Genetic Testing to Inform Epilepsy Treatment Management From an International Study of Clinical Practice

IMPORTANCE: It is currently unknown how often and in which ways a genetic diagnosis given to a patient with epilepsy is associated with clinical management and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how genetic diagnoses in patients with epilepsy are associated with clinical management and outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients referred for multigene panel testing between March 18, 2016, and August 3, 2020, with outcomes reported between May and November 2020. The study setting included a commercial genetic testing laboratory and multicenter clinical practices. Patients with epilepsy, regardless of sociodemographic features, who received a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant were included in the study. Case report forms were completed by all health care professionals. EXPOSURES: Genetic test results. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Clinical management changes after a genetic diagnosis (ie, 1 P/LP variant in autosomal dominant and X-linked diseases; 2 P/LP variants in autosomal recessive diseases) and subsequent patient outcomes as reported by health care professionals on case report forms. RESULTS: Among 418 patients, median (IQR) age at the time of testing was 4 (1-10) years, with an age range of 0 to 52 years, and 53.8% (n = 225) were female individuals. The mean (SD) time from a genetic test order to case report form completion was 595 (368) days (range, 27-1673 days). A genetic diagnosis was associated with changes in clinical management for 208 patients (49.8%) and usually (81.7% of the time) within 3 months of receiving the result. The most common clinical management changes were the addition of a new medication (78 [21.7%]), the initiation of medication (51 [14.2%]), the referral of a patient to a specialist (48 [13.4%]), vigilance for subclinical or extraneurological disease features (46 [12.8%]), and the cessation of a medication (42 [11.7%]). Among 167 patients with follow-up clinical information available (mean [SD] time, 584 [365] days), 125 (74.9%) reported positive outcomes, 108 (64.7%) reported reduction or elimination of seizures, 37 (22.2%) had decreases in the severity of other clinical signs, and 11 (6.6%) had reduced medication adverse effects. A few patients reported worsening of outcomes, including a decline in their condition (20 [12.0%]), increased seizure frequency (6 [3.6%]), and adverse medication effects (3 [1.8%]). No clinical management changes were reported for 178 patients (42.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that genetic testing of individuals with epilepsy may be materially associated with clinical decision-making and improved patient outcomes

How to Help Your Patients Enroll in the New-Onset Refractory Status Epilepticus (NORSE) and Febrile Infection-Related Epilepsy Syndrome (FIRES) Family Registry, and Other Rare Epilepsy Registries

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

How to Help Your Patients Enroll in the New-Onset Refractory Status Epilepticus (NORSE) and Febrile Infection-Related Epilepsy Syndrome (FIRES) Family Registry, and Other Rare Epilepsy Registries

New-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) is a rare clinical presentation of refractory status epilepticus (RSE) that occurs in people without active epilepsy or preexisting neurologic disorder. Febrile infection-related epilepsy syndrome (FIRES) is a subcategory of NORSE. New-onset refractory status epilepticus/FIRES are becoming increasingly recognized; however, information pertaining to disease course, clinical outcomes, and survivorship remains limited, and mortality and morbidity are variable, but often high. The objective of the NORSE/FIRES Family Registry is to (1) provide an easily accessible and internationally available multilingual registry into which survivors or NORSE/FIRES surrogates or family members of people affected by NORSE/FIRES or their physicians can enter data in a systematic and rigorous research study from anywhere in the world where internet is available; and (2) to examine past medical history, outcomes, and quality of life for people affected by NORSE/FIRES.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Pediatric neuromodulation for drug-resistant epilepsy: Survey of current practices, techniques, and outcomes across US epilepsy centers.

Neuromodulation via Responsive Neurostimulation (RNS) or Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is an emerging treatment strategy for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Knowledge gaps exist in patient selection, surgical technique, and perioperative care. Here, we use an expert survey to clarify practices. Thirty-two members of the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium were surveyed using REDCap. Respondents were from 17 pediatric epilepsy centers (missing data in one): Four centers implant RNS only while 13 implant both RNS and DBS. Thirteen RNS programs commenced in or before 2020, and 10 of 12 DBS programs began thereafter. The busiest six centers implant 6-10 new RNS devices per year; all DBS programs implant <5 annually. The youngest RNS patient was 3 years old. Most centers (11/12) utilize MP2RAGE and/or FGATIR sequences for planning. Centromedian thalamic nuclei were the unanimous target for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Surgeon exposure to neuromodulation occurred mostly in clinical practice (14/17). Clinically significant hemorrhage (n = 2) or infection (n = 3) were rare. Meaningful seizure reduction (>50%) was reported by 81% (13/16) of centers. RNS and DBS are rapidly evolving treatment modalities for safe and effective treatment of pediatric DRE. There is increasing interest in multicenter collaboration to gain knowledge and facilitate dialogue. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: We surveyed 32 pediatric epilepsy centers in USA to highlight current practices of intracranial neuromodulation. Of the 17 that replied, we found that most centers are implanting thalamic targets in pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy using the RNS device. DBS device is starting to be used in pediatric epilepsy, especially after 2020. Different strategies for target identification are enumerated. This study serves as a starting point for future collaborative research

Surgical evaluation in children \u3c3 years of age with drug-resistant epilepsy: Patient characteristics, diagnostic utilization, and potential for treatment delays

OBJECTIVE: Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) occurs at higher rates in children \u3c3 years old. Epilepsy surgery is effective, but rarely utilized in young children despite developmental benefits of early seizure freedom. The present study aims to identify unique patient characteristics and evaluation strategies in children \u3c3 years old who undergo epilepsy surgery evaluation as a means to assess contributors and potential solutions to health care disparities in this group. METHODS: The Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium Epilepsy Surgery Database, a multicentered, cross-sectional collaboration of 21 US pediatric epilepsy centers, collects prospective data on children \u3c18 years of age referred for epilepsy surgery evaluation. We compared patient characteristics, diagnostic utilization, and surgical treatment between children \u3c3 years old and those older undergoing initial presurgical evaluation. We evaluated patient characteristics leading to delayed referral (\u3e1 year) after DRE diagnosis in the very young. RESULTS: The cohort included 437 children, of whom 71 (16%) were \u3c3 years of age at referral. Children evaluated before the age of 3 years more commonly had abnormal neurological examinations (p = .002) and daily seizures (p = .001). At least one ancillary test was used in 44% of evaluations. Fifty-nine percent were seizure-free following surgery (n = 34), with 35% undergoing limited focal resections. Children with delayed referrals more often had focal aware (p \u3c .001) seizures and recommendation for palliative surgeries (p \u3c .001). SIGNIFICANCE: There are relatively few studies of epilepsy surgery in the very young. Surgery is effective, but may be disproportionally offered to those with severe presentations. Relatively low utilization of ancillary testing may contribute to reduced surgical therapy for those without evident lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Despite this, a sizeable portion of patients have favorable outcome after focal epilepsy surgery resections