A survey of the European Reference Network EpiCARE on clinical practice for selected rare epilepsies

Objective: Clinical care of rare and complex epilepsies is challenging, because evidence‐based treatment guidelines are scarce, the experience of many physicians is limited, and interdisciplinary treatment of comorbidities is required. The pathomechanisms of rare epilepsies are, however, increasingly understood, which potentially fosters novel targeted therapies. The objectives of our survey were to obtain an overview of the clinical practice in European tertiary epilepsy centers treating patients with 5 arbitrarily selected rare epilepsies and to get an estimate of potentially available patients for future studies. / Methods: Members of the European Reference Network for rare and complex epilepsies (EpiCARE) were invited to participate in a web‐based survey on clinical practice of patients with Dravet syndrome, tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), autoimmune encephalitis, and progressive myoclonic epilepsies including Unverricht Lundborg and Unverricht‐like diseases. A consensus‐based questionnaire was generated for each disease. / Results: Twenty‐six of 30 invited epilepsy centers participated. Cohorts were present in most responding centers for TSC (87%), Dravet syndrome (85%), and autoimmune encephalitis (71%). Patients with TSC and Dravet syndrome represented the largest cohorts in these centers. The antiseizure drug treatments were rather consistent across the centers especially with regard to Dravet syndrome, infantile spasms in TSC, and Unverricht Lundborg / Unverricht‐like disease. Available, widely used targeted therapies included everolimus in TSC and immunosuppressive therapies in autoimmune encephalitis. Screening for comorbidities was routinely done, but specific treatment protocols were lacking in most centers. / Significance: The survey summarizes the current clinical practice for selected rare epilepsies in tertiary European epilepsy centers and demonstrates consistency as well as heterogeneity in the treatment, underscoring the need for controlled trials and recommendations. The survey also provides estimates for potential participants of clinical trials recruited via EpiCARE, emphasizing the great potential of Reference Networks for future studies to evaluate new targeted therapies and to identify novel biomarkers

A survey of the European Reference Network EpiCARE on clinical practice for selected rare epilepsies

Objective: Clinical care of rare and complex epilepsies is challenging, because evidence-based treatment guidelines are scarce, the experience of many physicians is limited, and interdisciplinary treatment of comorbidities is required. The pathomechanisms of rare epilepsies are, however, increasingly understood, which potentially fosters novel targeted therapies. The objectives of our survey were to obtain an overview of the clinical practice in European tertiary epilepsy centers treating patients with 5 arbitrarily selected rare epilepsies and to get an estimate of potentially available patients for future studies. Methods: Members of the European Reference Network for rare and complex epilepsies (EpiCARE) were invited to participate in a web-based survey on clinical practice of patients with Dravet syndrome, tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), autoimmune encephalitis, and progressive myoclonic epilepsies including Unverricht Lundborg and Unverricht-like diseases. A consensus-based questionnaire was generated for each disease. Results: Twenty-six of 30 invited epilepsy centers participated. Cohorts were present in most responding centers for TSC (87%), Dravet syndrome (85%), and autoimmune encephalitis (71%). Patients with TSC and Dravet syndrome represented the largest cohorts in these centers. The antiseizure drug treatments were rather consistent across the centers especially with regard to Dravet syndrome, infantile spasms in TSC, and Unverricht Lundborg / Unverricht-like disease. Available, widely used targeted therapies included everolimus in TSC and immunosuppressive therapies in autoimmune encephalitis. Screening for comorbidities was routinely done, but specific treatment protocols were lacking in most centers. Significance: The survey summarizes the current clinical practice for selected rare epilepsies in tertiary European epilepsy centers and demonstrates consistency as well as heterogeneity in the treatment, underscoring the need for controlled trials and recommendations. The survey also provides estimates for potential participants of clinical trials recruited via EpiCARE, emphasizing the great potential of Reference Networks for future studies to evaluate new targeted therapies and to identify novel biomarkers

Reference ranges for antiepileptic drugs revisited: a practical approach to establish national guidelines

Arne Reimers,1,2 Jon Andsnes Berg,3 Margrete Larsen Burns,4 Eylert Brodtkorb,5,6 Svein I Johannessen,6,7 Cecilie Johannessen Landmark4,7,8 1Department of Clinical Pharmacology, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway; 2Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway; 3Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry, Section of Clinical Pharmacology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; 4Department of Pharmacology, Section for Clinical Pharmacology, The National Center for Epilepsy, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; 5Department of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway; 6Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; 7The National Center for Epilepsy, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; 8Programme for Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway Background and objective: Laboratories sometimes use different reference ranges for the same antiepileptic drug (AED), particularly for new and poorly investigated drugs. This may contribute to misunderstandings, concerns or inappropriate dose changes, which in turn may affect therapeutic effect, drug safety or treatment adherence. Therefore, the Norwegian Association of Clinical Pharmacology wished to update and harmonize the reference ranges for AEDs and establish national guidelines for Norway. Methods: A working group collected information on the reference ranges used by Norwegian laboratories for all commonly used AEDs. These reference ranges were compared to recent recommendations by the International League Against Epilepsy, current literature, applicable clinical studies, reference ranges used by leading Northern European epilepsy centers outside of Norway, and routine data derived from Norwegian laboratory databases. Results: Reference ranges varied between laboratories for four of 23 available AEDs (lamotrigine, valproate, eslicarbazepine and oxcarbazepine). For four AEDs (brivaracetam, perampanel, stiripentol and sulthiame), reference ranges had not previously been established. In total, 13 reference ranges were either harmonized, updated or newly established. No changes were applied to the remaining 10 AEDs. Conclusion: Updated and harmonized reference ranges are now available for 22 of the 23 AEDs available in Norway. The exception is vigabatrin (reference range not applicable). Revision of reference ranges is an important part of pharmacovigilance of AEDs and must be a continuous process based on current literature and clinical experience. Keywords: antiepileptic drug, serum concentration, reference range, therapeutic drug monitorin

Relationship between saliva and plasma rufinamide concentrations in patients with epilepsy

The assay of saliva samples provides a valuable alternative to the use of blood samples for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), at least for certain categories of patients. To determine the feasibility of using saliva sampling for the TDM of rufinamide, we compared rufinamide concentrations in paired samples of saliva and plasma collected from 26 patients with epilepsy at steady state. Within-patient relationships between plasma rufinamide concentrations and dose, and the influence of comedication were also investigated. Assay results in the two tested fluids showed a good correlation (r2 = .78, P < .0001), but concentrations in saliva were moderately lower than those in plasma (mean saliva to plasma ratio = 0.7 \ub1 0.2). In eight patients evaluated at three different dose levels, plasma rufinamide concentrations increased linearly with increasing dose. Patients receiving valproic acid comedication had higher dose-normalized plasma rufinamide levels than patients comedicated with drugs devoid of strong enzyme-inducing or enzyme-inhibiting activity. Overall, these findings indicate that use of saliva represents a feasible option for the application of TDM in patients treated with rufinamide. Because rufinamide concentrations are lower in saliva than in plasma, a correction factor is needed if measurements made in saliva are used as a surrogate for plasma concentrations