (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95% CI 0.63-0.97]), gabapentin (0.65 [0.52-0.80]), and topiramate (0.64 [0.52-0.79]), and had a non-significant advantage compared with oxcarbazepine (1.15 [0.86-1.54]). For time to 12-month remission carbamazepine was significantly better than gabapentin (0.75 [0.63-0.90]), and estimates suggest a non-significant advantage for carbamazepine against lamotrigine (0.91 [0.77-1.09]), topiramate (0.86 [0.72-1.03]), and oxcarbazepine (0.92 [0.73-1.18]). In a per-protocol analysis, at 2 and 4 years the difference (95% CI) in the proportion achieving a 12-month remission (lamotrigine-carbamazepine) is 0 (-8 to 7) and 5 (-3 to 12), suggesting non-inferiority of lamotrigine compared with carbamazepine. INTERPRETATION: Lamotrigine is clinically better than carbamazepine, the standard drug treatment, for time to treatment failure outcomes and is therefore a cost-effective alternative for patients diagnosed with partial onset seizures.

The SANAD study of effectiveness of valproate, lamotrigine, or topiramate for generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valproate is widely accepted as a drug of first choice for patients with generalised onset seizures, and its broad spectrum of efficacy means it is recommended for patients with seizures that are difficult to classify. Lamotrigine and topiramate are also thought to possess broad spectrum activity. The SANAD study aimed to compare the longer-term effects of these drugs in patients with generalised onset seizures or seizures that are difficult to classify. METHODS: SANAD was an unblinded randomised controlled trial in hospital-based outpatient clinics in the UK. Arm B of the study recruited 716 patients for whom valproate was considered to be standard treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to valproate, lamotrigine, or topiramate between Jan 12, 1999, and Aug 31, 2004, and follow-up data were obtained up to Jan 13, 2006. Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure, and time to 1-year remission, and analysis was by both intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN38354748. FINDINGS: For time to treatment failure, valproate was significantly better than topiramate (hazard ratio 1.57 [95% CI 1.19-2.08]), but there was no significant difference between valproate and lamotrigine (1.25 [0.94-1.68]). For patients with an idiopathic generalised epilepsy, valproate was significantly better than both lamotrigine (1.55 [1.07-2.24] and topiramate (1.89 [1.32-2.70]). For time to 12-month remission valproate was significantly better than lamotrigine overall (0.76 [0.62-0.94]), and for the subgroup with an idiopathic generalised epilepsy 0.68 (0.53-0.89). But there was no significant difference between valproate and topiramate in either the analysis overall or for the subgroup with an idiopathic generalised epilepsy. INTERPRETATION: Valproate is better tolerated than topiramate and more efficacious than lamotrigine, and should remain the drug of first choice for many patients with generalised and unclassified epilepsies. However, because of known potential adverse effects of valproate during pregnancy, the benefits for seizure control in women of childbearing years should be considered.

Prediction of risk of seizure recurrence after a single seizure and early epilepsy: further results from the MESS trial.

BACKGROUND: The MRC Multicentre trial for Early Epilepsy and Single Seizures (MESS) showed a reduced risk of further seizures in patients, for whom treatment with antiepileptic drugs was uncertain, who were randomly assigned immediate treatment compared with delayed treatment. However, there was no evidence of an effect on [corrected] long-term remission rates. This study was undertaken to assess the role of patient characteristics and treatment in the prediction of seizure recurrence. This will enable decision-making on the basis of the perceived risk of treatment compared with the benefit of reducing the risk of further seizures in the initial years after diagnosis. METHODS: A prognostic model was developed based on individual patient data from MESS to enable identification of patients at low, medium, or high risk of seizure recurrence. A split-sample approach was used in which the model was developed on a subsample of the full data and validated on the remainder of the sample. Distinction of the prognostic groups and predictive accuracy of the model were assessed. FINDINGS: Number of seizures of all types at presentation, presence of a neurological disorder, and an abnormal electroencephalogram (EEG) were significant factors in indicating future seizures. Individuals with two or three seizures, a neurological disorder, or an abnormal EEG were identified as the medium-risk group, those with two of these features or more than three seizures as the high-risk group, and those with a single seizure only as the low-risk group. INTERPRETATION: The model shows that there is little benefit to immediate treatment in patients at low risk of seizure recurrence, but potentially worthwhile benefits are seen in those at medium and high risk.

Clinical factors and ABCB1 polymorphisms in prediction of antiepileptic drug response: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The ABCB1 3435C-->T single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) or a three-SNP haplotype containing 3435C-->T has been implicated in multidrug resistance in epilepsy in three retrospective case-control studies, but a further three have failed to replicate the association. We aimed to determine the effect of the ABCB1 gene on epilepsy drug response, using a unique large cohort of epilepsy patients with prospectively measured seizure and drug response outcomes. METHODS: The ABCB1 3435C-->T polymorphism and three-SNP haplotype, plus a comprehensive set of tag SNPs across ABCB1 and adjacent ABCB4, were genotyped in a cohort of 503 epilepsy patients with prospectively measured seizure and drug response outcomes. Clinical, demographic, and genetic data were analysed. Treatment outcome was measured in terms of time to 12-month remission, time to first seizure, and time to drug withdrawal due to inadequate seizure control or side-effects. Randomly selected genome-wide HapMap SNPs (n=129) were genotyped in all patients for genomic control. FINDINGS: Number of seizures before treatment was the dominant feature predicting seizure outcome after starting antiepileptic drug therapy, measured by both time to first seizure (hazard ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.21-1.49, p<0.0001) and time to 12-month remission (0.83, 0.73-0.94, p=0.003). There was no association of the ABCB1 3435C-->T polymorphism, the three-SNP haplotype, or any gene-wide tag SNP with time to first seizure after starting drug therapy, time to 12-month remission, or time to drug withdrawal due to unacceptable side-effects or to lack of seizure control. INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence that ABCB1 common variation influences either seizure or drug withdrawal outcomes after initiation of antiepileptic drug therapy.

HLA-B locus in Caucasian patients with carbamazepine hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: A strong pharmacogenetic association has been reported in Chinese patients between human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B*1502 and carbamazepine (CBZ)-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS). METHODS: We have genotyped the HLA-B alleles in 56 Caucasian patients with varying severities of CBZ hypersensitivity and 43 controls on CBZ without adverse effects. RESULTS: None of our patients (including two with blistering skin rashes) were positive for the HLA-B*1502 allele. HLA-B*0702 allele may protect against severe CBZ hypersensitivity but warrants further study. Of secondary interest, the correlation between HLA-B*0801 and HLA-DR3, DQ2 and TNF -308 alleles (on the ancestral haplotype 8.1) is consistent with our previous findings. CONCLUSION: HLA-B*1502 does not seem to be a marker for all forms of CBZ-induced hypersensitivity in a Caucasian population.

Life expectancy in people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Epilepsy carries a risk of premature mortality, but little is known about life expectancy in people with the condition. The UK National General Practice Study of Epilepsy is a prospective, population-based study of people with newly diagnosed epilepsy. A cohort of 564 patients with definite epilepsy has been followed for nearly 15 years and there have been 177 deaths. These data have been used to estimate life expectancy of people in this cohort by employing a parametric survival model based on the Weibull distribution. Life expectancy in people with epilepsy was estimated as a function of age at, and time from, diagnosis according to two broad aetiological groups. These estimates were then compared with life expectancy in people of the same age and sex in the general population. Reduction in life expectancy can be up to 2 years for people with a diagnosis of idiopathic/cryptogenic epilepsy, and the reduction can be up to 10 years in people with symptomatic epilepsy. Reductions in life expectancy are highest at the time of diagnosis and diminish with time. Our model provides broad estimates, but it appears that the higher mortality rates in people with newly diagnosed epilepsy translate into decreased life expectancy.

Adjunctive therapy versus alternative monotherapy in patients with partial epilepsy failing on a single drug: a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of alternative monotherapy versus adjunctive therapy in partial epilepsy refractory to single antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy. DESIGN AND METHODS: In a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label study, patients with cryptogenic or symptomatic partial epilepsy not controlled after single or sequential AED monotherapies were randomised to monotherapy with an alternative AED or to adjunctive therapy with a second AED. The AED to be added/substituted and dose adjustments were determined by the physician's best judgement. Patients were followed up until withdrawal from the allocated treatment or for 12 months, whichever first. Outcome measures included proportion of patients continuing on the assigned treatment strategy, proportion of patients seizure-free after achieving the target maintenance dose, and adverse effects rates. Data were analysed by actuarial life tables, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression model. RESULTS: Of a total of 157 patients (including 94 previously exposed to only one AED), 76 were randomised to alternative monotherapy and 81 to adjunctive therapy. The two groups were balanced in clinical characteristics. The 12-month cumulative probability of remaining on the assigned treatment was 55% in patients randomised to alternative monotherapy and 65% in those randomised to adjunctive therapy (P=0.74). The 12-month probability of remaining seizure-free was 14 and 16%, respectively (P=0.74). Adverse effects were similar in the two groups. No significant differences in outcome within or between groups were identified based on etiology of epilepsy and previous AED exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Although these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the low statistical power resulting from the relatively small sample size, alternative monotherapy and adjunctive therapy were associated with similar outcomes. Further work is required to determine whether outcome could be improved through identification of specific AED combinations with synergistic activity.

The treatment of the first seizure: the benefits.

The benefits of antiepileptic drug treatment are among the best quantified of any area of epilepsy management, because of the number and quality of randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses that address these issues. It is evident that there are groups of readily identified patients at higher risk of seizure recurrence for whom the benefits of early drug treatment in preventing short-term seizure recurrence may be attractive for individual patients, although for the majority of patients at lower risk, benefit is minimal. It is now possible to exclude any modification of the long-term prognosis for patients arising from early treatment.

Multiple treatment comparisons in epilepsy monotherapy trials.

BACKGROUND: The choice of antiepileptic drug for an individual should be based upon the highest quality evidence regarding potential benefits and harms of the available treatments. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials should be a major source of evidence supporting this decision making process. We summarise all available individual patient data evidence from randomised controlled trials that compared at least two out of eight antiepileptic drugs given as monotherapy. METHODS: Multiple treatment comparisons from epilepsy monotherapy trials were synthesized in a single stratified Cox regression model adjusted for treatment by epilepsy type interactions and making use of direct and indirect evidence. Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure and time to 12 month remission from seizures. A secondary outcome was time to first seizure. RESULTS: Individual patient data for 6418 patients from 20 randomised trials comparing eight antiepileptic drugs were synthesized. For partial onset seizures (4628 (72%) patients), lamotrigine, carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine provide the best combination of seizure control and treatment failure. Lamotrigine is clinically superior to all other drugs for treatment failure but estimates suggest a disadvantage compared to carbamazepine for time to 12 month remission [Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) = 0.87(0.73 to 1.04)] and time to first seizure [1.29(1.13 to 1.48)]. Phenobarbitone may delay time to first seizure [0.77(0.61 to 0.96)] but at the expense of increased treatment failure [1.60(1.22 to 2.10)]. For generalized onset tonic clonic seizures (1790 (28%) patients) estimates suggest valproate or phenytoin may provide the best combination of seizure control and treatment failure but some uncertainty remains about the relative effectiveness of other drugs. CONCLUSION: For patients with partial onset seizures, results favour carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine. For generalized onset tonic clonic seizures, results favour valproate and phenytoin.

Recognition of emotion with temporal lobe epilepsy and asymmetrical amygdala damage.

PURPOSE: Impairments in emotion recognition occur when there is bilateral damage to the amygdala. In this study, ability to recognize auditory and visual expressions of emotion was investigated in people with asymmetrical amygdala damage (AAD) and temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). METHODS: Recognition of five emotions was tested across three participant groups: those with right AAD and TLE, those with left AAD and TLE, and a comparison group. Four tasks were administered: recognition of emotion from facial expressions, sentences describing emotion-laden situations, nonverbal sounds, and prosody. RESULTS: Accuracy scores for each task and emotion were analysed, and no consistent overall effect of AAD on emotion recognition was found. However, some individual participants with AAD were significantly impaired at recognizing emotions, in both auditory and visual domains. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that a minority of individuals with AAD have impairments in emotion recognition, but no evidence of specific impairments (e.g., visual or auditory) was found.

Serious carbamazepine-induced hypersensitivity reactions associated with the HSP70 gene cluster.

OBJECTIVES: The use of carbamazepine (CBZ), the most commonly prescribed antiepileptic drug, is hampered by the occurrence of severe, potentially lethal hypersensitivity reactions. The pathogenesis of hypersensitivity is not yet known, but immune mechanisms are involved. Predisposition to CBZ hypersensitivity is likely to be genetically determined, and genes within the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) have been implicated. The heat shock protein (HSP70) gene cluster is located in the MHC class III region. METHODS: Using a case-control study design, we compared 61 patients with CBZ hypersensitivity (22 with a severe reaction) to 44 patients on CBZ with no signs of hypersensitivity and 172 healthy controls. The genotyping strategy involved identification of common and rare single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within the HSP70 gene cluster by sequencing, estimation of linkage disequilibrium (LD) and haplotype structure, and thereafter, analysis of SNP/haplotype frequencies in the cases and controls. Population substructure was evaluated by genotyping of 34 microsatellites. RESULTS: Twenty-five SNPs were detected across the three HSP70 genes. Analyses revealed that alleles G, T and C at the SNPs HSPA1A +1911 C/G, HSPA1A +438 C/T and HSPA1L +2437 T/C, respectively, were associated with protection from serious hypersensitivity reactions to CBZ, with the associated alleles falling on a common haplotype. We were unable to detect the presence of population stratification in our patients and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that HSP70 gene variants are associated with serious CBZ hypersensitivity reactions, but whether this is causal or reflects LD with another gene within the MHC requires further study.

Electronic transmission of prescriptions: towards realising the dream.

The UK National Health Service (NHS) is about to commence upon major computerisation of its processes as part of a government plan of modernisation. One of these is the Electronic Transmission of Prescription (ETP). To achieve success it is important to know what benefits are expected from the new system and what barriers to adoption the systems will face. This paper reviews substantial ETP published material, and identifies 17 issues that need to be addressed. These issues are categorised under four major headings of stakeholders, cost, technology, and current process and practice, and are then further classified as positive or negative influences on the project's success. Many of these influences will be common to most of the computerisation projects to be undertaken by the NHS, and therefore this paper has wider applicability than ETP.

The coexistence of idiopathic generalized epilepsy and partial epilepsy.

PURPOSE: To describe the clinical, EEG, and imaging data of a series of patients with features of both idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) and partial epilepsy. METHODS: A computerized database of all patients attending the regional epilepsy clinic was used to identify all patients with IGE. Case notes were reviewed, and cases with clinical evidence of co-existing partial epilepsy identified. RESULTS: Nine cases with clinical features of a partial and generalized-onset epilepsy and with electrophysiological evidence of IGE are presented. This represented <1% of the overall IGE population in the clinic. Five (55.6%) patients are currently in remission, with successful epilepsy surgery in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: The coexistence of IGE and partial epilepsy is uncommon, and if appropriate treatment with a broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug is given, then the prognosis can be good. Surgery should be considered for those cases with medically intractable partial-onset seizures as part of this syndrome.

Carbamazepine versus valproate monotherapy for epilepsy: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To provide an overview of the evidence comparing carbamazepine (CBZ) and valproate (VPA) monotherapy for epilepsy, investigating whether existing data support the current practice of preferring CBZ for partial-onset and VPA for generalized-onset seizures. METHODS: We performed meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials by using individual patient data. Our strategy included searches of (a) Medline, 1966-2000; (b) The Cochrane Library 2000, issue 4; and (c) the pharmaceutical industry. Outcome measures were time to discontinuation of allocated treatment, time to 12-month remission, and time to first seizure after randomization. Results are expressed as hazard ratios (HRs; 95% CI), where HR>1 indicates that an event is more likely with VPA. A test for an interaction between treatment and seizure type (partial vs. generalized onset) also was undertaken. RESULTS: Data were available for 1,265 patients from five trials. Overall results (HR, 95% CI) were Time to treatment discontinuation, 0.97 (0.79-1.18); 12-Month remission, 0.87 (0.74-1.02); and First seizure, 1.09 (0.96-1.25), suggesting no overall difference for these outcomes. The test for an interaction between Treatment and Seizure type was significant for time to first seizure, but for no other outcome. The age distribution of adults classified as having generalized seizures indicated that significant numbers of patients may have had their seizures misclassified. CONCLUSIONS: We found some evidence to support the preference of CBZ for partial-onset seizures, but no evidence to support the preference of VPA for generalized-onset seizures. Confidence intervals are too wide to infer equivalence. Misclassification of patients may have confounded our results and has important implications for future trials.

Statistical issues in the assessment of the evidence for an interaction between factors in epilepsy trials.

We examine the common clinical belief that there is an interaction between epilepsy type and the two standard anti-epileptic drugs, valproate and carbamazepine, using data from several randomized clinical trials. Epilepsy type is not always easy to define, and three possible reclassifications are investigated to see whether misclassification of epilepsy type within the trials has potentially masked such an interaction. Regression modelling is employed to investigate whether heterogeneity between trial results can be explained by patient factors. Our work suggests that uncertainty in epilepsy type classification should be recognized in future studies. We also generate the hypothesis that the interaction of drug effect with age may reflect the perceived interaction with epilepsy type. We suggest that in any context where misclassification is likely, it is worth considering the use of an explicit 'unclassified' group, and investigating whether additional covariates can answer the substantive question.

Gabapentin versus lamotrigine monotherapy: a double-blind comparison in newly diagnosed epilepsy.

PURPOSE: This randomised, double-blind study compared the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) gabapentin (GBP) and lamotrigine (LTG) as monotherapy in newly diagnosed epilepsy. METHODS: Patients with partial seizures with and/or without secondary generalization or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures were randomized to either GBP or LTG. During 2- and 6-week titration periods, respectively, GBP dosage reached 1,800 mg/day, and LTG, 150 mg/day. In the subsequent 24-week maintenance phase, the dose could be adjusted based on seizure control or adverse events between 1,200 and 3,600 mg/day for GBP and 100 and 300 mg/day for LTG. The primary end point was time to exit, a composite of efficacy and tolerability. Evaluable patients were used for the primary efficacy analysis, whereas tolerability was examined on an intent-to-treat basis. RESULTS: A total of 309 patients was randomized, and 291 (148 GBP, 143 LTG) were included in the evaluable population. Nineteen patients in each group had an exit event. The median time to exit was 69 days for GBP and 48 days for LTG. The hazard ratio was estimated as 1.043 (90% confidence intervals, 0.602-1.809). Overall, 106 (71.6% of the evaluable population) GBP-treated and 96 (67.1%) LTG-treated patients completed the study. Of those, 80 (75.5%) patients taking GBP and 73 (76.0%) taking LTG remained seizure free during the final 12 weeks of treatment. Only 14 (8.9%) GBP-treated patients and 15 (9.9%) LTG-treated patients withdrew because of study drug-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: GBP and LTG monotherapy were similarly effective and well tolerated in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Characterization of drug-specific T cells in lamotrigine hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Lamotrigine is associated with hypersensitivity reactions, which are most commonly characterized by skin rash. An immune etiology has been postulated, though the nature of this is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to characterize the role of T cells in lamotrigine hypersensitivity. METHODS: A lymphocyte transformation test was performed on 4 hypersensitive patients. Lymphocytes from 3 of 4 lamotrigine-hypersensitive patients proliferated when stimulated with lamotrigine. T-cell clones were generated from one patient to further characterize the nature of the T-cell involvement. Cells were characterized in terms of their phenotype, functionality, and mechanisms of antigen presentation and cytotoxicity. RESULTS: Of the 44 drug-specific T-cell clones generated, most were CD4(+) with occasional CD8(+) cells. All clones expressed the alphabeta T-cell receptor; several Vbeta 5.1(+) or 9(+) T-cell clones were generated. All clones also expressed the skin-homing receptor cutaneous lymphocyte antigen. Lamotrigine-stimulated T cells were cytotoxic and secreted perforin, IFN-gamma, IL-5, and macrophage inflammatory protein 1alpha, macrophage inflammatory protein 1beta, RANTES, and I-309. Lamotrigine was present on HLA-DR and HLA-DQ by antigen-presenting cells in the absence of drug metabolism and processing. The T-cell receptor of certain clones could accommodate analogs of lamotrigine, but no cross-reactivity was seen with other anticonvulsants. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provide evidence that T cells are involved in the pathogenesis of some lamotrigine-hypersensitivity reactions. The identification of drug-specific cells that express cutaneous lymphocyte antigen and type 1 cytokines after T-cell receptor activation is consistent with the clinical symptoms. Furthermore, identification of large numbers of Vbeta 5.1(+) T cells suggests that polymorphisms within T-cell receptor genes might act as determinants of susceptibility.