Precision medicine for genetic epilepsy on the horizon: Recent advances, present challenges, and suggestions for continued progress.

The genetic basis of many epilepsies is increasingly understood, giving rise to the possibility of precision treatments tailored to specific genetic etiologies. Despite this, current medical therapy for most epilepsies remains imprecise, aimed primarily at empirical seizure reduction rather than targeting specific disease processes. Intellectual and technological leaps in diagnosis over the past 10 years have not yet translated to routine changes in clinical practice. However, the epilepsy community is poised to make impressive gains in precision therapy, with continued innovation in gene discovery, diagnostic ability, and bioinformatics; increased access to genetic testing and counseling; fuller understanding of natural histories; agility and rigor in preclinical research, including strategic use of emerging model systems; and engagement of an evolving group of stakeholders (including patient advocates, governmental resources, and clinicians and scientists in academia and industry). In each of these areas, we highlight notable examples of recent progress, new or persistent challenges, and future directions. The future of precision medicine for genetic epilepsy looks bright if key opportunities on the horizon can be pursued with strategic and coordinated effort.

SCN8A encephalopathy: Research progress and prospects.

On April 21, 2015, the first SCN8A Encephalopathy Research Group convened in Washington, DC, to assess current research into clinical and pathogenic features of the disorder and prepare an agenda for future research collaborations. The group comprised clinical and basic scientists and representatives of patient advocacy groups. SCN8A encephalopathy is a rare disorder caused by de novo missense mutations of the sodium channel gene SCN8A, which encodes the neuronal sodium channel Nav 1.6. Since the initial description in 2012, approximately 140 affected individuals have been reported in publications or by SCN8A family groups. As a result, an understanding of the severe impact of SCN8A mutations is beginning to emerge. Defining a genetic epilepsy syndrome goes beyond identification of molecular etiology. Topics discussed at this meeting included (1) comparison between mutations of SCN8A and the SCN1A mutations in Dravet syndrome, (2) biophysical properties of the Nav 1.6 channel, (3) electrophysiologic effects of patient mutations on channel properties, (4) cell and animal models of SCN8A encephalopathy, (5) drug screening strategies, (6) the phenotypic spectrum of SCN8A encephalopathy, and (7) efforts to develop a bioregistry. A panel discussion of gaps in bioregistry, biobanking, and clinical outcomes data was followed by a planning session for improved integration of clinical and basic science research. Although SCN8A encephalopathy was identified only recently, there has been rapid progress in functional analysis and phenotypic classification. The focus is now shifting from identification of the underlying molecular cause to the development of strategies for drug screening and prioritized patient care.

Toward an integrated public health approach for epilepsy in the 21st century.

Epilepsy, a complex spectrum of disorders, merits enhanced public health action. In 2012, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a seminal report on the public health dimensions of the epilepsies, recommending actions in 7 domains. The report urged a more integrated and coordinated national approach for care centering on the whole patient, including heightened attention to comorbidities and quality of life; more timely referral and access to treatments; and improved community resources, education, stakeholder collaboration, and public communication. The US Department of Health and Human Services responded to this report by accelerating and integrating ongoing initiatives and beginning new ones. This article summarizes recent federally supported activities promoting an integrated public health approach for epilepsy, highlighting progress in response to the landmark 2012 IOM report and identifying opportunities for continued public health action.

Epilepsy therapy development: technical and methodologic issues in studies with animal models.

The search for new treatments for seizures, epilepsies, and their comorbidities faces considerable challenges. This is due in part to gaps in our understanding of the etiology and pathophysiology of most forms of epilepsy. An additional challenge is the difficulty in predicting the efficacy, tolerability, and impact of potential new treatments on epilepsies and comorbidities in humans, using the available resources. Herein we provide a summary of the discussions and proposals of the Working Group 2 as presented in the Joint American Epilepsy Society and International League Against Epilepsy Translational Workshop in London (September 2012). We propose methodologic and reporting practices that will enhance the uniformity, reliability, and reporting of early stage preclinical studies with animal seizure and epilepsy models that aim to develop and evaluate new therapies for seizures or epilepsies, using multidisciplinary approaches. The topics considered include the following: (1) implementation of better study design and reporting practices; (2) incorporation in the study design and analysis of covariants that may influence outcomes (including species, age, sex); (3) utilization of approaches to document target relevance, exposure, and engagement by the tested treatment; (4) utilization of clinically relevant treatment protocols; (5) optimization of the use of video-electroencephalography (EEG) recordings to best meet the study goals; and (6) inclusion of outcome measures that address the tolerability of the treatment or study end points apart from seizures. We further discuss the different expectations for studies aiming to meet regulatory requirements to obtain approval for clinical testing in humans. Implementation of the rigorous practices discussed in this report will require considerable investment in time, funds, and other research resources, which may create challenges for academic researchers seeking to contribute to epilepsy therapy discovery and development. We propose several infrastructure initiatives to overcome these barriers.

Issues related to symptomatic and disease-modifying treatments affecting cognitive and neuropsychiatric comorbidities of epilepsy.

Many symptoms of neurologic or psychiatric illness--such as cognitive impairment, depression, anxiety, attention deficits, and migraine--occur more frequently in people with epilepsy than in the general population. These diverse comorbidities present an underappreciated problem for people with epilepsy and their caregivers because they decrease quality of life, complicate treatment, and increase mortality. In fact, it has been suggested that comorbidities can have a greater effect on quality of life in people with epilepsy than the seizures themselves. There is increasing recognition of the frequency and impact of cognitive and behavioral comorbidities of epilepsy, highlighted in the 2012 Institute of Medicine report on epilepsy. Comorbidities have also been acknowledged, as a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Benchmark area for research in epilepsy. However, relatively little progress has been made in developing new therapies directed specifically at comorbidities. On the other hand, there have been many advances in understanding underlying mechanisms. These advances have made it possible to identify novel targets for therapy and prevention. As part of the International League Against Epilepsy/American Epilepsy Society workshop on preclinical therapy development for epilepsy, our working group considered the current state of understanding related to terminology, models, and strategies for therapy development for the comorbidities of epilepsy. Herein we summarize our findings and suggest ways to accelerate development of new therapies. We also consider important issues to improve research including those related to methodology, nonpharmacologic therapies, biomarkers, and infrastructure.