User login
Drinking a risk factor for epilepsy?
but more research is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Results of an updated meta-analysis are consistent with those of a previous meta-analysis but contrast with some prior cohort studies.
“Further large cohort studies of the general population are required to assert a definite causal relationship between alcohol consumption and epilepsy and to identify a potential threshold,” Yun Hak Kim, MD, PhD, departments of biomedical informatics and anatomy, Pusan (South Korea) National University, said in a press release.
The study was published online Jan. 11, 2022, in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Conflicting findings
Much of the research into the impact of alcohol on epilepsy risk has focused on provoked seizures related to alcohol intoxication or withdrawal, but few studies have investigated the effect of alcohol on unprovoked seizures. In addition, the research in this area has been conflicting.
A 2010 meta-analysis that included six case-control studies showed alcohol users had an increased risk of unprovoked seizure or epilepsy with a pooled relative risk of 2.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.63). This analysis also showed a dose-dependent relationship with relative risks increasing with more grams of alcohol consumed daily.
However, some recent large cohort studies showed that moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a lower risk of epilepsy.
The updated meta-analysis included eight studies – three cohort studies not included in the previous meta-analysis and five case-control studies.
The study excluded two case-control studies included in the previous meta-analysis. One of these studies used duplicated data, and the other included epilepsy patients and did not present results of subgroup analysis for patients experiencing their first seizure.
Results of the new analysis showed the pooled odds ratio for newly diagnosed epilepsy was 1.70 (95% CI, 1.16-2.49) in alcohol users versus nondrinkers.
A dose-response analysis of case-control studies carried out using the cubic spline analysis showed a significant positive dose-response relationship. A dose-response graph showed a steep increase in risk above about 150 g/day and 250 g/day of alcohol consumption.
However, a subgroup analysis showed that epilepsy risk was only found in the case-control studies. In fact, two of the three cohort studies showed that alcohol consumption was associated with a lower risk of epilepsy, although this was not significant.
Cohort studies often include more control subjects and longer follow-up periods and are less prone to bias, such as selection and recall biases, the investigators noted.
“Therefore, cohort studies usually provide a stronger association between exposure and disease than case-control studies, despite having limitations for diseases with low incidence levels,” they wrote.
More research needed
The researchers added that most case-control studies included in the new meta-analysis assessed alcohol consumption only in the 6 months prior to the onset of seizures. Research shows it usually takes heavy drinkers 5 or more years to develop repetitive unprovoked seizures.
“Considering these temporal relationships and differences in study design, alcohol may not actually increase the risk of epilepsy, as seen in our subgroup analysis for cohort studies,” the investigators wrote.
They noted that the cohort studies in the meta-analysis were variously limited to young women, elderly patients, and post–subdural hematoma patients. “This limitation makes it difficult to confirm or generalize the results of the subgroup analysis.”
To resolve this “discrepancy,” further large cohort studies of the general population over a longer period are needed, the investigators wrote.
Examining the risk of bias within studies, the authors evaluated three cohort studies as “good” quality. Of the case-control studies, they rated two as “good,” one as “fair,” and two as “poor.”
For primary prevention, an assessment of the risk of alcohol consumption in various clinical situations, such as the time relation of alcohol consumption with seizures, will be important, lead author Kyoung Nam Woo, department of neurology, Pusan National University, said in the release.
“To increase the applicability to the general population, future studies should be conducted in which the potential confounders such as age, sex, and smoking have been adjusted.”
Commenting on the study, Jacqueline French, MD, professor, New York University Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, echoed the authors in noting a number of weaknesses in the study.
The analysis was unable to exclude alcohol withdrawal seizures. Also, while some studies suggested a positive relationship, others suggested a negative relationship, she said. “The authors suggest further work is needed before a definitive determination is made, and I agree.”
The study received funding from the Medical Research Center Program, the Basic Science Research Program, and the Collaborative Genome Program for Fostering New Post-Genome Industry through a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean government. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
but more research is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Results of an updated meta-analysis are consistent with those of a previous meta-analysis but contrast with some prior cohort studies.
“Further large cohort studies of the general population are required to assert a definite causal relationship between alcohol consumption and epilepsy and to identify a potential threshold,” Yun Hak Kim, MD, PhD, departments of biomedical informatics and anatomy, Pusan (South Korea) National University, said in a press release.
The study was published online Jan. 11, 2022, in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Conflicting findings
Much of the research into the impact of alcohol on epilepsy risk has focused on provoked seizures related to alcohol intoxication or withdrawal, but few studies have investigated the effect of alcohol on unprovoked seizures. In addition, the research in this area has been conflicting.
A 2010 meta-analysis that included six case-control studies showed alcohol users had an increased risk of unprovoked seizure or epilepsy with a pooled relative risk of 2.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.63). This analysis also showed a dose-dependent relationship with relative risks increasing with more grams of alcohol consumed daily.
However, some recent large cohort studies showed that moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a lower risk of epilepsy.
The updated meta-analysis included eight studies – three cohort studies not included in the previous meta-analysis and five case-control studies.
The study excluded two case-control studies included in the previous meta-analysis. One of these studies used duplicated data, and the other included epilepsy patients and did not present results of subgroup analysis for patients experiencing their first seizure.
Results of the new analysis showed the pooled odds ratio for newly diagnosed epilepsy was 1.70 (95% CI, 1.16-2.49) in alcohol users versus nondrinkers.
A dose-response analysis of case-control studies carried out using the cubic spline analysis showed a significant positive dose-response relationship. A dose-response graph showed a steep increase in risk above about 150 g/day and 250 g/day of alcohol consumption.
However, a subgroup analysis showed that epilepsy risk was only found in the case-control studies. In fact, two of the three cohort studies showed that alcohol consumption was associated with a lower risk of epilepsy, although this was not significant.
Cohort studies often include more control subjects and longer follow-up periods and are less prone to bias, such as selection and recall biases, the investigators noted.
“Therefore, cohort studies usually provide a stronger association between exposure and disease than case-control studies, despite having limitations for diseases with low incidence levels,” they wrote.
More research needed
The researchers added that most case-control studies included in the new meta-analysis assessed alcohol consumption only in the 6 months prior to the onset of seizures. Research shows it usually takes heavy drinkers 5 or more years to develop repetitive unprovoked seizures.
“Considering these temporal relationships and differences in study design, alcohol may not actually increase the risk of epilepsy, as seen in our subgroup analysis for cohort studies,” the investigators wrote.
They noted that the cohort studies in the meta-analysis were variously limited to young women, elderly patients, and post–subdural hematoma patients. “This limitation makes it difficult to confirm or generalize the results of the subgroup analysis.”
To resolve this “discrepancy,” further large cohort studies of the general population over a longer period are needed, the investigators wrote.
Examining the risk of bias within studies, the authors evaluated three cohort studies as “good” quality. Of the case-control studies, they rated two as “good,” one as “fair,” and two as “poor.”
For primary prevention, an assessment of the risk of alcohol consumption in various clinical situations, such as the time relation of alcohol consumption with seizures, will be important, lead author Kyoung Nam Woo, department of neurology, Pusan National University, said in the release.
“To increase the applicability to the general population, future studies should be conducted in which the potential confounders such as age, sex, and smoking have been adjusted.”
Commenting on the study, Jacqueline French, MD, professor, New York University Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, echoed the authors in noting a number of weaknesses in the study.
The analysis was unable to exclude alcohol withdrawal seizures. Also, while some studies suggested a positive relationship, others suggested a negative relationship, she said. “The authors suggest further work is needed before a definitive determination is made, and I agree.”
The study received funding from the Medical Research Center Program, the Basic Science Research Program, and the Collaborative Genome Program for Fostering New Post-Genome Industry through a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean government. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
but more research is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Results of an updated meta-analysis are consistent with those of a previous meta-analysis but contrast with some prior cohort studies.
“Further large cohort studies of the general population are required to assert a definite causal relationship between alcohol consumption and epilepsy and to identify a potential threshold,” Yun Hak Kim, MD, PhD, departments of biomedical informatics and anatomy, Pusan (South Korea) National University, said in a press release.
The study was published online Jan. 11, 2022, in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Conflicting findings
Much of the research into the impact of alcohol on epilepsy risk has focused on provoked seizures related to alcohol intoxication or withdrawal, but few studies have investigated the effect of alcohol on unprovoked seizures. In addition, the research in this area has been conflicting.
A 2010 meta-analysis that included six case-control studies showed alcohol users had an increased risk of unprovoked seizure or epilepsy with a pooled relative risk of 2.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.63). This analysis also showed a dose-dependent relationship with relative risks increasing with more grams of alcohol consumed daily.
However, some recent large cohort studies showed that moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a lower risk of epilepsy.
The updated meta-analysis included eight studies – three cohort studies not included in the previous meta-analysis and five case-control studies.
The study excluded two case-control studies included in the previous meta-analysis. One of these studies used duplicated data, and the other included epilepsy patients and did not present results of subgroup analysis for patients experiencing their first seizure.
Results of the new analysis showed the pooled odds ratio for newly diagnosed epilepsy was 1.70 (95% CI, 1.16-2.49) in alcohol users versus nondrinkers.
A dose-response analysis of case-control studies carried out using the cubic spline analysis showed a significant positive dose-response relationship. A dose-response graph showed a steep increase in risk above about 150 g/day and 250 g/day of alcohol consumption.
However, a subgroup analysis showed that epilepsy risk was only found in the case-control studies. In fact, two of the three cohort studies showed that alcohol consumption was associated with a lower risk of epilepsy, although this was not significant.
Cohort studies often include more control subjects and longer follow-up periods and are less prone to bias, such as selection and recall biases, the investigators noted.
“Therefore, cohort studies usually provide a stronger association between exposure and disease than case-control studies, despite having limitations for diseases with low incidence levels,” they wrote.
More research needed
The researchers added that most case-control studies included in the new meta-analysis assessed alcohol consumption only in the 6 months prior to the onset of seizures. Research shows it usually takes heavy drinkers 5 or more years to develop repetitive unprovoked seizures.
“Considering these temporal relationships and differences in study design, alcohol may not actually increase the risk of epilepsy, as seen in our subgroup analysis for cohort studies,” the investigators wrote.
They noted that the cohort studies in the meta-analysis were variously limited to young women, elderly patients, and post–subdural hematoma patients. “This limitation makes it difficult to confirm or generalize the results of the subgroup analysis.”
To resolve this “discrepancy,” further large cohort studies of the general population over a longer period are needed, the investigators wrote.
Examining the risk of bias within studies, the authors evaluated three cohort studies as “good” quality. Of the case-control studies, they rated two as “good,” one as “fair,” and two as “poor.”
For primary prevention, an assessment of the risk of alcohol consumption in various clinical situations, such as the time relation of alcohol consumption with seizures, will be important, lead author Kyoung Nam Woo, department of neurology, Pusan National University, said in the release.
“To increase the applicability to the general population, future studies should be conducted in which the potential confounders such as age, sex, and smoking have been adjusted.”
Commenting on the study, Jacqueline French, MD, professor, New York University Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, echoed the authors in noting a number of weaknesses in the study.
The analysis was unable to exclude alcohol withdrawal seizures. Also, while some studies suggested a positive relationship, others suggested a negative relationship, she said. “The authors suggest further work is needed before a definitive determination is made, and I agree.”
The study received funding from the Medical Research Center Program, the Basic Science Research Program, and the Collaborative Genome Program for Fostering New Post-Genome Industry through a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean government. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
Brain stimulation for improved memory?
Electrical brain stimulation may have the potential to improve verbal memory, results of a small study of patients with epilepsy suggest.
Investigators observed improvements in patients implanted with a responsive neurostimulation system (RNS) to control seizures, in that the patients had improved word recall when the system was activated.
Beyond epilepsy, “we suspect that our results would be broadly applicable regardless of the underlying condition, for example, memory loss with Alzheimer’s disease or traumatic brain injury,” Zulfi Haneef, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.
“Mental health conditions such as depression or psychosis could also benefit from targeted electrical stimulation. While we focused on enhancing a preferred brain function [such as memory], parallel areas of research may target enhancing function [such as weakness following stroke] or suppressing function [to manage conditions such as chronic pain,]” Dr. Haneef added.
The study was published online Jan. 17, 2022, in Neurosurgery.
As reported by this news organization, Following implantation of the system, patients attend the clinic for adjustments about every 8-12 weeks.
The investigators studied 17 patients with epilepsy and RNS implants who attended the clinic for routine appointments. A clinical neuropsychologist administered the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised (HVLT-R), a well-validated list-learning measure of memory and verbal learning.
Patients were read a list of 12 semantically related words and asked to recall the list after three different learning trials. Active or sham stimulation was performed for every third word presented for immediate recall.
The investigators found that the HVLT-R delayed recall raw score was higher for the stimulation condition, compared with the nonstimulation condition (paired t-test, P = .04; effect size, d = 0.627).
“The patients were not aware of when the RNS system was being activated. We alternated when patients were undergoing stimulation versus no stimulation, and still found that when patients’ RNS systems were activated, their memory recall score was greater than when there was no stimulation,” Dr. Haneef said in a release.
This suggests the “human memory can be potentially improved by direct electrical brain stimulation at extremely low currents,” Dr. Haneef said in an interview.
Most patients in the study had stimulation of the hippocampus, the brain’s memory center.
“Moving forward we would want to look at how different patterns or standardized stimulation patterns affect memory. Ultimately, the underlying brain rhythms responsible for these changes in brain function need to be understood so that a more targeted and precise application of electrical stimulation can be achieved,” Dr. Haneef said.
The researchers also caution that, for this preliminary study, no follow-up testing was conducted to determine whether the memory improvement was transient and settled back to baseline after a specified period.
However, they note, this study lays the groundwork for larger-scale and extensive studies examining the nuanced effects of brain stimulation on human cognition and memory.
The study was funded by the Mike Hogg Foundation. Dr. Haneef and two coauthors received coverage for travel expenses but no honorarium for a NeuroPace advisory meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Electrical brain stimulation may have the potential to improve verbal memory, results of a small study of patients with epilepsy suggest.
Investigators observed improvements in patients implanted with a responsive neurostimulation system (RNS) to control seizures, in that the patients had improved word recall when the system was activated.
Beyond epilepsy, “we suspect that our results would be broadly applicable regardless of the underlying condition, for example, memory loss with Alzheimer’s disease or traumatic brain injury,” Zulfi Haneef, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.
“Mental health conditions such as depression or psychosis could also benefit from targeted electrical stimulation. While we focused on enhancing a preferred brain function [such as memory], parallel areas of research may target enhancing function [such as weakness following stroke] or suppressing function [to manage conditions such as chronic pain,]” Dr. Haneef added.
The study was published online Jan. 17, 2022, in Neurosurgery.
As reported by this news organization, Following implantation of the system, patients attend the clinic for adjustments about every 8-12 weeks.
The investigators studied 17 patients with epilepsy and RNS implants who attended the clinic for routine appointments. A clinical neuropsychologist administered the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised (HVLT-R), a well-validated list-learning measure of memory and verbal learning.
Patients were read a list of 12 semantically related words and asked to recall the list after three different learning trials. Active or sham stimulation was performed for every third word presented for immediate recall.
The investigators found that the HVLT-R delayed recall raw score was higher for the stimulation condition, compared with the nonstimulation condition (paired t-test, P = .04; effect size, d = 0.627).
“The patients were not aware of when the RNS system was being activated. We alternated when patients were undergoing stimulation versus no stimulation, and still found that when patients’ RNS systems were activated, their memory recall score was greater than when there was no stimulation,” Dr. Haneef said in a release.
This suggests the “human memory can be potentially improved by direct electrical brain stimulation at extremely low currents,” Dr. Haneef said in an interview.
Most patients in the study had stimulation of the hippocampus, the brain’s memory center.
“Moving forward we would want to look at how different patterns or standardized stimulation patterns affect memory. Ultimately, the underlying brain rhythms responsible for these changes in brain function need to be understood so that a more targeted and precise application of electrical stimulation can be achieved,” Dr. Haneef said.
The researchers also caution that, for this preliminary study, no follow-up testing was conducted to determine whether the memory improvement was transient and settled back to baseline after a specified period.
However, they note, this study lays the groundwork for larger-scale and extensive studies examining the nuanced effects of brain stimulation on human cognition and memory.
The study was funded by the Mike Hogg Foundation. Dr. Haneef and two coauthors received coverage for travel expenses but no honorarium for a NeuroPace advisory meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Electrical brain stimulation may have the potential to improve verbal memory, results of a small study of patients with epilepsy suggest.
Investigators observed improvements in patients implanted with a responsive neurostimulation system (RNS) to control seizures, in that the patients had improved word recall when the system was activated.
Beyond epilepsy, “we suspect that our results would be broadly applicable regardless of the underlying condition, for example, memory loss with Alzheimer’s disease or traumatic brain injury,” Zulfi Haneef, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.
“Mental health conditions such as depression or psychosis could also benefit from targeted electrical stimulation. While we focused on enhancing a preferred brain function [such as memory], parallel areas of research may target enhancing function [such as weakness following stroke] or suppressing function [to manage conditions such as chronic pain,]” Dr. Haneef added.
The study was published online Jan. 17, 2022, in Neurosurgery.
As reported by this news organization, Following implantation of the system, patients attend the clinic for adjustments about every 8-12 weeks.
The investigators studied 17 patients with epilepsy and RNS implants who attended the clinic for routine appointments. A clinical neuropsychologist administered the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised (HVLT-R), a well-validated list-learning measure of memory and verbal learning.
Patients were read a list of 12 semantically related words and asked to recall the list after three different learning trials. Active or sham stimulation was performed for every third word presented for immediate recall.
The investigators found that the HVLT-R delayed recall raw score was higher for the stimulation condition, compared with the nonstimulation condition (paired t-test, P = .04; effect size, d = 0.627).
“The patients were not aware of when the RNS system was being activated. We alternated when patients were undergoing stimulation versus no stimulation, and still found that when patients’ RNS systems were activated, their memory recall score was greater than when there was no stimulation,” Dr. Haneef said in a release.
This suggests the “human memory can be potentially improved by direct electrical brain stimulation at extremely low currents,” Dr. Haneef said in an interview.
Most patients in the study had stimulation of the hippocampus, the brain’s memory center.
“Moving forward we would want to look at how different patterns or standardized stimulation patterns affect memory. Ultimately, the underlying brain rhythms responsible for these changes in brain function need to be understood so that a more targeted and precise application of electrical stimulation can be achieved,” Dr. Haneef said.
The researchers also caution that, for this preliminary study, no follow-up testing was conducted to determine whether the memory improvement was transient and settled back to baseline after a specified period.
However, they note, this study lays the groundwork for larger-scale and extensive studies examining the nuanced effects of brain stimulation on human cognition and memory.
The study was funded by the Mike Hogg Foundation. Dr. Haneef and two coauthors received coverage for travel expenses but no honorarium for a NeuroPace advisory meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROSURGERY
Gene mutations may drive sudden unexplained deaths in children
, researchers have found.
Previous studies have found de novo genetic variants – those not found in either parent but which occur for the first time in their offspring – that increase the risk of cardiac and seizure disorders, but research on sudden unexplained deaths in children (SUDC) is limited, according to Matthew Halvorsen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues. Most cases of SUDC occur in children aged 1-4 years, and a lack of standardized investigation systems likely leads to misclassification of these deaths, they said.
Compared with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), which occurs in approximately 1,400 children in the United States each year, approximately 400 children aged 1 year and older die from SUDC annually. A major obstacle to studying these cases is that so-called molecular autopsies – which incorporate genetic analysis into the postmortem examination – typically do not assess the parents’ genetic information and thus limit the ability to identify de novo mutations, they added.
In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Halvorsen’s group obtained whole exome sequence data from 124 “trios,” meaning a dead child and two living parents. They tested for excessive de novo mutations for different genes involved in conditions that included cardiac arrhythmias and epilepsy. The average age at the time of death for the children was 34.2 months; 54% were male, and 82% were White.
Children who died of SUDC were nearly 10 times as likely to have de novo mutations in genes associated with cardiac and seizure disorders as were unrelated healthy controls (odds ratio, 9.76). Most pathogenic variants were de novo, which highlights the importance of trio studies, the researchers noted.
The researchers identified 11 variants associated with increased risk of SUDC, 7 of which were de novo. Three of the 124 cases carried mutations (two for RYR2 and 1 for TNNI3) affecting genes in the CardiacEpilepsy dataset proposed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, strengthening the connection to seizure disorders.
Another notable finding was the identification of six de novo mutations involved in altering calcium-related regulation, which suggests a cardiac susceptibility to sudden death.
The data support “novel genetic causes of pediatric sudden deaths that could be discovered with larger cohorts,” the researchers noted. Taken together, they say, the gene mutations could play a role in approximately 9% of SUDC cases.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including lack of population-based case ascertainment, exclusive focus on unexplained deaths, potentially missed mutations, and use of DNA from blood as opposed to organs, the researchers noted.
However, they concluded, “the data indicate that deleterious de novo mutations are significant genetic risk factors for childhood sudden unexplained death, and that their identification may lead to medical intervention that ultimately saves lives.”
Findings highlight impact of SUDC
“This study is important because SUDC is a much more pressing medical need than most people realize,” said Richard Tsien, PhD, of New York University Langone Medical Center, and the corresponding author of the study.
Although SUDC is less common than SIDS, SUDC has essentially no targeted research funding, Dr. Tsien said. Study coauthor Laura Gould, MA, a researcher and mother who lost a young child to SUDC, worked with Orrin Devinsky, MD, to create a registry for families with cases of SUDC. This registry was instrumental in allowing the researchers to “do the molecular detective work we need to do” to see whether a genetic basis exists for SUDC, Dr. Tsien said.
“The detective work comes up with a consistent story,” he said. “More than half of the genes that we found are involved in the normal function of the heart and brain,” performing such functions as delivering calcium ions to the inside of the heart cells and nerve cells.
The study “is the first of its kind,” given the difficulty of acquiring DNA from the child and two parents in SUDC cases, Dr. Tsien said.
Overall, approximately 10% of the cases have a compelling explanation based on the coding of DNA, Dr. Tsien said. From a clinical standpoint, that information might affect what a clinician says to a parent.
A key takeaway is that most of the genetic mutations are spontaneous and are not inherited from the parents, Dr. Tsien said. The study findings indicate that parents who suffer an SUDC loss need not be discouraged from having children, he added.
For the long term, “the more we understand about these disorders, the more information we can offer to families,” he said. Eventually, clinicians might be able to use genetics to identify signs of when SUDC might be more likely. “For example, if a child shows a very mild seizure, this would alert them that there might be potential for a more drastic outcome.”
Meanwhile, families with SUDC cases may find support and benefit in signing up for the registry and knowing that other families have been through a similar experience, Dr. Tsien said.
Genetic studies create opportunities
A significant portion of pediatric mortality remains unexplained, according to Richard D. Goldstein, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital. One reason is the lack of a formal diagnostic code to identify these deaths.
Research to date has suggested links between SUDC and a family history of febrile seizures, as well as differences in brain structure associated with epilepsy, Dr. Goldstein said.
“An important hypothesis is that these deaths are part of a continuum that also includes stillbirths, SIDS, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy [SUDEP],” Dr. Goldstein said. “By mandate, investigations of these deaths occur under the jurisdiction of medical examiners and coroners and have, for the most part, been insulated from developments in modern medicine like genomics and proteomics, elements of what are referred to as the molecular autopsy, and studies such as the current study bring attention to what is being missed.”
Dr. Goldstein said the new study buttresses the “conventional clinical suspicion” about the likely causes of SUDC, “but also strengthens the association between sudden unexpected death in pediatrics (SUDP) and SUDEP that we and others have been positing. I think the researchers very nicely make the point that epilepsy and cardiac arrhythmia genes are not as separated in their effects as many would believe.”
As for the clinical applicability of the findings, Dr. Goldstein said medicine needs to offer parents more: “Pediatric deaths without explanation deserve more than a forensic investigation that concerns itself mostly with whether there has been foul play,” he said. “We need to figure out how to engage families, at an incredibly vulnerable time, in helping find the cause of the child’s death and also contributing to needed research. Most of the reported variants were de novo, which means that parent participation is needed to figure out these genetic factors but also that we can offer reassurance to families that other children are not at risk.”
The study was supported by the SUDC Foundation and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (New York University). Dr. Tsien disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from FACES. Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, researchers have found.
Previous studies have found de novo genetic variants – those not found in either parent but which occur for the first time in their offspring – that increase the risk of cardiac and seizure disorders, but research on sudden unexplained deaths in children (SUDC) is limited, according to Matthew Halvorsen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues. Most cases of SUDC occur in children aged 1-4 years, and a lack of standardized investigation systems likely leads to misclassification of these deaths, they said.
Compared with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), which occurs in approximately 1,400 children in the United States each year, approximately 400 children aged 1 year and older die from SUDC annually. A major obstacle to studying these cases is that so-called molecular autopsies – which incorporate genetic analysis into the postmortem examination – typically do not assess the parents’ genetic information and thus limit the ability to identify de novo mutations, they added.
In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Halvorsen’s group obtained whole exome sequence data from 124 “trios,” meaning a dead child and two living parents. They tested for excessive de novo mutations for different genes involved in conditions that included cardiac arrhythmias and epilepsy. The average age at the time of death for the children was 34.2 months; 54% were male, and 82% were White.
Children who died of SUDC were nearly 10 times as likely to have de novo mutations in genes associated with cardiac and seizure disorders as were unrelated healthy controls (odds ratio, 9.76). Most pathogenic variants were de novo, which highlights the importance of trio studies, the researchers noted.
The researchers identified 11 variants associated with increased risk of SUDC, 7 of which were de novo. Three of the 124 cases carried mutations (two for RYR2 and 1 for TNNI3) affecting genes in the CardiacEpilepsy dataset proposed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, strengthening the connection to seizure disorders.
Another notable finding was the identification of six de novo mutations involved in altering calcium-related regulation, which suggests a cardiac susceptibility to sudden death.
The data support “novel genetic causes of pediatric sudden deaths that could be discovered with larger cohorts,” the researchers noted. Taken together, they say, the gene mutations could play a role in approximately 9% of SUDC cases.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including lack of population-based case ascertainment, exclusive focus on unexplained deaths, potentially missed mutations, and use of DNA from blood as opposed to organs, the researchers noted.
However, they concluded, “the data indicate that deleterious de novo mutations are significant genetic risk factors for childhood sudden unexplained death, and that their identification may lead to medical intervention that ultimately saves lives.”
Findings highlight impact of SUDC
“This study is important because SUDC is a much more pressing medical need than most people realize,” said Richard Tsien, PhD, of New York University Langone Medical Center, and the corresponding author of the study.
Although SUDC is less common than SIDS, SUDC has essentially no targeted research funding, Dr. Tsien said. Study coauthor Laura Gould, MA, a researcher and mother who lost a young child to SUDC, worked with Orrin Devinsky, MD, to create a registry for families with cases of SUDC. This registry was instrumental in allowing the researchers to “do the molecular detective work we need to do” to see whether a genetic basis exists for SUDC, Dr. Tsien said.
“The detective work comes up with a consistent story,” he said. “More than half of the genes that we found are involved in the normal function of the heart and brain,” performing such functions as delivering calcium ions to the inside of the heart cells and nerve cells.
The study “is the first of its kind,” given the difficulty of acquiring DNA from the child and two parents in SUDC cases, Dr. Tsien said.
Overall, approximately 10% of the cases have a compelling explanation based on the coding of DNA, Dr. Tsien said. From a clinical standpoint, that information might affect what a clinician says to a parent.
A key takeaway is that most of the genetic mutations are spontaneous and are not inherited from the parents, Dr. Tsien said. The study findings indicate that parents who suffer an SUDC loss need not be discouraged from having children, he added.
For the long term, “the more we understand about these disorders, the more information we can offer to families,” he said. Eventually, clinicians might be able to use genetics to identify signs of when SUDC might be more likely. “For example, if a child shows a very mild seizure, this would alert them that there might be potential for a more drastic outcome.”
Meanwhile, families with SUDC cases may find support and benefit in signing up for the registry and knowing that other families have been through a similar experience, Dr. Tsien said.
Genetic studies create opportunities
A significant portion of pediatric mortality remains unexplained, according to Richard D. Goldstein, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital. One reason is the lack of a formal diagnostic code to identify these deaths.
Research to date has suggested links between SUDC and a family history of febrile seizures, as well as differences in brain structure associated with epilepsy, Dr. Goldstein said.
“An important hypothesis is that these deaths are part of a continuum that also includes stillbirths, SIDS, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy [SUDEP],” Dr. Goldstein said. “By mandate, investigations of these deaths occur under the jurisdiction of medical examiners and coroners and have, for the most part, been insulated from developments in modern medicine like genomics and proteomics, elements of what are referred to as the molecular autopsy, and studies such as the current study bring attention to what is being missed.”
Dr. Goldstein said the new study buttresses the “conventional clinical suspicion” about the likely causes of SUDC, “but also strengthens the association between sudden unexpected death in pediatrics (SUDP) and SUDEP that we and others have been positing. I think the researchers very nicely make the point that epilepsy and cardiac arrhythmia genes are not as separated in their effects as many would believe.”
As for the clinical applicability of the findings, Dr. Goldstein said medicine needs to offer parents more: “Pediatric deaths without explanation deserve more than a forensic investigation that concerns itself mostly with whether there has been foul play,” he said. “We need to figure out how to engage families, at an incredibly vulnerable time, in helping find the cause of the child’s death and also contributing to needed research. Most of the reported variants were de novo, which means that parent participation is needed to figure out these genetic factors but also that we can offer reassurance to families that other children are not at risk.”
The study was supported by the SUDC Foundation and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (New York University). Dr. Tsien disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from FACES. Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, researchers have found.
Previous studies have found de novo genetic variants – those not found in either parent but which occur for the first time in their offspring – that increase the risk of cardiac and seizure disorders, but research on sudden unexplained deaths in children (SUDC) is limited, according to Matthew Halvorsen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues. Most cases of SUDC occur in children aged 1-4 years, and a lack of standardized investigation systems likely leads to misclassification of these deaths, they said.
Compared with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), which occurs in approximately 1,400 children in the United States each year, approximately 400 children aged 1 year and older die from SUDC annually. A major obstacle to studying these cases is that so-called molecular autopsies – which incorporate genetic analysis into the postmortem examination – typically do not assess the parents’ genetic information and thus limit the ability to identify de novo mutations, they added.
In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Halvorsen’s group obtained whole exome sequence data from 124 “trios,” meaning a dead child and two living parents. They tested for excessive de novo mutations for different genes involved in conditions that included cardiac arrhythmias and epilepsy. The average age at the time of death for the children was 34.2 months; 54% were male, and 82% were White.
Children who died of SUDC were nearly 10 times as likely to have de novo mutations in genes associated with cardiac and seizure disorders as were unrelated healthy controls (odds ratio, 9.76). Most pathogenic variants were de novo, which highlights the importance of trio studies, the researchers noted.
The researchers identified 11 variants associated with increased risk of SUDC, 7 of which were de novo. Three of the 124 cases carried mutations (two for RYR2 and 1 for TNNI3) affecting genes in the CardiacEpilepsy dataset proposed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, strengthening the connection to seizure disorders.
Another notable finding was the identification of six de novo mutations involved in altering calcium-related regulation, which suggests a cardiac susceptibility to sudden death.
The data support “novel genetic causes of pediatric sudden deaths that could be discovered with larger cohorts,” the researchers noted. Taken together, they say, the gene mutations could play a role in approximately 9% of SUDC cases.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including lack of population-based case ascertainment, exclusive focus on unexplained deaths, potentially missed mutations, and use of DNA from blood as opposed to organs, the researchers noted.
However, they concluded, “the data indicate that deleterious de novo mutations are significant genetic risk factors for childhood sudden unexplained death, and that their identification may lead to medical intervention that ultimately saves lives.”
Findings highlight impact of SUDC
“This study is important because SUDC is a much more pressing medical need than most people realize,” said Richard Tsien, PhD, of New York University Langone Medical Center, and the corresponding author of the study.
Although SUDC is less common than SIDS, SUDC has essentially no targeted research funding, Dr. Tsien said. Study coauthor Laura Gould, MA, a researcher and mother who lost a young child to SUDC, worked with Orrin Devinsky, MD, to create a registry for families with cases of SUDC. This registry was instrumental in allowing the researchers to “do the molecular detective work we need to do” to see whether a genetic basis exists for SUDC, Dr. Tsien said.
“The detective work comes up with a consistent story,” he said. “More than half of the genes that we found are involved in the normal function of the heart and brain,” performing such functions as delivering calcium ions to the inside of the heart cells and nerve cells.
The study “is the first of its kind,” given the difficulty of acquiring DNA from the child and two parents in SUDC cases, Dr. Tsien said.
Overall, approximately 10% of the cases have a compelling explanation based on the coding of DNA, Dr. Tsien said. From a clinical standpoint, that information might affect what a clinician says to a parent.
A key takeaway is that most of the genetic mutations are spontaneous and are not inherited from the parents, Dr. Tsien said. The study findings indicate that parents who suffer an SUDC loss need not be discouraged from having children, he added.
For the long term, “the more we understand about these disorders, the more information we can offer to families,” he said. Eventually, clinicians might be able to use genetics to identify signs of when SUDC might be more likely. “For example, if a child shows a very mild seizure, this would alert them that there might be potential for a more drastic outcome.”
Meanwhile, families with SUDC cases may find support and benefit in signing up for the registry and knowing that other families have been through a similar experience, Dr. Tsien said.
Genetic studies create opportunities
A significant portion of pediatric mortality remains unexplained, according to Richard D. Goldstein, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital. One reason is the lack of a formal diagnostic code to identify these deaths.
Research to date has suggested links between SUDC and a family history of febrile seizures, as well as differences in brain structure associated with epilepsy, Dr. Goldstein said.
“An important hypothesis is that these deaths are part of a continuum that also includes stillbirths, SIDS, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy [SUDEP],” Dr. Goldstein said. “By mandate, investigations of these deaths occur under the jurisdiction of medical examiners and coroners and have, for the most part, been insulated from developments in modern medicine like genomics and proteomics, elements of what are referred to as the molecular autopsy, and studies such as the current study bring attention to what is being missed.”
Dr. Goldstein said the new study buttresses the “conventional clinical suspicion” about the likely causes of SUDC, “but also strengthens the association between sudden unexpected death in pediatrics (SUDP) and SUDEP that we and others have been positing. I think the researchers very nicely make the point that epilepsy and cardiac arrhythmia genes are not as separated in their effects as many would believe.”
As for the clinical applicability of the findings, Dr. Goldstein said medicine needs to offer parents more: “Pediatric deaths without explanation deserve more than a forensic investigation that concerns itself mostly with whether there has been foul play,” he said. “We need to figure out how to engage families, at an incredibly vulnerable time, in helping find the cause of the child’s death and also contributing to needed research. Most of the reported variants were de novo, which means that parent participation is needed to figure out these genetic factors but also that we can offer reassurance to families that other children are not at risk.”
The study was supported by the SUDC Foundation and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (New York University). Dr. Tsien disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from FACES. Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Posttraumatic epilepsy is common, even after ‘mild’ TBI
, new research suggests.
Results from a multicenter, prospective cohort study showed 2.7% of nearly 1,500 participants with TBI reported also having posttraumatic epilepsy, and these patients had significantly worse outcomes than those without posttraumatic epilepsy.
“Posttraumatic epilepsy is common even in so-called mild TBI, and we should be on the lookout for patients reporting these kinds of spells,” said coinvestigator Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the TBI Clinical Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said he dislikes the term “mild TBI” because many of these injuries have “pretty substantial consequences.”
The findings were published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Network Open.
Novel study
Seizures can occur after TBI, most commonly after a severe brain injury, such as those leading to coma or bleeding in the brain or requiring surgical intervention. However, there have been “hints” that some patients with milder brain injuries are also at increased risk for epilepsy, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
To investigate, the researchers assessed data from the large, multicenter Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) database. Participants with TBI, defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-15, had presented to a level I trauma center within 24 hours of a head trauma needing evaluation with a CT scan.
The study included patients with relatively mild TBI (GCS score, 13-15), which is a “novel feature” of the study, the authors noted. Most prior studies of posttraumatic epilepsy focused on moderate to severe TBI.
The researchers included two sex- and age-matched control groups. The orthopedic trauma control (OTC) group consisted of patients with isolated trauma to the limbs, pelvis, and/or ribs. The “friend” or peer control group had backgrounds and lifestyles similar to those with TBI but had no history of TBI, concussion, or traumatic injury in the previous year.
The analysis included 1,885 participants (mean age, 41.3 years; 65.8% men). Of these, 1,493 had TBI, 182 were in the OTC group, and 210 were in the friends group. At 6- and 12-month follow-ups, investigators administered the Epilepsy Screening Questionnaire (ESQ), developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).
Confirmatory data
Participants were asked about experiencing uncontrolled movements, unexplained changes in mental state, and repeated unusual attacks or convulsions, and whether they had been told they had epilepsy or seizures. If they answered yes to any of these questions, they received second-level screening, which asked about seizures.
Patients were deemed to have posttraumatic epilepsy if they answered affirmatively to any first-level screening item, experienced seizures 7 days after injury, and were diagnosed with epilepsy.
The primary outcome was rate of positive posttraumatic epilepsy diagnoses. At 12 months, 2.7% of those with TBI reported a posttraumatic epilepsy diagnosis compared with none of either of the control groups (P < .001).
This rate is consistent with prior literature and is “pretty close to what we expected,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
Among those with TBI and posttraumatic epilepsy, 12.2% had GCS scores of 3-8 (severe), 5.3% had scores of 9-12 (moderate), and 0.9% had scores of 13-15 (mild). That figure for mild TBI is not insignificant, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
“Probably 90% of all those coming to the emergency room with a brain injury are diagnosed with mild TBI not requiring admission,” he noted.
The risk for posttraumatic epilepsy was higher the more severe the head injury, and among those with hemorrhage on head CT imaging. In patients with mild TBI, hemorrhage was associated with a two- to threefold risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy.
“This prospective observational study confirms the epidemiologic data that even after mild brain injury, there is an increased risk for epilepsy,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
Universal screening?
The researchers also looked at whether seizures worsen other outcomes. Compared with those who had TBI but not posttraumatic epilepsy, those with posttraumatic epilepsy had significantly lower Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) scores (mean, 4.7 vs. 6.1; P < .001), higher Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) scores (58.6 vs. 50.2; P = .02), and higher Rivermead Cognitive Metric (RCM) scores (5.3 vs. 3.1; P = .002) at 12 months after adjustment for age, initial GCS score, and imaging findings.
Higher GOSE and RCM scores reflect better outcomes, but a higher score on the BSI, which assesses overall mood, reflects a worse outcome, the investigators noted.
Previous evidence suggests prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs in patients with TBI does not reduce risks. These drugs “are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia. Some studies showed that certain agents actually worsen outcomes, he added.
What the field needs instead are antiepileptogenic drugs – those that interfere with the maladaptive synaptic plasticity that ends up in an epileptic circuit, he noted.
The new results suggest screening for posttraumatic epilepsy using the NINDS-ESQ “should be done pretty much routinely as a follow-up for all brain injuries,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.
The investigators plan to have study participants assessed by an epileptologist later. A significant number of people with TBI, he noted, won’t develop posttraumatic epilepsy until 1-5 years after their injury – and even later in some cases.
A limitation of the study was that some patients reporting posttraumatic epilepsy may have had psychogenic nonepileptiform seizures, which are common in TBI patients, the investigators noted.
The study was supported by grants from One Mind, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS, and Department of Defence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia reported receiving grants from the NIH, NINDS, and DOD during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
Results from a multicenter, prospective cohort study showed 2.7% of nearly 1,500 participants with TBI reported also having posttraumatic epilepsy, and these patients had significantly worse outcomes than those without posttraumatic epilepsy.
“Posttraumatic epilepsy is common even in so-called mild TBI, and we should be on the lookout for patients reporting these kinds of spells,” said coinvestigator Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the TBI Clinical Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said he dislikes the term “mild TBI” because many of these injuries have “pretty substantial consequences.”
The findings were published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Network Open.
Novel study
Seizures can occur after TBI, most commonly after a severe brain injury, such as those leading to coma or bleeding in the brain or requiring surgical intervention. However, there have been “hints” that some patients with milder brain injuries are also at increased risk for epilepsy, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
To investigate, the researchers assessed data from the large, multicenter Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) database. Participants with TBI, defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-15, had presented to a level I trauma center within 24 hours of a head trauma needing evaluation with a CT scan.
The study included patients with relatively mild TBI (GCS score, 13-15), which is a “novel feature” of the study, the authors noted. Most prior studies of posttraumatic epilepsy focused on moderate to severe TBI.
The researchers included two sex- and age-matched control groups. The orthopedic trauma control (OTC) group consisted of patients with isolated trauma to the limbs, pelvis, and/or ribs. The “friend” or peer control group had backgrounds and lifestyles similar to those with TBI but had no history of TBI, concussion, or traumatic injury in the previous year.
The analysis included 1,885 participants (mean age, 41.3 years; 65.8% men). Of these, 1,493 had TBI, 182 were in the OTC group, and 210 were in the friends group. At 6- and 12-month follow-ups, investigators administered the Epilepsy Screening Questionnaire (ESQ), developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).
Confirmatory data
Participants were asked about experiencing uncontrolled movements, unexplained changes in mental state, and repeated unusual attacks or convulsions, and whether they had been told they had epilepsy or seizures. If they answered yes to any of these questions, they received second-level screening, which asked about seizures.
Patients were deemed to have posttraumatic epilepsy if they answered affirmatively to any first-level screening item, experienced seizures 7 days after injury, and were diagnosed with epilepsy.
The primary outcome was rate of positive posttraumatic epilepsy diagnoses. At 12 months, 2.7% of those with TBI reported a posttraumatic epilepsy diagnosis compared with none of either of the control groups (P < .001).
This rate is consistent with prior literature and is “pretty close to what we expected,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
Among those with TBI and posttraumatic epilepsy, 12.2% had GCS scores of 3-8 (severe), 5.3% had scores of 9-12 (moderate), and 0.9% had scores of 13-15 (mild). That figure for mild TBI is not insignificant, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
“Probably 90% of all those coming to the emergency room with a brain injury are diagnosed with mild TBI not requiring admission,” he noted.
The risk for posttraumatic epilepsy was higher the more severe the head injury, and among those with hemorrhage on head CT imaging. In patients with mild TBI, hemorrhage was associated with a two- to threefold risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy.
“This prospective observational study confirms the epidemiologic data that even after mild brain injury, there is an increased risk for epilepsy,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
Universal screening?
The researchers also looked at whether seizures worsen other outcomes. Compared with those who had TBI but not posttraumatic epilepsy, those with posttraumatic epilepsy had significantly lower Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) scores (mean, 4.7 vs. 6.1; P < .001), higher Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) scores (58.6 vs. 50.2; P = .02), and higher Rivermead Cognitive Metric (RCM) scores (5.3 vs. 3.1; P = .002) at 12 months after adjustment for age, initial GCS score, and imaging findings.
Higher GOSE and RCM scores reflect better outcomes, but a higher score on the BSI, which assesses overall mood, reflects a worse outcome, the investigators noted.
Previous evidence suggests prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs in patients with TBI does not reduce risks. These drugs “are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia. Some studies showed that certain agents actually worsen outcomes, he added.
What the field needs instead are antiepileptogenic drugs – those that interfere with the maladaptive synaptic plasticity that ends up in an epileptic circuit, he noted.
The new results suggest screening for posttraumatic epilepsy using the NINDS-ESQ “should be done pretty much routinely as a follow-up for all brain injuries,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.
The investigators plan to have study participants assessed by an epileptologist later. A significant number of people with TBI, he noted, won’t develop posttraumatic epilepsy until 1-5 years after their injury – and even later in some cases.
A limitation of the study was that some patients reporting posttraumatic epilepsy may have had psychogenic nonepileptiform seizures, which are common in TBI patients, the investigators noted.
The study was supported by grants from One Mind, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS, and Department of Defence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia reported receiving grants from the NIH, NINDS, and DOD during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
Results from a multicenter, prospective cohort study showed 2.7% of nearly 1,500 participants with TBI reported also having posttraumatic epilepsy, and these patients had significantly worse outcomes than those without posttraumatic epilepsy.
“Posttraumatic epilepsy is common even in so-called mild TBI, and we should be on the lookout for patients reporting these kinds of spells,” said coinvestigator Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the TBI Clinical Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said he dislikes the term “mild TBI” because many of these injuries have “pretty substantial consequences.”
The findings were published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Network Open.
Novel study
Seizures can occur after TBI, most commonly after a severe brain injury, such as those leading to coma or bleeding in the brain or requiring surgical intervention. However, there have been “hints” that some patients with milder brain injuries are also at increased risk for epilepsy, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
To investigate, the researchers assessed data from the large, multicenter Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) database. Participants with TBI, defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-15, had presented to a level I trauma center within 24 hours of a head trauma needing evaluation with a CT scan.
The study included patients with relatively mild TBI (GCS score, 13-15), which is a “novel feature” of the study, the authors noted. Most prior studies of posttraumatic epilepsy focused on moderate to severe TBI.
The researchers included two sex- and age-matched control groups. The orthopedic trauma control (OTC) group consisted of patients with isolated trauma to the limbs, pelvis, and/or ribs. The “friend” or peer control group had backgrounds and lifestyles similar to those with TBI but had no history of TBI, concussion, or traumatic injury in the previous year.
The analysis included 1,885 participants (mean age, 41.3 years; 65.8% men). Of these, 1,493 had TBI, 182 were in the OTC group, and 210 were in the friends group. At 6- and 12-month follow-ups, investigators administered the Epilepsy Screening Questionnaire (ESQ), developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).
Confirmatory data
Participants were asked about experiencing uncontrolled movements, unexplained changes in mental state, and repeated unusual attacks or convulsions, and whether they had been told they had epilepsy or seizures. If they answered yes to any of these questions, they received second-level screening, which asked about seizures.
Patients were deemed to have posttraumatic epilepsy if they answered affirmatively to any first-level screening item, experienced seizures 7 days after injury, and were diagnosed with epilepsy.
The primary outcome was rate of positive posttraumatic epilepsy diagnoses. At 12 months, 2.7% of those with TBI reported a posttraumatic epilepsy diagnosis compared with none of either of the control groups (P < .001).
This rate is consistent with prior literature and is “pretty close to what we expected,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
Among those with TBI and posttraumatic epilepsy, 12.2% had GCS scores of 3-8 (severe), 5.3% had scores of 9-12 (moderate), and 0.9% had scores of 13-15 (mild). That figure for mild TBI is not insignificant, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
“Probably 90% of all those coming to the emergency room with a brain injury are diagnosed with mild TBI not requiring admission,” he noted.
The risk for posttraumatic epilepsy was higher the more severe the head injury, and among those with hemorrhage on head CT imaging. In patients with mild TBI, hemorrhage was associated with a two- to threefold risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy.
“This prospective observational study confirms the epidemiologic data that even after mild brain injury, there is an increased risk for epilepsy,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
Universal screening?
The researchers also looked at whether seizures worsen other outcomes. Compared with those who had TBI but not posttraumatic epilepsy, those with posttraumatic epilepsy had significantly lower Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) scores (mean, 4.7 vs. 6.1; P < .001), higher Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) scores (58.6 vs. 50.2; P = .02), and higher Rivermead Cognitive Metric (RCM) scores (5.3 vs. 3.1; P = .002) at 12 months after adjustment for age, initial GCS score, and imaging findings.
Higher GOSE and RCM scores reflect better outcomes, but a higher score on the BSI, which assesses overall mood, reflects a worse outcome, the investigators noted.
Previous evidence suggests prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs in patients with TBI does not reduce risks. These drugs “are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia. Some studies showed that certain agents actually worsen outcomes, he added.
What the field needs instead are antiepileptogenic drugs – those that interfere with the maladaptive synaptic plasticity that ends up in an epileptic circuit, he noted.
The new results suggest screening for posttraumatic epilepsy using the NINDS-ESQ “should be done pretty much routinely as a follow-up for all brain injuries,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.
The investigators plan to have study participants assessed by an epileptologist later. A significant number of people with TBI, he noted, won’t develop posttraumatic epilepsy until 1-5 years after their injury – and even later in some cases.
A limitation of the study was that some patients reporting posttraumatic epilepsy may have had psychogenic nonepileptiform seizures, which are common in TBI patients, the investigators noted.
The study was supported by grants from One Mind, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS, and Department of Defence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia reported receiving grants from the NIH, NINDS, and DOD during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Epilepsy in older adults: Misdiagnosis and case complexity are common
, a neurologist told an audience at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. She urged colleagues to focus on possible interactions with other neurological conditions, consider various complicating factors, and embrace a team strategy.
“There are lots of nuances,” said Rebecca O’Dwyer, MD, an adult epilepsy specialist with Rush Epilepsy Center in Chicago. “It takes a lot of time and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Taking care of older individuals with epilepsy truly is a team sport.”
According to a 2014 report highlighted by Dr. O’Dwyer, “nearly 25% of new-onset seizures occur after age 65. The incidence of epilepsy in this age group is almost twice the rate in children, and in people over age 80, it is triple the rate in children.”
Research suggests it can take up to 2 years to correctly diagnose epilepsy in older people, Dr. O’Dwyer said, and nearly two-thirds of cases may be misdiagnosed. “Some of it is just limited awareness. There’s this perception in the public that epilepsy is something that occurs in younger adults or young children, and that when you come to a certain age, you cannot have epilepsy. Also, there are differences in the clinical manifestations of their seizures, and many comorbid possibilities could also present in similar fashion to epilepsy. Some of our usual tools that we use to come to the diagnosis such as EEG are also known to be less sensitive in this age group.”
According to the 2014 report, research finds that the elderly are much more likely than young adults to have postictal sleepiness or unresponsiveness and seizures manifesting as brief moments of subtle confusion. They’re much less likely to have epileptic aura and generalized tonic seizures.
“An epileptic seizure in an older adult tends to be less dramatic with fewer motor manifestations, and they often tend to be monophasic. They may be so subtle that they’re missed by family members and other medical providers,” Dr. O’Dwyer said. “I had a patient whose seizure consisted of her tapping her left shoulder. She had been doing this for at least 6 months, and she came to my clinic after her daughter realized that she was a little confused afterward. She’d already seen a behavioral neurologist and been given the diagnosis of dementia. We were fortunate enough to catch one of these episodes while we were doing an EEG, and we diagnosed her with focal epilepsy. With one antiseizure medication, we stopped the seizures, and her memory came back.”
Make sure to take detailed histories and keep an eye out for descriptions of behaviors that are episodic but perhaps not typical of seizures, she said.
Epilepsy can be misdiagnosed as a variety of conditions, she said, such as syncope, Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and atrial fibrillation. “When you do diagnose somebody older with new-onset epilepsy, you should work them up for a stroke. Because we know that within the first 4 weeks after their first seizure the likelihood that they could have a stroke is three times higher.”
It’s also possible that neurological conditions can be followed by new-onset epilepsy, she said, making dementia even worse. Low-dose antiepileptic drugs can be helpful in these patients.
But seniors are especially vulnerable to side effects of antiepileptic drugs such as sedation, dizziness, and cardiac-conduction abnormalities. “You must adhere to the mantra of going low and going slow because they are exquisitely susceptible,” Dr. O’Dwyer said.
She recommends lamotrigine, which is well tolerated with helpful mood-stabilizing effects, and levetiracetam, which attenuates cognitive decline in dementia but may cause side effects such as irritable mood. Zonisamide is showing promise in patients with parkinsonian syndromes, she said, and it may be helpful to maximize drugs that patients are already taking such as gabapentin or pregabalin.
Finally, Dr. O’Dwyer urged colleagues to work in teams that include caregivers, primary care doctors, social workers, and pharmacists. “Sometimes in all this,” she said, “my job is the easiest.”
Dr. O’Dwyer discloses research support from the Shapiro Foundation.
, a neurologist told an audience at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. She urged colleagues to focus on possible interactions with other neurological conditions, consider various complicating factors, and embrace a team strategy.
“There are lots of nuances,” said Rebecca O’Dwyer, MD, an adult epilepsy specialist with Rush Epilepsy Center in Chicago. “It takes a lot of time and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Taking care of older individuals with epilepsy truly is a team sport.”
According to a 2014 report highlighted by Dr. O’Dwyer, “nearly 25% of new-onset seizures occur after age 65. The incidence of epilepsy in this age group is almost twice the rate in children, and in people over age 80, it is triple the rate in children.”
Research suggests it can take up to 2 years to correctly diagnose epilepsy in older people, Dr. O’Dwyer said, and nearly two-thirds of cases may be misdiagnosed. “Some of it is just limited awareness. There’s this perception in the public that epilepsy is something that occurs in younger adults or young children, and that when you come to a certain age, you cannot have epilepsy. Also, there are differences in the clinical manifestations of their seizures, and many comorbid possibilities could also present in similar fashion to epilepsy. Some of our usual tools that we use to come to the diagnosis such as EEG are also known to be less sensitive in this age group.”
According to the 2014 report, research finds that the elderly are much more likely than young adults to have postictal sleepiness or unresponsiveness and seizures manifesting as brief moments of subtle confusion. They’re much less likely to have epileptic aura and generalized tonic seizures.
“An epileptic seizure in an older adult tends to be less dramatic with fewer motor manifestations, and they often tend to be monophasic. They may be so subtle that they’re missed by family members and other medical providers,” Dr. O’Dwyer said. “I had a patient whose seizure consisted of her tapping her left shoulder. She had been doing this for at least 6 months, and she came to my clinic after her daughter realized that she was a little confused afterward. She’d already seen a behavioral neurologist and been given the diagnosis of dementia. We were fortunate enough to catch one of these episodes while we were doing an EEG, and we diagnosed her with focal epilepsy. With one antiseizure medication, we stopped the seizures, and her memory came back.”
Make sure to take detailed histories and keep an eye out for descriptions of behaviors that are episodic but perhaps not typical of seizures, she said.
Epilepsy can be misdiagnosed as a variety of conditions, she said, such as syncope, Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and atrial fibrillation. “When you do diagnose somebody older with new-onset epilepsy, you should work them up for a stroke. Because we know that within the first 4 weeks after their first seizure the likelihood that they could have a stroke is three times higher.”
It’s also possible that neurological conditions can be followed by new-onset epilepsy, she said, making dementia even worse. Low-dose antiepileptic drugs can be helpful in these patients.
But seniors are especially vulnerable to side effects of antiepileptic drugs such as sedation, dizziness, and cardiac-conduction abnormalities. “You must adhere to the mantra of going low and going slow because they are exquisitely susceptible,” Dr. O’Dwyer said.
She recommends lamotrigine, which is well tolerated with helpful mood-stabilizing effects, and levetiracetam, which attenuates cognitive decline in dementia but may cause side effects such as irritable mood. Zonisamide is showing promise in patients with parkinsonian syndromes, she said, and it may be helpful to maximize drugs that patients are already taking such as gabapentin or pregabalin.
Finally, Dr. O’Dwyer urged colleagues to work in teams that include caregivers, primary care doctors, social workers, and pharmacists. “Sometimes in all this,” she said, “my job is the easiest.”
Dr. O’Dwyer discloses research support from the Shapiro Foundation.
, a neurologist told an audience at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. She urged colleagues to focus on possible interactions with other neurological conditions, consider various complicating factors, and embrace a team strategy.
“There are lots of nuances,” said Rebecca O’Dwyer, MD, an adult epilepsy specialist with Rush Epilepsy Center in Chicago. “It takes a lot of time and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Taking care of older individuals with epilepsy truly is a team sport.”
According to a 2014 report highlighted by Dr. O’Dwyer, “nearly 25% of new-onset seizures occur after age 65. The incidence of epilepsy in this age group is almost twice the rate in children, and in people over age 80, it is triple the rate in children.”
Research suggests it can take up to 2 years to correctly diagnose epilepsy in older people, Dr. O’Dwyer said, and nearly two-thirds of cases may be misdiagnosed. “Some of it is just limited awareness. There’s this perception in the public that epilepsy is something that occurs in younger adults or young children, and that when you come to a certain age, you cannot have epilepsy. Also, there are differences in the clinical manifestations of their seizures, and many comorbid possibilities could also present in similar fashion to epilepsy. Some of our usual tools that we use to come to the diagnosis such as EEG are also known to be less sensitive in this age group.”
According to the 2014 report, research finds that the elderly are much more likely than young adults to have postictal sleepiness or unresponsiveness and seizures manifesting as brief moments of subtle confusion. They’re much less likely to have epileptic aura and generalized tonic seizures.
“An epileptic seizure in an older adult tends to be less dramatic with fewer motor manifestations, and they often tend to be monophasic. They may be so subtle that they’re missed by family members and other medical providers,” Dr. O’Dwyer said. “I had a patient whose seizure consisted of her tapping her left shoulder. She had been doing this for at least 6 months, and she came to my clinic after her daughter realized that she was a little confused afterward. She’d already seen a behavioral neurologist and been given the diagnosis of dementia. We were fortunate enough to catch one of these episodes while we were doing an EEG, and we diagnosed her with focal epilepsy. With one antiseizure medication, we stopped the seizures, and her memory came back.”
Make sure to take detailed histories and keep an eye out for descriptions of behaviors that are episodic but perhaps not typical of seizures, she said.
Epilepsy can be misdiagnosed as a variety of conditions, she said, such as syncope, Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and atrial fibrillation. “When you do diagnose somebody older with new-onset epilepsy, you should work them up for a stroke. Because we know that within the first 4 weeks after their first seizure the likelihood that they could have a stroke is three times higher.”
It’s also possible that neurological conditions can be followed by new-onset epilepsy, she said, making dementia even worse. Low-dose antiepileptic drugs can be helpful in these patients.
But seniors are especially vulnerable to side effects of antiepileptic drugs such as sedation, dizziness, and cardiac-conduction abnormalities. “You must adhere to the mantra of going low and going slow because they are exquisitely susceptible,” Dr. O’Dwyer said.
She recommends lamotrigine, which is well tolerated with helpful mood-stabilizing effects, and levetiracetam, which attenuates cognitive decline in dementia but may cause side effects such as irritable mood. Zonisamide is showing promise in patients with parkinsonian syndromes, she said, and it may be helpful to maximize drugs that patients are already taking such as gabapentin or pregabalin.
Finally, Dr. O’Dwyer urged colleagues to work in teams that include caregivers, primary care doctors, social workers, and pharmacists. “Sometimes in all this,” she said, “my job is the easiest.”
Dr. O’Dwyer discloses research support from the Shapiro Foundation.
FROM AES 2021
Don’t panic over lamotrigine, but beware of cardiac risks
New York University neurologist Jacqueline A. French, MD, told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. But it’s now crucial to take special precautions in high-risk groups such as older people and heart patients.
“We need to plan more carefully when we use it, which we hate to do, as we know. But we’ve still got to do it,” said Dr. French, former president of the AES. “The risks are very small, but keep in mind that they’re not zero.”
In October 2020, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning to the lamotrigine label that said the drug “could slow ventricular conduction (widen QRS) and induce proarrhythmia, including sudden death, in patients with structural heart disease or myocardial ischemia.”
The FDA recommended avoiding the sodium channel blocker’s use “in patients who have cardiac conduction disorders (e.g., second- or third-degree heart block), ventricular arrhythmias, or cardiac disease or abnormality (e.g., myocardial ischemia, heart failure, structural heart disease, Brugada syndrome, or other sodium channelopathies). Concomitant use of other sodium channel blockers may increase the risk of proarrhythmia.”
Later, in March 2021, the FDA announced that a review of in vitro findings “showed a potential increased risk of heart rhythm problems.”
As Dr. French noted, lamotrigine remains widely prescribed even though there’s “no pharmaceutical company out there pushing [it].” It’s an especially beneficial drug for certain groups such as the elderly and women of child-bearing age, she said.
But older people are also at higher risk of drug-related heart complications because of the fact that many already have cardiac disease, Dr. French said. She highlighted a 2005 trial of lamotrigine that found 48% of 593 patients aged 60 years and older had cardiac disease.
Special precautions
So what should neurologists know about prescribing lamotrigine in light of the new warning? Dr. French recommended guidelines that she cowrote with the AES and International League Against Epilepsy.
- Prescribe as normal in patients under 60 with no cardiac risk factors. In patients older than 60, or younger with risk factors, consider an EKG before prescribing lamotrigine.
- “Nonspecific EKG abnormalities (e.g., nonspecific ST and T wave abnormalities) are not concerning, and should not preclude these individuals from being prescribed lamotrigine.”
- Beware of higher risk and consider consulting a cardiologist before starting treatment in patients with second- or third-degree heart block, Brugada syndrome, arrhythmogenic ventricular cardiomyopathy, left bundle branch block, and right bundle branch block with left anterior or posterior fascicular block.
- “In most cases the initial EKG can be obtained while titrating, mainly when the individual is at the first dose of 25 mg/day because lamotrigine must be titrated slowly, and because cardiac adverse events are dose related.”
- “Clinicians should consider obtaining an EKG and/or cardiology consultation in people on lamotrigine with sudden-onset syncope or presyncope with loss of muscular tone without a clear vasovagal or orthostatic cause.”
Dr. French cautioned colleagues that they shouldn’t assume that lamotrigine stands alone among sodium channel blockers in terms of cardiac risk. As she noted, the FDA is asking manufacturers of other drugs in that class to provide data. “At some point, maybe sometime in the near future, we are going to hear in this particular in vitro sense how the other sodium channel blockers do stack up, compared with lamotrigine. At presence, in the absence of the availability of all of the rest of the data, it would be incorrect to presume that lamotrigine has more cardiac effects than other sodium channel blocking antiseizure medicines or all antiseizure medicines.”
For now, she said, although the guidelines are for lamotrigine, it’s “prudent” to follow them for all sodium channel blockers.
Dr. French reported no disclosures.
New York University neurologist Jacqueline A. French, MD, told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. But it’s now crucial to take special precautions in high-risk groups such as older people and heart patients.
“We need to plan more carefully when we use it, which we hate to do, as we know. But we’ve still got to do it,” said Dr. French, former president of the AES. “The risks are very small, but keep in mind that they’re not zero.”
In October 2020, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning to the lamotrigine label that said the drug “could slow ventricular conduction (widen QRS) and induce proarrhythmia, including sudden death, in patients with structural heart disease or myocardial ischemia.”
The FDA recommended avoiding the sodium channel blocker’s use “in patients who have cardiac conduction disorders (e.g., second- or third-degree heart block), ventricular arrhythmias, or cardiac disease or abnormality (e.g., myocardial ischemia, heart failure, structural heart disease, Brugada syndrome, or other sodium channelopathies). Concomitant use of other sodium channel blockers may increase the risk of proarrhythmia.”
Later, in March 2021, the FDA announced that a review of in vitro findings “showed a potential increased risk of heart rhythm problems.”
As Dr. French noted, lamotrigine remains widely prescribed even though there’s “no pharmaceutical company out there pushing [it].” It’s an especially beneficial drug for certain groups such as the elderly and women of child-bearing age, she said.
But older people are also at higher risk of drug-related heart complications because of the fact that many already have cardiac disease, Dr. French said. She highlighted a 2005 trial of lamotrigine that found 48% of 593 patients aged 60 years and older had cardiac disease.
Special precautions
So what should neurologists know about prescribing lamotrigine in light of the new warning? Dr. French recommended guidelines that she cowrote with the AES and International League Against Epilepsy.
- Prescribe as normal in patients under 60 with no cardiac risk factors. In patients older than 60, or younger with risk factors, consider an EKG before prescribing lamotrigine.
- “Nonspecific EKG abnormalities (e.g., nonspecific ST and T wave abnormalities) are not concerning, and should not preclude these individuals from being prescribed lamotrigine.”
- Beware of higher risk and consider consulting a cardiologist before starting treatment in patients with second- or third-degree heart block, Brugada syndrome, arrhythmogenic ventricular cardiomyopathy, left bundle branch block, and right bundle branch block with left anterior or posterior fascicular block.
- “In most cases the initial EKG can be obtained while titrating, mainly when the individual is at the first dose of 25 mg/day because lamotrigine must be titrated slowly, and because cardiac adverse events are dose related.”
- “Clinicians should consider obtaining an EKG and/or cardiology consultation in people on lamotrigine with sudden-onset syncope or presyncope with loss of muscular tone without a clear vasovagal or orthostatic cause.”
Dr. French cautioned colleagues that they shouldn’t assume that lamotrigine stands alone among sodium channel blockers in terms of cardiac risk. As she noted, the FDA is asking manufacturers of other drugs in that class to provide data. “At some point, maybe sometime in the near future, we are going to hear in this particular in vitro sense how the other sodium channel blockers do stack up, compared with lamotrigine. At presence, in the absence of the availability of all of the rest of the data, it would be incorrect to presume that lamotrigine has more cardiac effects than other sodium channel blocking antiseizure medicines or all antiseizure medicines.”
For now, she said, although the guidelines are for lamotrigine, it’s “prudent” to follow them for all sodium channel blockers.
Dr. French reported no disclosures.
New York University neurologist Jacqueline A. French, MD, told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. But it’s now crucial to take special precautions in high-risk groups such as older people and heart patients.
“We need to plan more carefully when we use it, which we hate to do, as we know. But we’ve still got to do it,” said Dr. French, former president of the AES. “The risks are very small, but keep in mind that they’re not zero.”
In October 2020, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning to the lamotrigine label that said the drug “could slow ventricular conduction (widen QRS) and induce proarrhythmia, including sudden death, in patients with structural heart disease or myocardial ischemia.”
The FDA recommended avoiding the sodium channel blocker’s use “in patients who have cardiac conduction disorders (e.g., second- or third-degree heart block), ventricular arrhythmias, or cardiac disease or abnormality (e.g., myocardial ischemia, heart failure, structural heart disease, Brugada syndrome, or other sodium channelopathies). Concomitant use of other sodium channel blockers may increase the risk of proarrhythmia.”
Later, in March 2021, the FDA announced that a review of in vitro findings “showed a potential increased risk of heart rhythm problems.”
As Dr. French noted, lamotrigine remains widely prescribed even though there’s “no pharmaceutical company out there pushing [it].” It’s an especially beneficial drug for certain groups such as the elderly and women of child-bearing age, she said.
But older people are also at higher risk of drug-related heart complications because of the fact that many already have cardiac disease, Dr. French said. She highlighted a 2005 trial of lamotrigine that found 48% of 593 patients aged 60 years and older had cardiac disease.
Special precautions
So what should neurologists know about prescribing lamotrigine in light of the new warning? Dr. French recommended guidelines that she cowrote with the AES and International League Against Epilepsy.
- Prescribe as normal in patients under 60 with no cardiac risk factors. In patients older than 60, or younger with risk factors, consider an EKG before prescribing lamotrigine.
- “Nonspecific EKG abnormalities (e.g., nonspecific ST and T wave abnormalities) are not concerning, and should not preclude these individuals from being prescribed lamotrigine.”
- Beware of higher risk and consider consulting a cardiologist before starting treatment in patients with second- or third-degree heart block, Brugada syndrome, arrhythmogenic ventricular cardiomyopathy, left bundle branch block, and right bundle branch block with left anterior or posterior fascicular block.
- “In most cases the initial EKG can be obtained while titrating, mainly when the individual is at the first dose of 25 mg/day because lamotrigine must be titrated slowly, and because cardiac adverse events are dose related.”
- “Clinicians should consider obtaining an EKG and/or cardiology consultation in people on lamotrigine with sudden-onset syncope or presyncope with loss of muscular tone without a clear vasovagal or orthostatic cause.”
Dr. French cautioned colleagues that they shouldn’t assume that lamotrigine stands alone among sodium channel blockers in terms of cardiac risk. As she noted, the FDA is asking manufacturers of other drugs in that class to provide data. “At some point, maybe sometime in the near future, we are going to hear in this particular in vitro sense how the other sodium channel blockers do stack up, compared with lamotrigine. At presence, in the absence of the availability of all of the rest of the data, it would be incorrect to presume that lamotrigine has more cardiac effects than other sodium channel blocking antiseizure medicines or all antiseizure medicines.”
For now, she said, although the guidelines are for lamotrigine, it’s “prudent” to follow them for all sodium channel blockers.
Dr. French reported no disclosures.
FROM AES 2021
Genetic tests prompt therapy adjustments in children with epilepsy
Physicians at a Boston hospital adjusted medical management for nearly three-quarters of patients with infantile- or childhood-onset epilepsy who were diagnosed with genetic epilepsy, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. The findings provide new insight into the usefulness of genetic tests in children with epilepsy of unknown cause.
“. Genetic testing should be included as part of the standard evaluation of individuals with unexplained pediatric epilepsy as a means of achieving diagnostic precision and informing clinical management,” study lead author Isabel Haviland, MD, a neurologist with Boston Children’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, said in an interview.
According to Dr. Haviland, the causes of epilepsy are unexplained in an estimated two-thirds of pediatric epilepsy cases. “Increasingly, when genetic testing is available, previously unexplained cases of pediatric epilepsy are being found to have single-gene etiologies,” she said. “Though a genetic diagnosis in this population has implications for medical care, the direct impact on medical management in a clinical setting has not been measured. We aimed to describe the impact of genetic diagnosis on medical management in a cohort of individuals with pediatric epilepsy.”
Researchers tracked 602 patients at Boston Children’s Hospital who received next-generation gene sequencing testing from 2012 to 2019. Of those, Dr. Haviland said, 152 (25%) had a positive result that indicated genetic epilepsy (46% female, median age of onset = 6 months [2-15 months]). These patients were included in the study.
“We documented an impact on medical management in nearly three-fourths of participants (72%),” Dr. Haviland said. “A genetic diagnosis affected at least one of four categories of medical management, including care coordination (48%), treatment (45%), counseling about a change in prognosis (28%), and change in diagnosis for a few individuals who had a prior established diagnosis (1%).”
As examples, she mentioned three cases:
- Testing revealed that a subject has a disease-causing genetic variant in a gene called PRRT2. “This gene is involved in the release of neurotransmitters in the brain,” Dr. Haviland said. “Thanks to his diagnosis, he was treated with the antiseizure medication oxcarbazepine, which is often effective for epilepsy caused by variants in this gene. He had excellent response to the medication and later became seizure free.”
- A subject had a variation in the SCN1A gene that causes types of epilepsy. “At the time of his diagnosis, there was a trial for a medication called fenfluramine being offered for individuals with SCN1A variants, and his family elected to participate,” she said. “This medication was later approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] for SCN1A-related epilepsy.”
- Testing identified disease-causing variant in the GRIN2A gene in another subject. “This gene is involved in brain cell communication,” Dr. Haviland said. “This individual was treated with memantine, which acts on the specific biological pathway affected by the gene. This treatment would not have been considered without the genetic diagnosis as it is currently only approved for Alzheimer’s disease.”
In addition, Dr. Haviland said, researchers found that “there was impact on medical management both in those with earlier age of epilepsy onset (under 2 years) and those with later age of onset, as well as both in those with developmental disorders (such as autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability and developmental delay) and those with normal development.
As for the cost of genetic tests, Dr. Haviland pointed to a 2019 study that she said estimated epilepsy panel testing runs from $1,500 to $7,500, and the whole exome sequencing from $4,500 to $7,000. “Insurers sometimes cover testing, but not always,” she said. “In some cases, insurance will only cover testing if it is documented that results will directly alter medical management, which highlights the importance of our findings.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Haviland and several other authors report no disclosures. One author reports consulting fees from Takeda, Zogenix, Marinus, and FOXG1 Research Foundation. Another author reports research support from the International Foundation for CDKL5 Research.
Physicians at a Boston hospital adjusted medical management for nearly three-quarters of patients with infantile- or childhood-onset epilepsy who were diagnosed with genetic epilepsy, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. The findings provide new insight into the usefulness of genetic tests in children with epilepsy of unknown cause.
“. Genetic testing should be included as part of the standard evaluation of individuals with unexplained pediatric epilepsy as a means of achieving diagnostic precision and informing clinical management,” study lead author Isabel Haviland, MD, a neurologist with Boston Children’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, said in an interview.
According to Dr. Haviland, the causes of epilepsy are unexplained in an estimated two-thirds of pediatric epilepsy cases. “Increasingly, when genetic testing is available, previously unexplained cases of pediatric epilepsy are being found to have single-gene etiologies,” she said. “Though a genetic diagnosis in this population has implications for medical care, the direct impact on medical management in a clinical setting has not been measured. We aimed to describe the impact of genetic diagnosis on medical management in a cohort of individuals with pediatric epilepsy.”
Researchers tracked 602 patients at Boston Children’s Hospital who received next-generation gene sequencing testing from 2012 to 2019. Of those, Dr. Haviland said, 152 (25%) had a positive result that indicated genetic epilepsy (46% female, median age of onset = 6 months [2-15 months]). These patients were included in the study.
“We documented an impact on medical management in nearly three-fourths of participants (72%),” Dr. Haviland said. “A genetic diagnosis affected at least one of four categories of medical management, including care coordination (48%), treatment (45%), counseling about a change in prognosis (28%), and change in diagnosis for a few individuals who had a prior established diagnosis (1%).”
As examples, she mentioned three cases:
- Testing revealed that a subject has a disease-causing genetic variant in a gene called PRRT2. “This gene is involved in the release of neurotransmitters in the brain,” Dr. Haviland said. “Thanks to his diagnosis, he was treated with the antiseizure medication oxcarbazepine, which is often effective for epilepsy caused by variants in this gene. He had excellent response to the medication and later became seizure free.”
- A subject had a variation in the SCN1A gene that causes types of epilepsy. “At the time of his diagnosis, there was a trial for a medication called fenfluramine being offered for individuals with SCN1A variants, and his family elected to participate,” she said. “This medication was later approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] for SCN1A-related epilepsy.”
- Testing identified disease-causing variant in the GRIN2A gene in another subject. “This gene is involved in brain cell communication,” Dr. Haviland said. “This individual was treated with memantine, which acts on the specific biological pathway affected by the gene. This treatment would not have been considered without the genetic diagnosis as it is currently only approved for Alzheimer’s disease.”
In addition, Dr. Haviland said, researchers found that “there was impact on medical management both in those with earlier age of epilepsy onset (under 2 years) and those with later age of onset, as well as both in those with developmental disorders (such as autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability and developmental delay) and those with normal development.
As for the cost of genetic tests, Dr. Haviland pointed to a 2019 study that she said estimated epilepsy panel testing runs from $1,500 to $7,500, and the whole exome sequencing from $4,500 to $7,000. “Insurers sometimes cover testing, but not always,” she said. “In some cases, insurance will only cover testing if it is documented that results will directly alter medical management, which highlights the importance of our findings.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Haviland and several other authors report no disclosures. One author reports consulting fees from Takeda, Zogenix, Marinus, and FOXG1 Research Foundation. Another author reports research support from the International Foundation for CDKL5 Research.
Physicians at a Boston hospital adjusted medical management for nearly three-quarters of patients with infantile- or childhood-onset epilepsy who were diagnosed with genetic epilepsy, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. The findings provide new insight into the usefulness of genetic tests in children with epilepsy of unknown cause.
“. Genetic testing should be included as part of the standard evaluation of individuals with unexplained pediatric epilepsy as a means of achieving diagnostic precision and informing clinical management,” study lead author Isabel Haviland, MD, a neurologist with Boston Children’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, said in an interview.
According to Dr. Haviland, the causes of epilepsy are unexplained in an estimated two-thirds of pediatric epilepsy cases. “Increasingly, when genetic testing is available, previously unexplained cases of pediatric epilepsy are being found to have single-gene etiologies,” she said. “Though a genetic diagnosis in this population has implications for medical care, the direct impact on medical management in a clinical setting has not been measured. We aimed to describe the impact of genetic diagnosis on medical management in a cohort of individuals with pediatric epilepsy.”
Researchers tracked 602 patients at Boston Children’s Hospital who received next-generation gene sequencing testing from 2012 to 2019. Of those, Dr. Haviland said, 152 (25%) had a positive result that indicated genetic epilepsy (46% female, median age of onset = 6 months [2-15 months]). These patients were included in the study.
“We documented an impact on medical management in nearly three-fourths of participants (72%),” Dr. Haviland said. “A genetic diagnosis affected at least one of four categories of medical management, including care coordination (48%), treatment (45%), counseling about a change in prognosis (28%), and change in diagnosis for a few individuals who had a prior established diagnosis (1%).”
As examples, she mentioned three cases:
- Testing revealed that a subject has a disease-causing genetic variant in a gene called PRRT2. “This gene is involved in the release of neurotransmitters in the brain,” Dr. Haviland said. “Thanks to his diagnosis, he was treated with the antiseizure medication oxcarbazepine, which is often effective for epilepsy caused by variants in this gene. He had excellent response to the medication and later became seizure free.”
- A subject had a variation in the SCN1A gene that causes types of epilepsy. “At the time of his diagnosis, there was a trial for a medication called fenfluramine being offered for individuals with SCN1A variants, and his family elected to participate,” she said. “This medication was later approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] for SCN1A-related epilepsy.”
- Testing identified disease-causing variant in the GRIN2A gene in another subject. “This gene is involved in brain cell communication,” Dr. Haviland said. “This individual was treated with memantine, which acts on the specific biological pathway affected by the gene. This treatment would not have been considered without the genetic diagnosis as it is currently only approved for Alzheimer’s disease.”
In addition, Dr. Haviland said, researchers found that “there was impact on medical management both in those with earlier age of epilepsy onset (under 2 years) and those with later age of onset, as well as both in those with developmental disorders (such as autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability and developmental delay) and those with normal development.
As for the cost of genetic tests, Dr. Haviland pointed to a 2019 study that she said estimated epilepsy panel testing runs from $1,500 to $7,500, and the whole exome sequencing from $4,500 to $7,000. “Insurers sometimes cover testing, but not always,” she said. “In some cases, insurance will only cover testing if it is documented that results will directly alter medical management, which highlights the importance of our findings.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Haviland and several other authors report no disclosures. One author reports consulting fees from Takeda, Zogenix, Marinus, and FOXG1 Research Foundation. Another author reports research support from the International Foundation for CDKL5 Research.
FROM AES 2021
COVID-19 hospital data: New-onset seizures more common than breakthrough seizures
An analysis of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 finds that those with no history of epilepsy had more than 3 times the odds of suffering a new-onset seizure than patients with epilepsy were to have breakthrough seizures (odds radio [OR] 3.15, P < .0001), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
study lead author Neeraj Singh, MD, a neurologist at the New York-based Northwell Health system, said in an interview. “That’s new. We don’t normally see that when someone has a bacterial or viral infection. It’s demonstrating that this infection is having direct effect on the brain and brain signals.”
According to Dr. Singh, there’s little data about seizures in patients with COVID-19 because doctors have focused on other symptoms. A 2021 multicenter study found that electrographic seizures were detected in 9.6% of 197 patients with COVID-19 who were referred for cEEG.
For the new study, Dr. Singh and a colleague tracked 917 patients with COVID-19 in the Northwell Health system who were treated from Feb. 14 to June 14, 2020, with antiepileptic medication. Of the patients, 451 had a history of epilepsy, and 466 did not.
According to Dr. Singh, 27.6% of the patients without a history of epilepsy had new-onset seizures, while 10.1% of the patients with history of epilepsy had breakthrough seizures. The difference in odds was more than threefold after adjustment. (Among all COVID-19 patients, he said, perhaps 8%-16% had seizures).
The researchers also found that patients with new-onset seizures stayed in the hospital much longer (average, 26.9 days) than any patients with a known history of epilepsy (12.8 days, P < .0001, for those who had breakthrough seizures and 10.9 days, P < .0001, for those who didn’t).
In addition, the researchers found that having any seizures – new-onset or breakthrough – was linked to higher risk of death (OR 1.41, P = .03).
Antiseizure medications are key treatments for these patients, Dr. Singh said. As for the patients with new-onset seizures who recover from COVID-19, Dr. Singh said, “it’s suspected that these people are going to have a new diagnosis of epilepsy, not just a one-time seizure.”
The findings suggest that some patients with epilepsy are protected against COVID-19-related seizures because they take antiepileptic medications that “protect the brain from getting a trigger for an abnormal signal that leads to a seizure,” he said. “That’s one possibility.”
What can neurologists learn from the study? Dr. Singh recommends a “lower threshold” to recommend or approve EEGs in patients with COVID-19 who are confused/altered when they come in, especially if this is not normal. “They may actually be having silent seizures that no one’s noticing,” he said.
No study funding was reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
An analysis of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 finds that those with no history of epilepsy had more than 3 times the odds of suffering a new-onset seizure than patients with epilepsy were to have breakthrough seizures (odds radio [OR] 3.15, P < .0001), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
study lead author Neeraj Singh, MD, a neurologist at the New York-based Northwell Health system, said in an interview. “That’s new. We don’t normally see that when someone has a bacterial or viral infection. It’s demonstrating that this infection is having direct effect on the brain and brain signals.”
According to Dr. Singh, there’s little data about seizures in patients with COVID-19 because doctors have focused on other symptoms. A 2021 multicenter study found that electrographic seizures were detected in 9.6% of 197 patients with COVID-19 who were referred for cEEG.
For the new study, Dr. Singh and a colleague tracked 917 patients with COVID-19 in the Northwell Health system who were treated from Feb. 14 to June 14, 2020, with antiepileptic medication. Of the patients, 451 had a history of epilepsy, and 466 did not.
According to Dr. Singh, 27.6% of the patients without a history of epilepsy had new-onset seizures, while 10.1% of the patients with history of epilepsy had breakthrough seizures. The difference in odds was more than threefold after adjustment. (Among all COVID-19 patients, he said, perhaps 8%-16% had seizures).
The researchers also found that patients with new-onset seizures stayed in the hospital much longer (average, 26.9 days) than any patients with a known history of epilepsy (12.8 days, P < .0001, for those who had breakthrough seizures and 10.9 days, P < .0001, for those who didn’t).
In addition, the researchers found that having any seizures – new-onset or breakthrough – was linked to higher risk of death (OR 1.41, P = .03).
Antiseizure medications are key treatments for these patients, Dr. Singh said. As for the patients with new-onset seizures who recover from COVID-19, Dr. Singh said, “it’s suspected that these people are going to have a new diagnosis of epilepsy, not just a one-time seizure.”
The findings suggest that some patients with epilepsy are protected against COVID-19-related seizures because they take antiepileptic medications that “protect the brain from getting a trigger for an abnormal signal that leads to a seizure,” he said. “That’s one possibility.”
What can neurologists learn from the study? Dr. Singh recommends a “lower threshold” to recommend or approve EEGs in patients with COVID-19 who are confused/altered when they come in, especially if this is not normal. “They may actually be having silent seizures that no one’s noticing,” he said.
No study funding was reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
An analysis of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 finds that those with no history of epilepsy had more than 3 times the odds of suffering a new-onset seizure than patients with epilepsy were to have breakthrough seizures (odds radio [OR] 3.15, P < .0001), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
study lead author Neeraj Singh, MD, a neurologist at the New York-based Northwell Health system, said in an interview. “That’s new. We don’t normally see that when someone has a bacterial or viral infection. It’s demonstrating that this infection is having direct effect on the brain and brain signals.”
According to Dr. Singh, there’s little data about seizures in patients with COVID-19 because doctors have focused on other symptoms. A 2021 multicenter study found that electrographic seizures were detected in 9.6% of 197 patients with COVID-19 who were referred for cEEG.
For the new study, Dr. Singh and a colleague tracked 917 patients with COVID-19 in the Northwell Health system who were treated from Feb. 14 to June 14, 2020, with antiepileptic medication. Of the patients, 451 had a history of epilepsy, and 466 did not.
According to Dr. Singh, 27.6% of the patients without a history of epilepsy had new-onset seizures, while 10.1% of the patients with history of epilepsy had breakthrough seizures. The difference in odds was more than threefold after adjustment. (Among all COVID-19 patients, he said, perhaps 8%-16% had seizures).
The researchers also found that patients with new-onset seizures stayed in the hospital much longer (average, 26.9 days) than any patients with a known history of epilepsy (12.8 days, P < .0001, for those who had breakthrough seizures and 10.9 days, P < .0001, for those who didn’t).
In addition, the researchers found that having any seizures – new-onset or breakthrough – was linked to higher risk of death (OR 1.41, P = .03).
Antiseizure medications are key treatments for these patients, Dr. Singh said. As for the patients with new-onset seizures who recover from COVID-19, Dr. Singh said, “it’s suspected that these people are going to have a new diagnosis of epilepsy, not just a one-time seizure.”
The findings suggest that some patients with epilepsy are protected against COVID-19-related seizures because they take antiepileptic medications that “protect the brain from getting a trigger for an abnormal signal that leads to a seizure,” he said. “That’s one possibility.”
What can neurologists learn from the study? Dr. Singh recommends a “lower threshold” to recommend or approve EEGs in patients with COVID-19 who are confused/altered when they come in, especially if this is not normal. “They may actually be having silent seizures that no one’s noticing,” he said.
No study funding was reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
FROM AES 2021
Epilepsy linked to 1.5-fold higher COVID-19 mortality in hospital
according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. While the findings are preliminary and not yet adjusted for various confounders, the authors say they are a warning sign that patients with epilepsy may face higher risks.
“These findings suggest that epilepsy may be a pre-existing condition that places patients at increased risk for death if hospitalized with a COVID-19 infection. It may offer neurologists guidance when counseling patients on critical preventative measures such as masking, social distancing, and most importantly, vaccination,” lead author Claire Ufongene, a student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.
According to Ms. Ufongene, there’s sparse data about COVID-19 outcomes in patients with epilepsy, although she highlighted a 2021 meta-analysis of 13 studies that found a higher risk of severity (odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.59, P = .010) and mortality (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.14-2.56, P = .010).
For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked identified 334 patients with epilepsy and COVID-19 and 9,499 other patients with COVID-19 from March 15, 2020, to May 17, 2021. All were treated at hospitals within the New York–based Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
The groups of patients with and without epilepsy were similar in some ways: 45% and 46%, respectively, were female (P = .674), and their ages were similar (average, 62 years and 65 years, respectively; P = .02). Racial makeup was also similar (non-Hispanic groups made up 27.8% of those with epilepsy and 24.5% of those without; the difference was not statistically significant).
“In addition, more of those with epilepsy were English speaking [83.2% vs. 77.9%] and had Medicaid insurance [50.9% vs. 38.9%], while fewer of those with epilepsy had private insurance [16.2% vs. 25.5%] or were Spanish speaking [14.0% vs. 9.3%],” study coauthor Nathalie Jette, MD, MSc, a neurologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, said in an interview.
In terms of outcomes, patients with epilepsy were much more likely to need ventilator support (37.7% vs. 14.3%; P < .001), to be admitted to the ICU (39.2% vs. 17.7%; P < .001), and to die in the hospital (29.6% vs. 19.9%; P < .001).
“Most patients we follow in our practices with epilepsy who experienced COVID-19 in general have had symptoms similar to the general population,” Dr. Jette said. “There are rare instances where COVID-19 can result in an exacerbation of seizures in some with pre-existing epilepsy. This is not surprising as infections in particular can decrease the seizure threshold and result in breakthrough seizures in people living with epilepsy.”
Loss of seizure control
How might epilepsy be related to worse outcomes in COVID-19? Andrew Wilner, MD, a neurologist and internist at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, who’s familiar with the study findings, said COVID-19 itself may not worsen epilepsy. “Evidence to suggest that COVID-19 directly affects the central nervous system is extremely limited. As such, one would not expect that a COVID-19 infection would cause epilepsy or exacerbate epilepsy,” he said. “However, patients with epilepsy who suffer from infections may be predisposed to decreased seizure control. Consequently, it would not be surprising if patients with epilepsy who also had COVID-19 had loss of seizure control and even status epilepticus, which could adversely affect their hospital course. However, there are no data on this potential phenomenon.”
Dr. Wilner suspected that comorbidities explain the higher mortality in patients with epilepsy. “The findings are probably most useful in that they call attention to the fact that epilepsy patients are more vulnerable to a host of comorbidities and resultant poorer outcomes due to any acute illness.”
As for treatment, Dr. Wilner urged colleagues to make sure that hospitalized patients with epilepsy “continue to receive their antiepileptic medications, which they may no longer be able to take orally. They may need to be switched temporarily to an intravenous formulation.”
In an interview, Selim Benbadis, MD, a neurologist from the University of South Florida, Tampa, suggested that antiseizure medications may play a role in the COVID-19 disease course because they can reduce the efficacy of other medications, although he noted that drug treatments for COVID-19 were limited early on. He recommended that neurologists “avoid old enzyme-inducing seizure medications, as is generally recommended.”
No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Benbadis reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wilner is a medical adviser for the epilepsy disease management program for CVS/Health.
according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. While the findings are preliminary and not yet adjusted for various confounders, the authors say they are a warning sign that patients with epilepsy may face higher risks.
“These findings suggest that epilepsy may be a pre-existing condition that places patients at increased risk for death if hospitalized with a COVID-19 infection. It may offer neurologists guidance when counseling patients on critical preventative measures such as masking, social distancing, and most importantly, vaccination,” lead author Claire Ufongene, a student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.
According to Ms. Ufongene, there’s sparse data about COVID-19 outcomes in patients with epilepsy, although she highlighted a 2021 meta-analysis of 13 studies that found a higher risk of severity (odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.59, P = .010) and mortality (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.14-2.56, P = .010).
For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked identified 334 patients with epilepsy and COVID-19 and 9,499 other patients with COVID-19 from March 15, 2020, to May 17, 2021. All were treated at hospitals within the New York–based Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
The groups of patients with and without epilepsy were similar in some ways: 45% and 46%, respectively, were female (P = .674), and their ages were similar (average, 62 years and 65 years, respectively; P = .02). Racial makeup was also similar (non-Hispanic groups made up 27.8% of those with epilepsy and 24.5% of those without; the difference was not statistically significant).
“In addition, more of those with epilepsy were English speaking [83.2% vs. 77.9%] and had Medicaid insurance [50.9% vs. 38.9%], while fewer of those with epilepsy had private insurance [16.2% vs. 25.5%] or were Spanish speaking [14.0% vs. 9.3%],” study coauthor Nathalie Jette, MD, MSc, a neurologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, said in an interview.
In terms of outcomes, patients with epilepsy were much more likely to need ventilator support (37.7% vs. 14.3%; P < .001), to be admitted to the ICU (39.2% vs. 17.7%; P < .001), and to die in the hospital (29.6% vs. 19.9%; P < .001).
“Most patients we follow in our practices with epilepsy who experienced COVID-19 in general have had symptoms similar to the general population,” Dr. Jette said. “There are rare instances where COVID-19 can result in an exacerbation of seizures in some with pre-existing epilepsy. This is not surprising as infections in particular can decrease the seizure threshold and result in breakthrough seizures in people living with epilepsy.”
Loss of seizure control
How might epilepsy be related to worse outcomes in COVID-19? Andrew Wilner, MD, a neurologist and internist at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, who’s familiar with the study findings, said COVID-19 itself may not worsen epilepsy. “Evidence to suggest that COVID-19 directly affects the central nervous system is extremely limited. As such, one would not expect that a COVID-19 infection would cause epilepsy or exacerbate epilepsy,” he said. “However, patients with epilepsy who suffer from infections may be predisposed to decreased seizure control. Consequently, it would not be surprising if patients with epilepsy who also had COVID-19 had loss of seizure control and even status epilepticus, which could adversely affect their hospital course. However, there are no data on this potential phenomenon.”
Dr. Wilner suspected that comorbidities explain the higher mortality in patients with epilepsy. “The findings are probably most useful in that they call attention to the fact that epilepsy patients are more vulnerable to a host of comorbidities and resultant poorer outcomes due to any acute illness.”
As for treatment, Dr. Wilner urged colleagues to make sure that hospitalized patients with epilepsy “continue to receive their antiepileptic medications, which they may no longer be able to take orally. They may need to be switched temporarily to an intravenous formulation.”
In an interview, Selim Benbadis, MD, a neurologist from the University of South Florida, Tampa, suggested that antiseizure medications may play a role in the COVID-19 disease course because they can reduce the efficacy of other medications, although he noted that drug treatments for COVID-19 were limited early on. He recommended that neurologists “avoid old enzyme-inducing seizure medications, as is generally recommended.”
No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Benbadis reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wilner is a medical adviser for the epilepsy disease management program for CVS/Health.
according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. While the findings are preliminary and not yet adjusted for various confounders, the authors say they are a warning sign that patients with epilepsy may face higher risks.
“These findings suggest that epilepsy may be a pre-existing condition that places patients at increased risk for death if hospitalized with a COVID-19 infection. It may offer neurologists guidance when counseling patients on critical preventative measures such as masking, social distancing, and most importantly, vaccination,” lead author Claire Ufongene, a student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.
According to Ms. Ufongene, there’s sparse data about COVID-19 outcomes in patients with epilepsy, although she highlighted a 2021 meta-analysis of 13 studies that found a higher risk of severity (odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.59, P = .010) and mortality (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.14-2.56, P = .010).
For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked identified 334 patients with epilepsy and COVID-19 and 9,499 other patients with COVID-19 from March 15, 2020, to May 17, 2021. All were treated at hospitals within the New York–based Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
The groups of patients with and without epilepsy were similar in some ways: 45% and 46%, respectively, were female (P = .674), and their ages were similar (average, 62 years and 65 years, respectively; P = .02). Racial makeup was also similar (non-Hispanic groups made up 27.8% of those with epilepsy and 24.5% of those without; the difference was not statistically significant).
“In addition, more of those with epilepsy were English speaking [83.2% vs. 77.9%] and had Medicaid insurance [50.9% vs. 38.9%], while fewer of those with epilepsy had private insurance [16.2% vs. 25.5%] or were Spanish speaking [14.0% vs. 9.3%],” study coauthor Nathalie Jette, MD, MSc, a neurologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, said in an interview.
In terms of outcomes, patients with epilepsy were much more likely to need ventilator support (37.7% vs. 14.3%; P < .001), to be admitted to the ICU (39.2% vs. 17.7%; P < .001), and to die in the hospital (29.6% vs. 19.9%; P < .001).
“Most patients we follow in our practices with epilepsy who experienced COVID-19 in general have had symptoms similar to the general population,” Dr. Jette said. “There are rare instances where COVID-19 can result in an exacerbation of seizures in some with pre-existing epilepsy. This is not surprising as infections in particular can decrease the seizure threshold and result in breakthrough seizures in people living with epilepsy.”
Loss of seizure control
How might epilepsy be related to worse outcomes in COVID-19? Andrew Wilner, MD, a neurologist and internist at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, who’s familiar with the study findings, said COVID-19 itself may not worsen epilepsy. “Evidence to suggest that COVID-19 directly affects the central nervous system is extremely limited. As such, one would not expect that a COVID-19 infection would cause epilepsy or exacerbate epilepsy,” he said. “However, patients with epilepsy who suffer from infections may be predisposed to decreased seizure control. Consequently, it would not be surprising if patients with epilepsy who also had COVID-19 had loss of seizure control and even status epilepticus, which could adversely affect their hospital course. However, there are no data on this potential phenomenon.”
Dr. Wilner suspected that comorbidities explain the higher mortality in patients with epilepsy. “The findings are probably most useful in that they call attention to the fact that epilepsy patients are more vulnerable to a host of comorbidities and resultant poorer outcomes due to any acute illness.”
As for treatment, Dr. Wilner urged colleagues to make sure that hospitalized patients with epilepsy “continue to receive their antiepileptic medications, which they may no longer be able to take orally. They may need to be switched temporarily to an intravenous formulation.”
In an interview, Selim Benbadis, MD, a neurologist from the University of South Florida, Tampa, suggested that antiseizure medications may play a role in the COVID-19 disease course because they can reduce the efficacy of other medications, although he noted that drug treatments for COVID-19 were limited early on. He recommended that neurologists “avoid old enzyme-inducing seizure medications, as is generally recommended.”
No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Benbadis reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Wilner is a medical adviser for the epilepsy disease management program for CVS/Health.
FROM AES 2021
When the benchwarmer is a slugger
I still, on occasion, use Felbatol (felbamate).
Thirty years since its explosive entrance to the market, then even more explosive collapse, it remains, in my opinion, the most effective of the second generation of anti-seizure medications. Arguably, even more effective than any of the third generation, too.
That’s not to say I use a lot of it. I don’t. It’s like handling unstable dynamite. Tremendous power, but also an above-average degree of risk. Even after things hit the fan with it in the mid-90s, I remember one of my epilepsy clinic attendings telling me, “This is a home-run drug. In refractory patients you might see some benefit by adding another agent, but with this one, you could stop their seizures and hit it out of the park.”
Like most neurologists, I use other epilepsy options first and second line. But sometimes you get the patient who’s failed the usual ones. Then I start to think about Felbatol. I explain the situation to the patients and their families and let them make the final decision. I worry and watch labs very closely for a while. I probably have no more than three to five patients on it in the practice. But when it works, it’s amazing stuff.
Now, let’s jump ahead to 2021. The year of Aduhelm (and several similar agents racing up behind it).
None of these drugs are even close to hitting home runs. For that matter, I’m not convinced they’re even able to get a man on base. To stretch my baseball analogy a bit, imagine watching a game by looking only at the RBI and ERA stats changing. The numbers change slightly, but you have no evidence that either team is winning. Which is, after all, the whole point.
And, to some extent, that’s the basis of Aduhelm’s approval, and likely the same standards its competitors will be held to.
Although they treat different conditions, and are chemically unrelated, the similarities between Felbatol and the currently advancing bunch of monoclonal antibody (MAB) agents for Alzheimer’s disease make an interesting contrast.
Unlike Felbatol’s proven efficacy for epilepsy, the current MABs offer minimal statistically significant clinical benefit for Alzheimer’s disease. At the same time the risk of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) and its complications with them is significantly higher than that of either of Felbatol’s known, potentially lethal, idiosyncratic effects.
With those odds, In medicine, every day is an exercise in working through the risks and benefits of each patient’s individual situation.
As I’ve stated before, I’m not in the grandstand rooting for these Alzheimer’s drugs to fail. I’ve lost a few family members, and certainly my share of patients, to dementia. I’d be thrilled, and more than willing to prescribe it, if something truly effective came along for it.
Nor do I take any kind of pleasure in the recent news that, because of Aduhelm’s failings, around 1,000 Biogen employees will lose their jobs. I feel terrible for them, as most had nothing to do with the decision to forge ahead with the product. More may soon follow at other companies working with similar agents.
Here we are, though, going into 2022. I’m still, albeit rarely, writing for Felbatol 30 years after it came to market for one reason: It works. But it seems pretty unlikely that future neurologists in 2052 will say the same about the current crops of MABs for Alzheimer’s disease.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
I still, on occasion, use Felbatol (felbamate).
Thirty years since its explosive entrance to the market, then even more explosive collapse, it remains, in my opinion, the most effective of the second generation of anti-seizure medications. Arguably, even more effective than any of the third generation, too.
That’s not to say I use a lot of it. I don’t. It’s like handling unstable dynamite. Tremendous power, but also an above-average degree of risk. Even after things hit the fan with it in the mid-90s, I remember one of my epilepsy clinic attendings telling me, “This is a home-run drug. In refractory patients you might see some benefit by adding another agent, but with this one, you could stop their seizures and hit it out of the park.”
Like most neurologists, I use other epilepsy options first and second line. But sometimes you get the patient who’s failed the usual ones. Then I start to think about Felbatol. I explain the situation to the patients and their families and let them make the final decision. I worry and watch labs very closely for a while. I probably have no more than three to five patients on it in the practice. But when it works, it’s amazing stuff.
Now, let’s jump ahead to 2021. The year of Aduhelm (and several similar agents racing up behind it).
None of these drugs are even close to hitting home runs. For that matter, I’m not convinced they’re even able to get a man on base. To stretch my baseball analogy a bit, imagine watching a game by looking only at the RBI and ERA stats changing. The numbers change slightly, but you have no evidence that either team is winning. Which is, after all, the whole point.
And, to some extent, that’s the basis of Aduhelm’s approval, and likely the same standards its competitors will be held to.
Although they treat different conditions, and are chemically unrelated, the similarities between Felbatol and the currently advancing bunch of monoclonal antibody (MAB) agents for Alzheimer’s disease make an interesting contrast.
Unlike Felbatol’s proven efficacy for epilepsy, the current MABs offer minimal statistically significant clinical benefit for Alzheimer’s disease. At the same time the risk of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) and its complications with them is significantly higher than that of either of Felbatol’s known, potentially lethal, idiosyncratic effects.
With those odds, In medicine, every day is an exercise in working through the risks and benefits of each patient’s individual situation.
As I’ve stated before, I’m not in the grandstand rooting for these Alzheimer’s drugs to fail. I’ve lost a few family members, and certainly my share of patients, to dementia. I’d be thrilled, and more than willing to prescribe it, if something truly effective came along for it.
Nor do I take any kind of pleasure in the recent news that, because of Aduhelm’s failings, around 1,000 Biogen employees will lose their jobs. I feel terrible for them, as most had nothing to do with the decision to forge ahead with the product. More may soon follow at other companies working with similar agents.
Here we are, though, going into 2022. I’m still, albeit rarely, writing for Felbatol 30 years after it came to market for one reason: It works. But it seems pretty unlikely that future neurologists in 2052 will say the same about the current crops of MABs for Alzheimer’s disease.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
I still, on occasion, use Felbatol (felbamate).
Thirty years since its explosive entrance to the market, then even more explosive collapse, it remains, in my opinion, the most effective of the second generation of anti-seizure medications. Arguably, even more effective than any of the third generation, too.
That’s not to say I use a lot of it. I don’t. It’s like handling unstable dynamite. Tremendous power, but also an above-average degree of risk. Even after things hit the fan with it in the mid-90s, I remember one of my epilepsy clinic attendings telling me, “This is a home-run drug. In refractory patients you might see some benefit by adding another agent, but with this one, you could stop their seizures and hit it out of the park.”
Like most neurologists, I use other epilepsy options first and second line. But sometimes you get the patient who’s failed the usual ones. Then I start to think about Felbatol. I explain the situation to the patients and their families and let them make the final decision. I worry and watch labs very closely for a while. I probably have no more than three to five patients on it in the practice. But when it works, it’s amazing stuff.
Now, let’s jump ahead to 2021. The year of Aduhelm (and several similar agents racing up behind it).
None of these drugs are even close to hitting home runs. For that matter, I’m not convinced they’re even able to get a man on base. To stretch my baseball analogy a bit, imagine watching a game by looking only at the RBI and ERA stats changing. The numbers change slightly, but you have no evidence that either team is winning. Which is, after all, the whole point.
And, to some extent, that’s the basis of Aduhelm’s approval, and likely the same standards its competitors will be held to.
Although they treat different conditions, and are chemically unrelated, the similarities between Felbatol and the currently advancing bunch of monoclonal antibody (MAB) agents for Alzheimer’s disease make an interesting contrast.
Unlike Felbatol’s proven efficacy for epilepsy, the current MABs offer minimal statistically significant clinical benefit for Alzheimer’s disease. At the same time the risk of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) and its complications with them is significantly higher than that of either of Felbatol’s known, potentially lethal, idiosyncratic effects.
With those odds, In medicine, every day is an exercise in working through the risks and benefits of each patient’s individual situation.
As I’ve stated before, I’m not in the grandstand rooting for these Alzheimer’s drugs to fail. I’ve lost a few family members, and certainly my share of patients, to dementia. I’d be thrilled, and more than willing to prescribe it, if something truly effective came along for it.
Nor do I take any kind of pleasure in the recent news that, because of Aduhelm’s failings, around 1,000 Biogen employees will lose their jobs. I feel terrible for them, as most had nothing to do with the decision to forge ahead with the product. More may soon follow at other companies working with similar agents.
Here we are, though, going into 2022. I’m still, albeit rarely, writing for Felbatol 30 years after it came to market for one reason: It works. But it seems pretty unlikely that future neurologists in 2052 will say the same about the current crops of MABs for Alzheimer’s disease.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.