Anticipatory anxiety of seizures in epilepsy: A common, complex, and underrecognized phenomenon?

The diagnosis of epilepsy is associated with loss of predictability, which invariably results in the fear of when and if future seizures will occur. For a subset of patients with epilepsy (PWE), there may be a pathological persistent fear of seizure occurrence, resulting in limitations to daily activities through avoidant behaviors. Paradoxically, the research of anticipatory anxiety of seizures (AAS; also referred to as seizure phobia) has been practically nonexistent and, not surprisingly, this condition remains underrecognized by clinicians. The available data are derived from three small case series of patients followed in tertiary epilepsy centers. In this study, we review the available data on the reported clinical manifestations of AAS in PWE, and of the potential role of variables associated with it, such as personal and family psychosocial and psychiatric history and epilepsy-related variables. In addition, we review the need for the creation of screening tools to identify patients at risk of AAS and discuss potential treatment strategies, which could be considered as part of the comprehensive management for PWE.

Effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam in patients with epilepsy stratified by comorbidities and etiology in the real world: 12-month subgroup data from the international EXPERIENCE pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in adults with epilepsy by specific comorbidities and epilepsy etiologies. METHODS: EXPERIENCE/EPD332 was a pooled analysis of individual patient records from several non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy initiating BRV in clinical practice. Outcomes included ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency, seizure freedom (no seizures within prior 3 months), continuous seizure freedom (no seizures since baseline), BRV discontinuation, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Analyses were performed for all adult patients (≥ 16 years of age) and stratified by comorbidity and by etiology at baseline (patients with cognitive/learning disability [CLD], psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, brain tumor-related epilepsy [BTRE], and traumatic brain injury-related epilepsy [TBIE]). RESULTS: At 12 months, ≥ 50% seizure reduction was achieved in 35.6% (n = 264), 38.7% (n = 310), 41.7% (n = 24), 34.1% (n = 41), and 50.0% (n = 28) of patients with CLD, psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, BTRE, and TBIE, respectively; and continuous seizure freedom was achieved in 5.7% (n = 318), 13.7% (n = 424), 29.4% (n = 34), 11.4% (n = 44), and 13.8% (n = 29), respectively. During the study follow-up, in patients with CLD, psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, BTRE, and TBIE, 37.1% (n = 403), 30.7% (n = 605), 33.3% (n = 51), 39.7% (n = 68), and 27.1% (n = 49) of patients discontinued BRV, respectively; and TEAEs since prior visit at 12 months were reported in 11.3% (n = 283), 10.0% (n = 410), 16.7% (n = 36), 12.5% (n = 48), and 3.0% (n = 33), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BRV as prescribed in the real world is effective and well tolerated among patients with CLD, psychiatric comorbidity, post-stroke epilepsy, BTRE, and TBIE.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of 12-Month Brivaracetam in the Real World: EXPERIENCE, an International Pooled Analysis of Individual Patient Records.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Real-world evidence studies of brivaracetam (BRV) have been restricted in scope, location, and patient numbers. The objective of this pooled analysis was to assess effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in routine practice in a large international population. METHODS: EXPERIENCE/EPD332 was a pooled analysis of individual patient records from multiple independent non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy initiating BRV in Australia, Europe, and the United States. Eligible study cohorts were identified via a literature review and engagement with country lead investigators, clinical experts, and local UCB Pharma scientific/medical teams. Included patients initiated BRV no earlier than January 2016 and no later than December 2019, and had ≥ 6 months of follow-up data. The databases for each cohort were reformatted and standardised to ensure information collected was consistent. Outcomes included ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency, seizure freedom (no seizures within 3 months before timepoint), continuous seizure freedom (no seizures from baseline), BRV discontinuation, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients with missing data after BRV discontinuation were considered non-responders/not seizure free. Analyses were performed for all adult patients (≥ 16 years), and for subgroups by seizure type recorded at baseline; by number of prior antiseizure medications (ASMs) at index; by use of BRV as monotherapy versus polytherapy at index; for patients who switched from levetiracetam to BRV versus patients who switched from other ASMs to BRV; and for patients with focal-onset seizures and a BRV dose of ≤ 200 mg/day used as add-on at index. Analysis populations included the full analysis set (FAS; all patients who received at least one BRV dose and had seizure type and age documented at baseline) and the modified FAS (all FAS patients who had at least one seizure recorded during baseline). The FAS was used for all outcomes other than ≥ 50% seizure reduction. All outcomes were summarised using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Analyses included 1644 adults. At baseline, 72.0% were 16-49 years of age and 92.2% had focal-onset seizures. Patients had a median (Q1, Q3) of 5.0 (2.0, 8.0) prior antiseizure medications at index. At 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, ≥ 50% seizure reduction was achieved by 32.1% (n = 619), 36.7% (n = 867), and 36.9% (n = 822) of patients; seizure freedom rates were 22.4% (n = 923), 17.9% (n = 1165), and 14.9% (n = 1111); and continuous seizure freedom rates were 22.4% (n = 923), 15.7% (n = 1165), and 11.7% (n = 1111). During the whole study follow-up, 551/1639 (33.6%) patients discontinued BRV. TEAEs since prior visit were reported in 25.6% (n = 1542), 14.2% (n = 1376), and 9.3% (n = 1232) of patients at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis using data from a variety of real-world settings suggests BRV is effective and well tolerated in routine clinical practice in a highly drug-resistant patient population.

An economic evaluation of vagus nerve stimulation as an adjunctive treatment to anti-seizure medications for the treatment of drug resistant epilepsy in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: People with recurrent epileptic seizures are typically treated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs). Around a third of epilepsy patients fail to achieve an adequate response to ASMs and may be eligible to receive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy for their drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) if they are unsuited to surgery. VNS received approval from the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration agency. However, there has to date been no comprehensive cost effectiveness evaluation of VNS within the US setting. This study was designed, using a US Medicare perspective, to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with VNS as an adjunct to ongoing ASM therapy, compared to ASMs alone. METHODS: We developed a cohort state transition model in Microsoft Excel, with four health states defined by different percentage reductions in seizure frequency, with a 3-month cycle and transition probabilities derived from published clinical trials and registry data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to understand the impact of parameter uncertainty. Costs included the VNS device, placement, programming, battery changes, and removal; ASM therapy; adverse events associated with VNS (dyspnea, hoarseness, and cough); and costs associated with seizure burden (i.e. hospitalizations, emergency department visits, neurologist visits). RESULTS: Under base case assumptions, treatment with VNS was associated with a 0.385 QALY gain and a $109,678 saving per patient, when compared with ASM therapy alone. The incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) was $128,903 at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY, with the positive iNMB indicating that VNS is a highly cost effective treatment. This result is explained by the modeled reduction in relative seizure frequency and associated reduction in healthcare resource use that the VNS group experienced. Sensitivity analyses supported this conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: VNS was evaluated as a cost effective addition to the current standard of care in the treatment of DRE in the US Medicare context.

Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) are drugs commonly prescribed to people with epilepsy to help prevent seizures from reoccurring. But these drugs do not work for all people: around a third keep having seizures despite taking the medication­a condition called drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). For such people, their main options involve trying different combinations of ASMs, having brain surgery, or having a medical device implanted. In the United States (US), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy is approved by the Food and Drug Administration agency for DRE patients who are still having focal onset seizures despite trying ASM therapy. Using methods defined by the US evaluation body, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, we made an economic model to assess how cost effective VNS would be as an add-on to ASM therapy. The evaluation utilizes a previously published model, which was updated to use costs, health-related quality of life, and mortality estimates relevant to the US Medicare setting. The analysis demonstrated that VNS could generate cost savings when used as an add-on ASM treatment in the US Medicare setting. VNS may reduce the number of seizures, and subsequently improve patient quality of life and result in substantially lower costs for Medicare (e.g. in emergency and hospital care for a person having a seizure). We tested uncertainties in our model using standard methods­these additional analyses allow us to conclude that VNS is highly likely to be a cost effective addition to the current standard of care for DRE treatment from a US perspective.

The epidemiology of epilepsy in older adults: A narrative review by the ILAE Task Force on Epilepsy in the Elderly.

In an aging world, it is important to know the burden of epilepsy affecting populations of older persons. We performed a selective review of epidemiological studies that we considered to be most informative, trying to include data from all parts of the world. We emphasized primary reports rather than review articles. We reviewed studies reporting the incidence and prevalence of epilepsy that focused on an older population as well as studies that included a wider age range if older persons were tabulated as a subgroup. There is strong evidence that persons older than approximately 60 years incur an increasing risk of both acute symptomatic seizures and epilepsy. In wealthier countries, the incidence of epilepsy increases sharply after age 60 or 65 years. This phenomenon was not always observed among reports from populations with lower socioeconomic status. This discrepancy may reflect differences in etiologies, methods of ascertainment, or distribution of ages; this is an area for more research. We identified other areas for which there are inadequate data. Incidence data are scarcer than prevalence data and are missing for large areas of the world. Prevalence is lower than would be expected from cumulative incidence, possibly because of remissions, excess mortality, or misdiagnosis of acute symptomatic seizures as epilepsy. Segmentation by age, frailty, and comorbidities is desirable, because "epilepsy in the elderly" is otherwise too broad a concept. Data are needed on rates of status epilepticus and drug-resistant epilepsy using the newer definitions. Many more data are needed from low-income populations and from developing countries. Greater awareness of the high rates of seizures among older adults should lead to more focused diagnostic efforts for individuals. Accurate data on epilepsy among older adults should drive proper allocation of treatments for individuals and resources for societies.

Mood and Anxiety Disorders and Suicidality in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Focal Epilepsy: An Analysis of a Complex Comorbidity.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Mood, anxiety disorders, and suicidality are more frequent in people with epilepsy than in the general population. Yet, their prevalence and the types of mood and anxiety disorders associated with suicidality at the time of the epilepsy diagnosis are not established. We sought to answer these questions in patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and to assess their association with suicidal ideation and attempts. METHODS: The data were derived from the Human Epilepsy Project study. A total of 347 consecutive adults aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy were enrolled within 4 months of starting treatment. The types of mood and anxiety disorders were identified with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, whereas suicidal ideation (lifetime, current, active, and passive) and suicidal attempts (lifetime and current) were established with the Columbia Suicidality Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS). Statistical analyses included the t test, χ2 statistics, and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 151 (43.5%) patients had a psychiatric diagnosis; 134 (38.6%) met the criteria for a mood and/or anxiety disorder, and 75 (21.6%) reported suicidal ideation with or without attempts. Mood (23.6%) and anxiety (27.4%) disorders had comparable prevalence rates, whereas both disorders occurred together in 43 patients (12.4%). Major depressive disorders (MDDs) had a slightly higher prevalence than bipolar disorders (BPDs) (9.5% vs 6.9%, respectively). Explanatory variables of suicidality included MDD, BPD, panic disorders, and agoraphobia, with BPD and panic disorders being the strongest variables, particularly for active suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts. DISCUSSION: In patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, the prevalence of mood, anxiety disorders, and suicidality is higher than in the general population and comparable to those of patients with established epilepsy. Their recognition at the time of the initial epilepsy evaluation is of the essence.

Management of epilepsy in older adults: A critical review by the ILAE Task Force on Epilepsy in the elderly.

Older adults represent a highly heterogeneous population, with multiple diverse subgroups. Therefore, an individualized approach to treatment is essential to meet the needs of each unique subgroup. Most comparative studies focusing on treatment of epilepsy in older adults have found that levetiracetam has the best chance of long-term seizure freedom. However, there is a lack of studies investigating other newer generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). Although a number of randomized clinical trials have been performed on older adults with epilepsy, the number of participants studied was generally small, and they only investigated short-term efficacy and tolerability. Quality of life as an outcome is often missing but is necessary to understand the effectiveness and possible side effects of treatment. Prognosis needs to move beyond the focus on seizure control to long-term patient-centered outcomes. Dosing studies with newer generation ASMs are needed to understand which treatments are the best in the older adults with different comorbidities. In particular, more high-level evidence is required for older adults with Alzheimer's disease with epilepsy and status epilepticus. Future treatment studies should use greater homogeneity in the inclusion criteria to allow for clearer findings that can be comparable with other studies to build the existing treatment evidence base.

Implications of Seizure-Cluster Treatment on Healthcare Utilization: Use of Approved Rescue Medications.

Purpose: People with epilepsy may experience seizure clusters despite a stable regimen of antiseizure medications. Such clusters have the potential to last ≥24 hours, typically occur in the community setting, and may progress to medical emergencies, such as status epilepticus, if untreated. Thus, long-acting rescue therapy for seizure clusters is needed that can be administered by nonmedical individuals outside a hospital. Benzodiazepines are the foundation of rescue therapy for seizure clusters. The approved outpatient treatments (ie, diazepam, midazolam) have differing profiles that may affect multiple aspects of health-care utilization. The current labeling of these medications allows for a second dose if needed to control the cluster. Although no head-to-head studies directly comparing rescue treatments have been conducted, differences between studies with generally similar designs may provide context for the potential importance of second doses of rescue therapy on health-care utilization. Methods: For this analysis, large, long-term, open-label studies of approved seizure-cluster treatments designed for use by nonmedical caregivers were reviewed, and the percentage of seizure clusters for which a second dose was used or that were not controlled at 6, 12, and 24 hours was examined. Available data on hospitalizations were also collected. Results: The 3 identified studies meeting the inclusion criteria were for use of diazepam rectal gel, intranasal midazolam, and diazepam nasal spray. Across these studies, the use of a second dose ranged from <40% at 6 hours to <13% at 24 hours. Hospitalizations and serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported variably across these studies. Conclusion: These results demonstrate the importance of second doses of rescue therapy for seizure clusters for optimizing health-care utilization. Need for second doses should be included as one component. In turn, when second doses are needed, they have the potential to curtail emergency department use and hospitalization and to prevent further seizure clusters.

Economic aspects of treating seizure clusters.

Seizure clusters may initiate a chain of events that have economic as well as clinical consequences. The potential economic consequences of seizure clusters must be weighed against the cost of medication to attenuate them. This is true both for individual patients and for society. Data needed for economic analyses include the chance that a cluster will progress to an adverse outcome, such as a need for emergency care, the costs of such an outcome, the cost of a rescue medication (RM), and the effectiveness of the RM. Indirect costs, such as lost employment for patients and caregivers, must also be considered. Several types of economic analyses can be used to determine costs and benefits of a medical intervention. There are studies comparing different RMs from an economic perspective, but there is little direct information on the costs of using an RM versus allowing clusters to run their course. However, the high expense of consequences of seizure clusters makes it likely that effective RMs will make economic as well as medical sense for many patients.

Quality-of-life results in adults with epilepsy using diazepam nasal spray for seizure clusters from a long-term, open-label safety study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of seizure clusters and the use of intermittent rescue therapy for clusters on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with epilepsy has not been widely studied. The present analysis assessed QoL as a secondary endpoint among adult patients with seizure clusters enrolled in a long-term, phase 3, open-label safety study (NCT02721069) of diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco®). The QoL aspect of patients in this study has not been previously published. METHODS: The 12-month safety study of diazepam nasal spray enrolled patients aged 6-65 years with seizure clusters. Adults aged ≥18 years completed the Quality of Life in Epilepsy (QOLIE)-31-P at baseline (day 0) and days 30, 150, 270, and 365. This instrument includes questions about patient health and daily activities with numeric values (1-100) assigned to responses; higher scores indicate better QoL. The QOLIE-31-P includes 7 subscales: Seizure Worry, Overall QoL, Emotional Well-Being, Energy/Fatigue, Cognitive Functioning, Medication Effects, and Social Functioning; an Overall Score is calculated as a weighted composite of the 7 subscales. Comparisons were made between subgroups of patients who had frequent (≥2) and infrequent (<2) monthly dosing of diazepam nasal spray and those whose doses were administered by the patient or a care partner. This safety study was not powered to assess efficacy endpoints; descriptive statistics were calculated across time points. In addition, safety measures, including treatment-emergent adverse events, are reported. RESULTS: Seventy-two adults who responded to the QOLIE-31-P were included in the analyses. Mean QOLIE-31-P scores were stable or increased across time points. The mean total scores increased from day 0 to day 365 by 5.2 among patients providing data for ≥1 time point (follow-up group) and 2.2 among patients providing data at all time points (QOLIE all-assessments subgroup). Subscale means for Seizure Worry and Social Functioning showed the greatest numeric increase from baseline. Mean QOLIE-31-P scores were similar in all subgroups. The safety profile in the follow-up group was similar to that seen in all study adults. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with refractory epilepsy who were treated with diazepam nasal spray for seizure clusters maintained or improved QOLIE subscale scores across the 12-month study period. Seizure Worry and Social Functioning subscale scores increased over time, suggesting improvement in these domains for this population with intractable epilepsy. Changes among subscale results suggest differences in sensitivity to the use of an intermittent treatment. The potential to improve patient function with treatment for seizure clusters warrants further study.

Superior Verbal Memory Outcome After Stereotactic Laser Amygdalohippocampotomy.

Objective: To evaluate declarative memory outcomes in medically refractory epilepsy patients who underwent either a highly selective laser ablation of the amygdalohippocampal complex or a conventional open temporal lobe resection. Methods: Post-operative change scores were examined for verbal memory outcome in epilepsy patients who underwent stereotactic laser amygdalohippocampotomy (SLAH: n = 40) or open resection procedures (n = 40) using both reliable change index (RCI) scores and a 1-SD change metric. Results: Using RCI scores, patients undergoing open resection (12/40, 30.0%) were more likely to decline on verbal memory than those undergoing SLAH (2/40 [5.0%], p = 0.0064, Fisher's exact test). Patients with language dominant procedures were much more likely to experience a significant verbal memory decline following open resection (9/19 [47.4%]) compared to laser ablation (2/19 [10.5%], p = 0.0293, Fisher's exact test). 1 SD verbal memory decline frequently occurred in the open resection sample of language dominant temporal lobe patients with mesial temporal sclerosis (8/10 [80.0%]), although it rarely occurred in such patients after SLAH (2/14, 14.3%) (p = 0.0027, Fisher's exact test). Memory improvement occurred significantly more frequently following SLAH than after open resection. Interpretation: These findings suggest that while verbal memory function can decline after laser ablation of the amygdalohippocampal complex, it is better preserved when compared to open temporal lobe resection. Our findings also highlight that the dominant hippocampus is not uniquely responsible for verbal memory. While this is at odds with our simple and common heuristic of the hippocampus in memory, it supports the findings of non-human primate studies showing that memory depends on broader medial and lateral TL regions.

Safety and Efficacy of Natalizumab as Adjunctive Therapy for People With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Phase 2 Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To explore efficacy/safety of natalizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti-α4-integrin antibody, as adjunctive therapy in adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. METHODS: Participants with ≥6 seizures during the 6-week baseline period were randomized 1:1 to receive natalizumab 300 mg IV or placebo every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. Primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline in log-transformed seizure frequency, with a predefined threshold for therapeutic success of 31% relative reduction in seizure frequency over the placebo group. Countable seizure types were focal aware with motor signs, focal impaired awareness, and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic. Secondary efficacy endpoints/safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 32 and 34 participants dosed in the natalizumab 300 mg and placebo groups, 30 (94%) and 31 (91%) completed the placebo-controlled treatment period, respectively (one participant was randomized to receive natalizumab but not dosed due to IV complications). Estimated relative change in seizure frequency of natalizumab over placebo was -14.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] -46.1%-36.1%; p = 0.51). The proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency was 31.3% for natalizumab and 17.6% for placebo (odds ratio 2.09, 95% CI 0.64-6.85; p = 0.22). Adverse events were reported in 24 (75%) and 22 (65%) participants receiving natalizumab vs placebo. DISCUSSION: Although the threshold to demonstrate efficacy was not met, there were no unexpected safety findings and further exploration of possible anti-inflammatory therapies for drug-resistant epilepsy is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT03283371. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that IV natalizumab every 4 weeks, compared to placebo, did not significantly change seizure frequency in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy. The study lacked the precision to exclude an important effect of natalizumab.

Real-world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate risk of hospitalization following initiation of perampanel (pre- and post-analysis) and (2) to compare hospitalization rates following initiation of perampanel vs lacosamide. METHODS: Patients were identified from Symphony Health's Patient Integrated Database if they had a prescription for perampanel (July 1, 2014-June 30, 2016). Patients 4-11 years of age with any partial-onset seizure (POS) or ≥12 years of age with any POS or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizure (GTCS) (pre-post); or ≥12 years of age (perampanel vs lacosamide). The first fill of perampanel ("index date") marked the start of the analysis period. Patients had ≥1 additional fill for perampanel and ≥2 diagnoses for epilepsy or nonfebrile convulsion diagnosis during pre-index (based on ICD-9/ICD-10 codes). Patients were matched using a 1:1 propensity scoring method for the perampanel vs lacosamide analysis. Primary outcome was hospitalization during the one year following medication initiation. RESULTS: Pre- and post-perampanel: N = 1771 (mean age 34 years, 55% female). One-year all-cause hospitalization risk ratio was 0.76 (P < .05) and 36.2% with hospitalization during the pre-period vs 29.5% in the follow-up. One-year epilepsy-related inpatient hospitalization risk ratio was 0.72 (P < .05) and 30.8% with hospitalization during the pre-period vs 23.9% during follow-up. In the perampanel and lacosamide cohorts, N = 1717 per cohort after matching, most baseline demographics were balanced. A higher percentage of subjects were prescribed ≥3 anti-seizure medications for perampanel vs lacosamide (60.5% vs 57.7%, P < .001). The perampanel cohort had a 9.6% reduction in all-cause hospitalizations vs 5.8% for the lacosamide cohort (P < .05). Epilepsy-related hospitalizations decreased from the pre-index rate by 9.9% for perampanel and 8.3% for lacosamide (P < .05). Among those with baseline hospitalizations, perampanel was associated with a 59.9% reduction in all-cause hospitalizations vs 48.6% for lacosamide (P < .05), and for epilepsy-related hospitalizations, a reduction of 65.0% vs 58.9%, respectively (P < .05). SIGNIFICANCE: Perampanel was associated with a significant reduction in one-year hospitalization risk.

Real-world impact of antiepileptic drug combinations with versus without perampanel on healthcare resource utilization in patients with epilepsy in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Combination regimens of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with various mechanisms of action (MOA) are commonly used in patients with refractory epilepsy. However, outcomes related to combination AEDs with novel MOA, such as perampanel (PER), are not well described. This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) among recipients of PER-based combinations versus recipients of other non-PER-based combinations. METHODS: This retrospective study used claims data from the Symphony Health's IDV® (Integrated Dataverse) database (August 2012 to July 2018). Patients were aged ≥12 years with epilepsy or non-febrile convulsions, were treated with AED combinations, and had ≥12 and ≥6 months pre- and post-index date, respectively (date of initiation of the second AED in the combination). AEDs were categorized based on MOA: selective non-competitive antagonist of AMPA receptors (i.e., PER), sodium channel blocker (SC), synaptic vesicle protein 2A binding (SV2), and gamma-aminobutyric acid analog (G). Patients were then classified into MOA-based cohorts: PER + SC, PER + SV2, PER + G, SC + SC, SC + SV2, SC + G, SV2 + G, and G + G. HRU outcomes were evaluated during follow-up and compared between PER-based cohorts and non-PER-based cohorts. RESULTS: On average, patients in the PER + SC (N = 3,592), PER + SV2 (N = 2,200), and PER + G (N = 1,313) cohorts were younger and had a lower Quan-Charlson comorbidity index than those in non-PER-based cohorts. PER + SC and PER + SV2 users had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations than non-PER-based users (adjusted RR range: 0.66-0.89, all P < 0.05), while PER + G recipients had fewer all-cause hospitalizations than recipients of SV2 + G and G + G (adjusted RR range: 0.92-0.94). Similar trends were observed for epilepsy-related hospitalizations. Across all comparisons, PER-based combinations were associated with significantly lower rates of all-cause clinic/office/outpatient visits relative to non-PER-based combinations (adjusted RR range: 0.69-0.86, all P < 0.05). SIGNIFICANCE: Results showed that patients treated with PER-based combinations had fewer all-cause and epilepsy-related hospitalizations, and fewer all-cause clinic/office/outpatient visits compared with patients treated with most other non-PER-based combinations.

Robot Assisted MRI-Guided LITT of the Anterior, Lateral, and Medial Temporal Lobe for Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.

Robotic systems have fundamentally altered the landscape of functional neurosurgery. These allow automated stereotaxy with high accuracy and reliability, and are rapidly becoming a mainstay in stereotactic surgeries such as deep brain stimulation (DBS), stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG), and stereotactic laser ablation/MRI guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT). Robotic systems have been effectively applied to create a minimally invasive approach for diagnostics and therapeutics in the treatment of epilepsy, utilizing robots for expeditious and accurate stereotaxy for SEEG and MRgLITT. MRgLITT has been shown to approach open surgical techniques in efficacy of seizure control while minimizing collateral injury. We describe the use of robot assisted MRgLITT for a minimally invasive laser anterior temporal lobotomy, describing the approach and potential pitfalls. Goals of MRgLITT are complete ablation of the epileptogenic zone and avoiding injury to uninvolved structures. In the middle fossa these include structures such as cranial nerves in the skull base and cavernous sinus and the thalamus. These can be mitigated with careful trajectory planning and control of laser ablation intensity.

Treatment of Refractory Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Comprehensive Review by the American Epilepsy Society Treatments Committee.

PURPOSE: Established tonic-clonic status epilepticus (SE) does not stop in one-third of patients when treated with an intravenous (IV) benzodiazepine bolus followed by a loading dose of a second antiseizure medication (ASM). These patients have refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and a high risk of morbidity and death. For patients with convulsive refractory status epilepticus (CRSE), we sought to determine the strength of evidence for 8 parenteral ASMs used as third-line treatment in stopping clinical CRSE. METHODS: A structured literature search (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was performed to identify original studies on the treatment of CRSE in children and adults using IV brivaracetam, ketamine, lacosamide, levetiracetam (LEV), midazolam (MDZ), pentobarbital (PTB; and thiopental), propofol (PRO), and valproic acid (VPA). Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), magnesium sulfate, and pyridoxine were added to determine the effectiveness in treating hard-to-control seizures in special circumstances. Studies were evaluated by predefined criteria and were classified by strength of evidence in stopping clinical CRSE (either as the last ASM added or compared to another ASM) according to the 2017 American Academy of Neurology process. RESULTS: No studies exist on the use of ACTH, corticosteroids, or IVIg for the treatment of CRSE. Small series and case reports exist on the use of these agents in the treatment of RSE of suspected immune etiology, severe epileptic encephalopathies, and rare epilepsy syndromes. For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of brivaracetam (level U; 4 class IV studies). For children and adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists on the effectiveness of ketamine (level U; 25 class IV studies). For children and adults with CRSE, it is possible that lacosamide is effective at stopping RSE (level C; 2 class III, 14 class IV studies). For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists that LEV and VPA are equally effective (level U, 1 class III study). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support the effectiveness of LEV (level U; 2 class IV studies). Magnesium sulfate may be effective in the treatment of eclampsia, but there are only case reports of its use for CRSE. For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support either that MDZ and diazepam infusions are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study) or that MDZ infusion and PTB are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support either that MDZ infusion and PRO are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study) or that low-dose and high-dose MDZ infusions are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For children and adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that MDZ is effective as the last drug added (level U; 29 class IV studies). For adults with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PTB and PRO are equally effective (level U; 1 class III study). For adults and children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PTB is effective as the last ASM added (level U; 42 class IV studies). For CRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that PRO is effective as the last ASM used (level U; 26 class IV studies). No pediatric-only studies exist on the use of PRO for CRSE, and many guidelines do not recommend its use in children aged <16 years. Pyridoxine-dependent and pyridoxine-responsive epilepsies should be considered in children presenting between birth and age 3 years with refractory seizures and no imaging lesion or other acquired cause of seizures. For children with CRSE, insufficient evidence exists that VPA and diazepam infusion are equally effective (level U, 1 class III study). No class I to III studies have been reported in adults treated with VPA for CRSE. In comparison, for children and adults with established convulsive SE (ie, not RSE), after an initial benzodiazepine, it is likely that loading doses of LEV 60 mg/kg, VPA 40 mg/kg, and fosphenytoin 20 mg PE/kg are equally effective at stopping SE (level B, 1 class I study). CONCLUSIONS: Mostly insufficient evidence exists on the efficacy of stopping clinical CRSE using brivaracetam, lacosamide, LEV, valproate, ketamine, MDZ, PTB, and PRO either as the last ASM or compared to others of these drugs. Adrenocorticotropic hormone, IVIg, corticosteroids, magnesium sulfate, and pyridoxine have been used in special situations but have not been studied for CRSE. For the treatment of established convulsive SE (ie, not RSE), LEV, VPA, and fosphenytoin are likely equally effective, but whether this is also true for CRSE is unknown. Triple-masked, randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the effectiveness of parenteral anesthetizing and nonanesthetizing ASMs in the treatment of CRSE.

Thirty-day readmission after status epilepticus in the United States: Insights from the nationwide readmission database.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence, causes, predictors, and costs of 30-day readmissions in patients admitted with status epilepticus (SE) from a large representative United States (US) population. METHODS: Adults (age ≥18 years) hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of SE (International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-CM codes 345.2 or 345.3) between January 2013 and September 2015 were identified using the Nationwide Readmissions Database. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of 30-day readmissions. RESULTS: Of 42,232 patients with index SE, 6372 (15.0%) were readmitted within 30 days. In the multivariable analysis, intracranial hemorrhage (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.18), psychosis (1.26 95%, 1.05-1.50), diabetes mellitus (1.12, 95%, 1.00-1.25), chronic kidney disease (1.50, 95%, 1.31-1.72), chronic liver disease (1.51; 95%, 1.24-1.84), >3 Elixhauser comorbidities (1.18; 95%, 1.06-1.31), length of stay >4 days during index hospitalization (1.41; 95%, 1.28-1.56) and discharge to skilled nursing facility (SNF) (1.14; 95%, 1.01-1.28) were independent predictors of 30-day readmission. The most common reason for readmission was seizures (45.1%). Median length of stay and costs of readmission were 4 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2-7 days) and $7882 (IQR, $4649-$15,012), respectively. CONCLUSION: Thirty-day readmissions after SE occurs in 15% of patients, the majority of which were due to seizures. Readmitted patients are more likely to have multiple comorbidities, a longer length of stay, and discharge to SNF. Awareness of these predictors can help identify and target high-risk patients for interventions to reduce readmissions and costs.