ILAE Genetic Literacy Series: Postmorterm Genetic Testing in Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy

A 24-year-old man with non-lesional bitemporal lobe epilepsy since age 16 years was found dead in bed around midday. He was last seen the previous night when he was witnessed to have a tonic–clonic seizure. Before his death, he was experiencing weekly focal impaired awareness seizures and up to two focal-to-bilateral tonic–clonic seizures each year. He had trialed several antiseizure medications and was on levetiracetam 1500 mg/day, lamotrigine 400 mg/day, and clobazam 10 mg/day at the time of death. Other than epilepsy, his medical history was unremarkable. Of note, he had an older brother with a history of febrile seizures and a paternal first cousin with epilepsy. No cause of death was identified following a comprehensive postmortem investigation. The coroner classified the death as “sudden unexpected death in epilepsy” (SUDEP), and it would qualify as “definite SUDEP” using the current definitions.1 This left the family with many questions unanswered; in particular, they wish to know what caused the death and whether it could happen to other family members. Could postmortem genetic testing identify a cause of death, provide closure to the family, and facilitate cascade genetic testing of first-degree family members who may be at risk of sudden death? While grieving family members struggle with uncertainty about the cause of death, we as clinicians also face similar uncertainties about genetic contributions to SUDEP, especially when the literature is sparse, and the utility of genetic testing is still being worked out. We aim to shed some light on this topic, highlighting areas where data is emerging but also areas where uncertainty remains, keeping our case in mind as we examine this clinically important area

ILAE Genetic Literacy Series: Self-limited familial epilepsy syndromes with onset in neonatal age and infancy

The self-limited (familial) epilepsies with onset in neonates or infants, formerly called benign familial neonatal and/or infantile epilepsies, are autosomal dominant disorders characterized by neonatal- or infantile-onset focal motor seizures and the absence of neurodevelopmental complications. Seizures tend to remit during infancy or early childhood and are therefore called “self-limited”. A positive family history for epilepsy usually suggests the genetic etiology, but incomplete penetrance and de novo inheritance occur. Here, we review the phenotypic spectrum and the genetic architecture of self-limited (familial) epilepsies with onset in neonates or infants. Using an illustrative case study, we describe important clues in recognition of these syndromes, diagnostic steps including genetic testing, management, and genetic counseling

Genetic, environmental and stochastic factors in monozygotic twin discordance with a focus on epigenetic differences

PMCID: PMC3566971This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Polymorphic variants of SCN1A and EPHX1 influence plasma carbamazepine concentration, metabolism and pharmacoresistance in a population of Kosovar Albanian epileptic patients

Aim The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of gene variants in key genes influencing pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic of carbamazepine (CBZ) on the response in patients with epilepsy. Materials & Methods Five SNPs in two candidate genes influencing CBZ transport and metabolism, namely ABCB1 or EPHX1, and CBZ response SCN1A (sodium channel) were genotyped in 145 epileptic patients treated with CBZ as monotherapy and 100 age and sex matched healthy controls. Plasma concentrations of CBZ, carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide (CBZE) and carbamazepine-10,11-trans dihydrodiol (CBZD) were determined by HPLC-UV-DAD and adjusted for CBZ dosage/kg of body weight. Results The presence of the SCN1A IVS5-91G>A variant allele is associated with increased epilepsy susceptibility. Furthermore, carriers of the SCN1A IVS5-91G>A variant or of EPHX1 c.337T>C variant presented significantly lower levels of plasma CBZ compared to carriers of the common alleles (0.71±0.28 vs 1.11±0.69 μg/mL per mg/Kg for SCN1A IVS5-91 AA vs GG and 0.76±0.16 vs 0.94±0.49 μg/mL per mg/Kg for EPHX1 c.337 CC vs TT; PG showed a reduced microsomal epoxide hydrolase activity as reflected by a significantly decreased ratio of CBZD to CBZ (0.13±0.08 to 0.26±0.17, pT SNP and SCN1A 3148A>G variants were not associated with significant changes in CBZ pharmacokinetic. Patients resistant to CBZ treatment showed increased dosage of CBZ (657±285 vs 489±231 mg/day; P<0.001) but also increased plasma levels of CBZ (9.84±4.37 vs 7.41±3.43 μg/mL; P<0.001) compared to patients responsive to CBZ treatment. CBZ resistance was not related to any of the SNPs investigated. Conclusions The SCN1A IVS5-91G>A SNP is associated with susceptibility to epilepsy. SNPs in EPHX1 gene are influencing CBZ metabolism and disposition. CBZ plasma levels are not an indicator of resistance to the therapy

Refocusing SoTL – Myopia, Context Lenses and Ecological Systems Theory

10.29060/TAPS.2023-8-2/PV2842Asia Pacific Scholar8280-8

SCN1A testing for epilepsy: Application in clinical practice

Fulltext embargoed for: 12 months post date of publicationThis report is a practical reference guide for genetic testing of SCN1A, the gene encoding the α1 subunit of neuronal voltage-gated sodium channels (protein name: Nav 1.1). Mutations in this gene are frequently found in Dravet syndrome (DS), and are sometimes found in genetic epilepsy with febrile seizures plus (GEFS+), migrating partial seizures of infancy (MPSI), other infantile epileptic encephalopathies, and rarely in infantile spasms. Recommendations for testing: (1) Testing is particularly useful for people with suspected DS and sometimes in other early onset infantile epileptic encephalopathies such as MPSI because genetic confirmation of the clinical diagnosis may allow optimization of antiepileptic therapy with the potential to improve seizure control and developmental outcome. In addition, a molecular diagnosis may prevent the need for unnecessary investigations, as well as inform genetic counseling. (2) SCN1A testing should be considered in people with possible DS where the typical initial presentation is of a developmentally normal infant presenting with recurrent, febrile or afebrile prolonged, hemiclonic seizures or generalized status epilepticus. After age 2, the clinical diagnosis of DS becomes more obvious, with the classical evolution of other seizure types and developmental slowing. (3) In contrast to DS, the clinical utility of SCN1A testing for GEFS+ remains questionable. (4) The test is not recommended for children with phenotypes that are not clearly associated with SCN1A mutations such as those characterized by abnormal development or neurologic deficits apparent at birth or structural abnormalities of the brain. Interpreting test results: (1) Mutational testing of SCN1A involves both conventional DNA sequencing of the coding regions and analyses to detect genomic rearrangements within the relevant chromosomal region: 2q24. Interpretation of the test results must always be done in the context of the electroclinical syndrome and often requires the assistance of a medical geneticist, since many genomic variations are possible and it is essential to differentiate benign polymorphisms from pathogenic mutations. (2) Missense variants may have no apparent effect on the phenotype (benign polymorphisms) or may represent mutations underlying DS, MPSI, GEFS+, and related syndromes and can provide a challenge in interpretation. (3) Conventional methods do not detect variations in introns or promoter or regulatory regions; therefore, a negative test does not exclude a pathogenic role of SCN1A in a specific phenotype. (4) It is important to note that a negative test does not rule out the clinical diagnosis of DS or other conditions because genes other than SCN1A may be involved. Obtaining written informed consent and genetic counseling should be considered prior to molecular testing, depending on the clinical situation and local regulations