A review of seizures and epilepsy following traumatic brain injury.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the commonest presentations to emergency departments and is associated with seizures carrying different significance at different stages following injury. We describe the epidemiology of early and late seizures following TBI, the significance of intracranial haemorrhage of different types in the risk of later epilepsy and the gaps in current understanding of risk factors contributing to the risk of post-traumatic epilepsy (PTE). The delay from injury to epilepsy presents an opportunity to understand the mechanisms underlying changes in the brain and how they may reveal potential targets for anti-epileptogenic therapy. We review existing treatments, both medical and surgical and conclude that current research is not tailored to differentiate between PTE and other forms of focal epilepsy. Finally, we review the increasing understanding of the frequency and significance of dissociative seizures following mild TBI

A method for identifying associations between seizures and possible trigger events in adults with intellectual disability.

OBJECTIVES: Precipitants of seizures are often reported by patients and carers, but the accuracy of these claims remains unknown. Focusing on epilepsy in people with intellectual disability (ID), the aims of this work were to (1) identify a set of methods for assessing the validity of reported seizure triggers in individual patients; and (2) undertake an initial assessment of the ease of implementation and acceptability of the method by applying it to a series of cases. METHODS: Data collection materials (developed with carer involvement) consisted primarily of carer diaries of seizure and trigger occurrences. Statistical analysis of diary data was using the self-controlled case series method. Unlike previously used methods, the analysis method included a means of choosing the time window, following trigger exposure, during which changes in seizure likelihood are to be assessed. RESULTS: The method developed was trialed in five adults with ID and epilepsy, who had a range of ID severities and living circumstances. Examples of the application of the method in two of the five cases are presented for illustrative purposes. The method was acceptable to participants and most aspects successfully implemented. SIGNIFICANCE: This method may be useful for clinicians and researchers wishing to investigate possible triggers in individual patients with epilepsy and ID. It also supports the identification of a statistically defined time window following exposure to a precipitant, during which the risk of developing a seizure is increased. The identification of such a window has value not just in contributing to clinical management, but also in guiding future work into the mechanisms of seizure precipitation.This study was funded by a grant to HR from Epilepsy Action: The Epilepsy Association. (Registered Charity in England (No. 234343)). SX was supported by NIH/NCRR Colorado CTSI Grant Number UL1 RR025780. HR is a member of the NIHR’s Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) East of England at Cambridgeshire & Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust. JI also received funding from CLAHRC East of England during preparation of the manuscript. This article presents independent research with funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health (UK). We would also like to thank Elizabeth Blake-Palmer for her assistance with patient recruitment, and Professor Paddy Farrington for statistical advice.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/epi.1313

Cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures (CODES): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dissociative seizures are paroxysmal events resembling epilepsy or syncope with characteristic features that allow them to be distinguished from other medical conditions. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of dissociative seizure frequency. METHODS: In this pragmatic, parallel-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, we initially recruited participants at 27 neurology or epilepsy services in England, Scotland, and Wales. Adults (≥18 years) who had dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous 12 months were subsequently randomly assigned (1:1) from 17 liaison or neuropsychiatry services following psychiatric assessment, to receive standardised medical care or CBT plus standardised medical care, using a web-based system. Randomisation was stratified by neuropsychiatry or liaison psychiatry recruitment site. The trial manager, chief investigator, all treating clinicians, and patients were aware of treatment allocation, but outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of treatment allocation. Patients were followed up 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was monthly dissociative seizure frequency (ie, frequency in the previous 4 weeks) assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes assessed at 12 months were: seizure severity (intensity) and bothersomeness; longest period of seizure freedom in the previous 6 months; complete seizure freedom in the previous 3 months; a greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline; changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others); health-related quality of life; psychosocial functioning; psychiatric symptoms, psychological distress, and somatic symptom burden; and clinical impression of improvement and satisfaction. p values and statistical significance for outcomes were reported without correction for multiple comparisons as per our protocol. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation for missing observations. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN05681227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325544. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, 2015, and May 31, 2017, we randomly assigned 368 patients to receive CBT plus standardised medical care (n=186) or standardised medical care alone (n=182); of whom 313 had primary outcome data at 12 months (156 [84%] of 186 patients in the CBT plus standardised medical care group and 157 [86%] of 182 patients in the standardised medical care group). At 12 months, no significant difference in monthly dissociative seizure frequency was identified between the groups (median 4 seizures [IQR 0-20] in the CBT plus standardised medical care group vs 7 seizures [1-35] in the standardised medical care group; estimated incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·56-1·09]; p=0·144). Dissociative seizures were rated as less bothersome in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference -0·53 [95% CI -0·97 to -0·08]; p=0·020). The CBT plus standardised medical care group had a longer period of dissociative seizure freedom in the previous 6 months (estimated IRR 1·64 [95% CI 1·22 to 2·20]; p=0·001), reported better health-related quality of life on the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Level Health Today visual analogue scale (estimated mean difference 6·16 [95% CI 1·48 to 10·84]; p=0·010), less impairment in psychosocial functioning on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (estimated mean difference -4·12 [95% CI -6·35 to -1·89]; p<0·001), less overall psychological distress than the standardised medical care group on the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10 scale (estimated mean difference -1·65 [95% CI -2·96 to -0·35]; p=0·013), and fewer somatic symptoms on the modified Patient Health Questionnaire-15 scale (estimated mean difference -1·67 [95% CI -2·90 to -0·44]; p=0·008). Clinical improvement at 12 months was greater in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care alone group as reported by patients (estimated mean difference 0·66 [95% CI 0·26 to 1·04]; p=0·001) and by clinicians (estimated mean difference 0·47 [95% CI 0·21 to 0·73]; p<0·001), and the CBT plus standardised medical care group had greater satisfaction with treatment than did the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference 0·90 [95% CI 0·48 to 1·31]; p<0·001). No significant differences in patient-reported seizure severity (estimated mean difference -0·11 [95% CI -0·50 to 0·29]; p=0·593) or seizure freedom in the last 3 months of the study (estimated odds ratio [OR] 1·77 [95% CI 0·93 to 3·37]; p=0·083) were identified between the groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were identified in the proportion of patients who had a more than 50% reduction in dissociative seizure frequency compared with baseline (OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·80 to 2·02]; p=0·313). Additionally, the 12-item Short Form survey-version 2 scores (estimated mean difference for the Physical Component Summary score 1·78 [95% CI -0·37 to 3·92]; p=0·105; estimated mean difference for the Mental Component Summary score 2·22 [95% CI -0·30 to 4·75]; p=0·084), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 scale score (estimated mean difference -1·09 [95% CI -2·27 to 0·09]; p=0·069), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scale depression score (estimated mean difference -1·10 [95% CI -2·41 to 0·21]; p=0·099) did not differ significantly between groups. Changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others) could not be assessed due to insufficient data. During the 12-month period, the number of adverse events was similar between the groups: 57 (31%) of 186 participants in the CBT plus standardised medical care group reported 97 adverse events and 53 (29%) of 182 participants in the standardised medical care group reported 79 adverse events. INTERPRETATION: CBT plus standardised medical care had no statistically significant advantage compared with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of monthly seizures. However, improvements were observed in a number of clinically relevant secondary outcomes following CBT plus standardised medical care when compared with standardised medical care alone. Thus, adults with dissociative seizures might benefit from the addition of dissociative seizure-specific CBT to specialist care from neurologists and psychiatrists. Future work is needed to identify patients who would benefit most from a dissociative seizure-specific CBT approach. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment programme

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95–1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83–1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08–1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319–1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110–1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5–12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0–94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96–1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of −0·040 (95% central range −0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Interpretation: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

Neurology

vii.136 hlm.; illm.; 30 c

The clinical patterns of frontal lobe epilepsy

The aims of this study were to define patterns of seizure semiology aid see if these can be localised to particular regions, with special emphasis on frontal lobe epilepsies; to establish clinical features differentiating frontal and temporal lobe epilepsies; to assess current classification of frontal lobe epilepsies and to analyse partial epilepsies in a general population. The method; used differ from other studies in this area, especially with respect to breadth of case mix; delineation of clinical syndromes, using statistical techniques and prospective analysis of investigative abnormalities in relation to clinically defined seizure types. Patients were selected from hospital records with evidence of partial seizure onset, on the basis of focal imaging abnormality, interictal or ictal EEG abnormality and clinical seizure pattern. Two hundred and fifty-two patients with 352 seizure types were identified. Clinical seizure manifestations were recorded prospectively and encoded according to sequential occurrence during she seizure. These data were entered into a statistical cluster analysis, which was refined to 14 groupings, each corresponding to a different seizure type. These patterns were displayed in flow charts, allowing assessment of seizure evolution. Interictal EEG spike distribution and ictal EEG onset were related to each seizure type. The 126 lesions identified on neuroimaging were measured by a template technique, aid related to each seizure type, using chi-square analysis. Investigations were also related to each other and the clinical seizure associations of pure frontal and pure temporal lesions were assessed. The database of the National General Practice Study of Epilepsy (NGPSE) was also analysed, using a clinical classification, to determine the relative frequency of different partial seizure types in a general population. Of 14 clinical seizure groupings, 2 had associations with frontal regions and 2 perirolandic associations. Focal clonic and somatosensory seizures were associated with perirolandic lesions and other sensory modalities and experiential phenomena with temporal EEG and imaging abnormalities. Seizures characterised by tonic posturing were strongly associated with lesions of the lateral premotor cortex and frontocentral EEG abnormalities. Seizures characterised by bizarre oi frenetic motor activity "motor agitation" were associated with frontal EEG abnormalities and with lesions of the frontopolar or orbitofrontal cortex. These latter seizures were commonly nocturnal and occurred with higher frequency than those in other groups but no other consistent pattern in diurnal variation or seizure frequency emerged. For all seizure types with statistically significant associations with specific lesion sites, there was a substantial minority of cases associated with lesions at different site. A direct comparison of seizures associated with pure frontal and pure temporal lesions confirmed earl) version, clonic activity and tonic posturing as frontal characteristics but found no consistent differences in characteristics of seizure timing. Seizures with startle sensitivity occurred in 19 cases; MRI suggested lesions in the lateral frontal region or the perisylvian region in this group. The NGPSE data supported a high frequency of seizure types associated with frontal lobe abnormalities in the general population and a good prognosis of all partial seizure categories. These findings lend some support to the localisation of seizure types attributed to orbitofrontal and temporal lobes by the ILAE but suggests that many regions of the frontal lobes do not have specific associated seizure types, and that many seizure types, although being associated with one cerebral region, may relatively frequently be due to lesions in other sites. The predictive value of clinical seizure type is thus less than described from retrospective and highly selected post-surgical series, on which the classification is based. The hospital and population-based studies suggest that seizure frequency, timing and prognosis are more related to the population under study than the anatomical site of the underlying lesion

Pharmacological management of post-traumatic seizures in adults: current practice patterns in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Patient selection for seizure prophylaxis after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and duration of anti-epileptic drug treatment for patients with early post-traumatic seizures (PTS), remain plagued with uncertainty. In early 2017, a collaborative group of neurosurgeons, neurologists, neurointensive care and rehabilitation medicine physicians was formed in the UK with the aim of assessing variability in current practice and gauging the degree of uncertainty to inform the design of future studies. Here we present the results of a survey of clinicians managing patients with TBI in the UK and Ireland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was developed and piloted. Following approval by the Academic Committee of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons, it was distributed via appropriate electronic mailing lists. RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen respondents answered the questionnaire, predominantly neurosurgeons (76%) from 30 (of 32) trauma-receiving hospitals in the UK and Ireland. Fifty-three percent of respondents do not routinely use seizure prophylaxis, but 38% prescribe prophylaxis for one week. Sixty percent feel there is uncertainty regarding the use of seizure prophylaxis, and 71% would participate in further research to address this question. Sixty-two percent of respondents use levetiracetam for treatment of seizures during the acute phase, and 42% continued for a total of 3 months. Overall, 90% were uncertain about the duration of treatment for seizures, and 78% would participate in further research to address this question. CONCLUSION: The survey results demonstrate the variation in practice and uncertainty in both described aspects of management of patients who have suffered a TBI. The majority of respondents would want to participate in future research to help try and address this critical issue, and this shows the importance and relevance of these two clinical questions