Estimating the likelihood of epilepsy from clinically noncontributory electroencephalograms using computational analysis: A retrospective, multisite case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to validate a set of candidate biomarkers of seizure susceptibility in a retrospective, multisite case-control study, and to determine the robustness of these biomarkers derived from routinely collected electroencephalography (EEG) within a large cohort (both epilepsy and common alternative conditions such as nonepileptic attack disorder). METHODS: The database consisted of 814 EEG recordings from 648 subjects, collected from eight National Health Service sites across the UK. Clinically noncontributory EEG recordings were identified by an experienced clinical scientist (N = 281; 152 alternative conditions, 129 epilepsy). Eight computational markers (spectral [n = 2], network-based [n = 4], and model-based [n = 2]) were calculated within each recording. Ensemble-based classifiers were developed using a two-tier cross-validation approach. We used standard regression methods to assess whether potential confounding variables (e.g., age, gender, treatment status, comorbidity) impacted model performance. RESULTS: We found levels of balanced accuracy of 68% across the cohort with clinically noncontributory normal EEGs (sensitivity =61%, specificity =75%, positive predictive value =55%, negative predictive value =79%, diagnostic odds ratio =4.64, area under receiver operated characteristics curve =.72). Group level analysis found no evidence suggesting any of the potential confounding variables significantly impacted the overall performance. SIGNIFICANCE: These results provide evidence that the set of biomarkers could provide additional value to clinical decision-making, providing the foundation for a decision support tool that could reduce diagnostic delay and misdiagnosis rates. Future work should therefore assess the change in diagnostic yield and time to diagnosis when utilizing these biomarkers in carefully designed prospective studies.

Efficacy and tolerability of Brivaracetam in people with intellectual disability compared to those without intellectual disability.

INTRODUCTION: In England, nearly a quarter of people with intellectual disability (PwID) have epilepsy. Though 70 % of PwID have pharmaco-resistant seizures only 10 % are prescribed anti-seizure medication (ASMs) licenced for pharmaco-resistance. Brivaracetam (BRV) licenced in 2016 has had nine post-marketing studies involving PwID. These studies are limited either by lack of controls or not looking at outcomes based on differing levels of ID severity. This study looks at evidence comparing effectiveness and side-effects in PwID to those without ID prescribed Brivaracetam (BRV). METHODS: Pooled case note data for patients prescribed BRV (2016-2022) at 12 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Demographics, starting and maximum dose, side-effects, dropouts and seizure frequency between ID (mild vs. moderate-profound (M/P)) and general population for a 12-month period were compared. Descriptive analysis, Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact and logistic regression methods were employed. RESULTS: 37 PwID (mild 17 M/P 20) were compared to 102 without ID. Mean start and maximum dose was lower for PwID than non-ID. Mean maximum dose reduced slightly with ID severity. No difference was found between ID and non-ID or between ID groups (Mild vs M/P) in BRV's efficacy i.e. >50 % seizure reduction or tolerability. Mental and behavioural side-effects were more prevalent for PwID (27.0 % ID, 17.6 % no ID) but not significantly higher (P = 0.441) or associated with ID severity (p = 0.255). CONCLUSION: This is the first study on BRV, which compares ID cohorts with differing severity and non-ID. Efficacy, tolerability and side-effects reported are similar across differing ID severity to those with no ID.

Eslicarbazepine acetate response in intellectual disability population versus general population.

BACKGROUND: A quarter of people with intellectual disability (ID) have epilepsy, compared to approximately one in a hundred across the general population. Evidence for the safe and effective prescribing of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for those with ID is, however, limited. AIMS OF STUDY: This study seeks to strengthen the research evidence around Eslicarbazepine Acetate (ESL), a new AED, by comparing response of individuals with ID to those from the general population who do not have ID. METHODS: A single data set was created through retrospective data collection from English and Welsh NHS Trusts. The UK-based Epilepsy Database Research Register (Ep-ID) data collection and analysis method were used. RESULTS: Data were collected for 93 people (36 ID and 57 'no ID'). Seizure improvement of '>50%' was higher at 12 months for 'no ID' participants (56%), compared to ID participants (35%). Retention rates were slightly higher for those with ID (56% compared to 53%). Neither difference was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Tolerance and Efficacy for ID and 'no ID' people in our data set were similar. Seizure improvement and retention rates were slightly lower than that found in other European data sets, but findings strengthen the evidence for the use of ESL in the ID population.

UK framework for basic epilepsy training and oromucosal midazolam administration.

BACKGROUND: UK wide Oromucosal Midazolam is used as an emergency treatment in community for seizures administered by family/carers with the right training. The Joint Epilepsy Council (JEC) UK which produced the training guidelines disbanded in 2016. PURPOSE: Provide standards for basic epilepsy education and rescue medication (Midazolam) administration. METHODS: The Epilepsy Nurses Association (ESNA), The International League against Epilepsy, British Chapter (ILAE) and the Royal college of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), used the Delphi process to update guidelines for the administration of oromucosal midazolam including developing a voluntary on-line test for carers. During 2017-2019 a facilitator worked with two ESNA committees to update the existing guidance and another to develop a question-bank. Both committee outputs were circulated to the ESNA membership, then ILAE and RCPsych for review. Patient-facing organizations and charities' opinions were solicited. All feedback was assimilated. A private provider was contracted to deliver the test. RESULTS: A consensus process involving two task and finish groups of 19 people each compared, reflected, debated, and engaged with stakeholders across three stages. The updated ratified guidelines were circulated nationally. The Delphi process highlighted many regions and individuals had local assessment tools and procedures in place, while others (around 50%) had no assessment provision. 278 carers with a 95% pass-rate and 100% positive feedback have undertaken the online test (10/2020). CONCLUSION: The UK-wide care provision gap in basic epilepsy-training and safe rescue medication administration is now addressed. A two-yearly update to the guidelines and test is planned.

Eslicarbazepine acetate as a replacement for levetiracetam in people with epilepsy developing behavioral adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric and behavioral side effects (PBSEs) are a major cause of antiepileptic drug (AED) withdrawal. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a recognized first-line AED with good seizure outcomes but recognized with PBSEs. Eslicarbazepine (ESL) is considered to function similarly to an active metabolite of the commonly used carbamazepine (CBZ). Carbamazepine is used as psychotropic medication to assist in various psychiatric illnesses such as mood disorders, aggression, and anxiety. AIM: The aim was to evaluate the psychiatric profile of ESL in people who had LEV withdrawn due to PBSEs in routine clinical practice to see if ESL can be used as a possible alternative to LEV. METHODS: A retrospective observational review was conducted in two UK epilepsy centers looking at all cases exposed to ESL since its licensing in 2010. The ESL group was all patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy who developed intolerable PBSEs to LEV, subsequently trialed on ESL. The ESL group was matched to a group who tolerated LEV without intolerable PBSEs. Psychiatric disorders were identified from case notes. The Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) was used to outcome change in mood. Clinical diagnoses of a mental disorder were compared between groups using the Fisher's exact test. Group differences in HAM-D scores were assessed using the independent samples t-test (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: The total number of people with active epilepsy in the two centers was 2142 of whom 46 had been exposed to ESL. Twenty-six had previous exposure to LEV and had intolerable PBSEs who were matched to a person tolerating LEV. There was no statistical differences in the two groups for mental disorders including mood as measured by HAM-D (Chi-square test: p=0.28). CONCLUSION: The ESL was well tolerated and did not produce significant PBSEs in those who had PBSEs with LEV leading to withdrawal of the drug. Though numbers were small, the findings suggest that ESL could be a treatment option in those who develop PBSEs with LEV and possibly other AEDs.

Epilepsy awareness and emergency rescue training: Ignorance is bliss!

Status epilepticus (SE) has a high mortality rate and is associated with complications such as neurological deficit and cognitive decline. Buccal midazolam is the recommended emergency rescue medication in the UK to reduce the duration of a seizure and SE. It should be administered by an appropriately trained person. There are agreed guidelines on training standards for its administration in the UK produced by the Joint Epilepsy Council of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Training should provide an overview of epilepsy to facilitate safe, person-centered care and appropriate administration of rescue medication to people with epilepsy (PWE). Unfortunately the current guidelines do not assure satisfactory practice. An investigation was conducted to quantify the nature and degree of the problem in Cornwall, UK (population 550,000). To address the identified inconsistencies, a web-based test was developed using a focus group of experts and stakeholders. Over 800 carers for PWE took the test at different intervals of its development. A consistent 20% failure rate was noted. Over 90% of participants felt it kept PWE safer. The test was incorporated into routine clinical practice and has contributed to reduction of primary epilepsy deaths. The e-test is a cost-effective solution to help harmonize practices across different settings and can be easily adopted by other countries.

A Digital Intervention for Capturing the Real-Time Health Data Needed for Epilepsy Seizure Forecasting: Protocol for a Formative Co-Design and Usability Study (The ATMOSPHERE Study).

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder affecting individuals globally, marked by recurrent and apparently unpredictable seizures that pose significant challenges, including increased mortality, injuries, and diminished quality of life. Despite advancements in treatments, a significant proportion of people with epilepsy continue to experience uncontrolled seizures. The apparent unpredictability of these events has been identified as a major concern for people with epilepsy, highlighting the need for innovative seizure forecasting technologies. OBJECTIVE: The ATMOSPHERE study aimed to develop and evaluate a digital intervention, using wearable technology and data science, that provides real-time, individualized seizure forecasting for individuals living with epilepsy. This paper reports the protocol for one of the workstreams focusing on the design and testing of a prototype to capture real-time input data needed for predictive modeling. The first aim was to collaboratively design the prototype (work completed). The second aim is to conduct an "in-the-wild" study to assess usability and refine the prototype (planned research). METHODS: This study uses a person-based approach to design and test the usability of a prototype for real-time seizure precipitant data capture. Phase 1 (work completed) involved co-design with individuals living with epilepsy and health care professionals. Sessions explored users' requirements for the prototype, followed by iterative design of low-fidelity, static prototypes. Phase 2 (planned research) will be an "in-the-wild" usability study involving the deployment of a mid-fidelity, functional prototype for 4 weeks, with the collection of mixed methods usability data to assess the prototype's real-world application, feasibility, acceptability, and engagement. This phase involves primary participants (adults diagnosed with epilepsy) and, optionally, their nominated significant other. The usability study will run in 3 rounds of deployment and data collection, aiming to recruit 5 participants per round, with prototype refinement between rounds. RESULTS: The phase-1 co-design study engaged 22 individuals, resulting in the development of a mid-fidelity, functional prototype based on identified requirements, including the tracking of evidence-based and personalized seizure precipitants. The upcoming phase-2 usability study is expected to provide insights into the prototype's real-world usability, identify areas for improvement, and refine the technology for future development. The estimated completion date of phase 2 is the last quarter of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The ATMOSPHERE study aims to make a significant step forward in epilepsy management, focusing on the development of a user-centered, noninvasive wearable device for seizure forecasting. Through a collaborative design process and comprehensive usability testing, this research aims to address the critical need for predictive seizure forecasting technologies, offering a promising approach to improving the lives of individuals with epilepsy. By leveraging predictive analytics and personalized machine learning models, this technology seeks to offer a novel approach to managing epilepsy, potentially improving clinical outcomes, including quality of life, through increased predictability and seizure management. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/60129.

Efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam in people with and without intellectual disabilities: A naturalistic case control study.

INTRODUCTION: People with Intellectual Disabilities (PwID) are twenty times more likely than general population to have epilepsy. Guidance for prescribing antiseizure medication (ASM) to PwID is driven by trials excluding them. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a first-line ASM in the UK. Concerns exist regarding LEV's behavioural and psychological adverse effects, particularly in PwID. There is no high-quality evidence comparing effectiveness and adverse effects in PwID to those without, prescribed LEV. METHODS: Pooled casenote data for patients prescribed LEV (2000-2020) at 18 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Demographics, starting and maximum dose, adverse effects, dropouts and seizure frequency between ID (mild vs. moderate-profound (M/P)) and general population for a 12-month period were compared. Descriptive analysis, Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact and logistic regression methods were employed. RESULTS: 173 PwID (mild 53 M/P 120) were compared to 200 without ID. Mean start and maximum dose were similar across all groups. PwID (Mild & M/P) were less likely to withdraw from treatment (P = 0.036). No difference was found between ID and non-ID or between ID groups (Mild vs M/P) in LEV's efficacy i.e. >50 % seizure reduction. Significant association emerged between ID severity and psychiatric adverse effects (P = 0.035). More irritability (14.2 %) and aggression (10.8 %) were reported in M/P PwID. CONCLUSION: PwID and epilepsy have high rates of premature mortality, comorbidities, treatment resistance and polypharmacy but remain poorly researched for ASM use. This is the largest studied cohort of PwID trialled on LEV compared to general population controls. Findings support prescribing of LEV for PwID as a first-line ASM.

Protocol for the development of an international Core Outcome Set for treatment trials in adults with epilepsy: the EPilepsy outcome Set for Effectiveness Trials Project (EPSET).

BACKGROUND: A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a standardised list of outcomes that should be reported as a minimum in all clinical trials. In epilepsy, the choice of outcomes varies widely among existing studies, particularly in clinical trials. This diminishes opportunities for informed decision-making, contributes to research waste and is a barrier to integrating findings in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Furthermore, the outcomes currently being measured may not reflect what is important to people with epilepsy. Therefore, we aim to develop a COS specific to clinical effectiveness research for adults with epilepsy using Delphi consensus methodology. METHODS: The EPSET Study will comprise of three phases and follow the core methodological principles as outlined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Phase 1 will include two focused literature reviews to identify candidate outcomes from the qualitative literature and current outcome measurement practice in phase III and phase IV clinical trials. Phase 2 aims to achieve international consensus to define which outcomes should be measured as a minimum in future trials, using a Delphi process including an online consensus meeting involving key stakeholders. Phase 3 will involve dissemination of the ratified COS to facilitate uptake in future trials and the planning of further research to identify the most appropriate measurement instruments to use to capture the COS in research practice. DISCUSSION: Harmonising outcome measurement across future clinical trials should ensure that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and health services, and allow for more meaningful results to be obtained. CORE OUTCOME SET REGISTRATION: COMET Initiative as study 118 .

Lacosamide in the general population and in people with intellectual disability: Similar responses?

PURPOSE: Epilepsy prevalence is significantly higher in people with Intellectual Disability (ID) compared to people with epilepsy (PWE) from the general population. Increased psychological and behavioural problems, healthcare costs, morbidity, mortality and treatment resistance to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is associated with epilepsy in ID populations. Prescribing AEDs for PWE and ID is challenging and influenced heavily by studies conducted with the general population. Our study compares Lacosamide (LCM) response for the ID population to those from the general population; using data from an UK based epilepsy database register (EP ID/PDD AED Register). METHODS: Pooled retrospective case notes data for PWE prescribed LCM at 11 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Participants were classified as per WHO guidance into groups of moderate-profound ID, mild ID and General population. Demographics, concomitant AEDs, starting and maximum dosage, exposure length, adverse effects, dropout rates, seizure frequency were collected. Group differences were reported as odds ratios estimated from univariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 232 consented participants, 156 were from the general population and 76 had ID (24 mild, 52 moderate-profound). Twelve month withdrawal rates and reasons, efficacy, side-effects, start and maximum doses were similar between the groups. Dose titration between baseline and three months was significantly slower in the ID group (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: There were no differences for LCM outcomes between general and ID groups. Slower LCM titration in ID populations in the first 3 months was associated with higher retention and lower behavioural side effects as compared to similar European studies.