Social cognition in children with epilepsy in mainstream education

AIM To establish whether deficits in social cognition are present in children with generalised or focal epilepsy in mainstream education, and whether any relation exists between social cognition, communication, and behaviour measures. METHOD In a cross-sectional study, children with an epilepsy-only diagnoses in mainstream education (n=20 with generalized epilepsy; eight males, 12 females; mean age 11y 6mo, SD 2y 6mo; and n=27 with focal epilepsy; 12 males, 15 females; mean age 11y 8mo, SD 2y 2mo) and comparison participants (n=57; 28 males, 29 females; mean age 11y 2mo, SD 2y 4mo) were administered the Strange Stories task and the Mind in the Eyes task, as well as an IQ assessment. Parents completed the Children’s Communication Checklist-2 and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). RESULTS Both groups of children with epilepsy performed more poorly than control children on the Mental Stories component of the Strange Stories task, F(2,101)=3.2, p<0.001. Performance on Mental Stories was related to pragmatic communication, but only in the generalized epilepsy group (r=0.51, p=0.03, 95% CI=0.2–0.8). There were no differences between epilepsy groups or control participants in the Mind in the Eyes task, F(2,101)=0.4, p=0.4. INTERPRETATION Children with ‘epilepsy only’ are at risk of deficits in social cognition and may require appropriate support

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

DNAJC6 Mutations Disrupt Dopamine Homeostasis in Juvenile Parkinsonism‐Dystonia

BACKGROUND: Juvenile forms of parkinsonism are rare conditions with onset of bradykinesia, tremor and rigidity before the age of 21 years. These atypical presentations commonly have a genetic aetiology, highlighting important insights into underlying pathophysiology. Genetic defects may affect key proteins of the endocytic pathway and clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME), as in DNAJC6-related juvenile parkinsonism. OBJECTIVE: To report on a new patient cohort with juvenile-onset DNAJC6 parkinsonism-dystonia and determine the functional consequences on auxilin and dopamine homeostasis. METHODS: Twenty-five children with juvenile parkinsonism were identified from a research cohort of patients with undiagnosed pediatric movement disorders. Molecular genetic investigations included autozygosity mapping studies and whole-exome sequencing. Patient fibroblasts and CSF were analyzed for auxilin, cyclin G-associated kinase and synaptic proteins. RESULTS: We identified 6 patients harboring previously unreported, homozygous nonsense DNAJC6 mutations. All presented with neurodevelopmental delay in infancy, progressive parkinsonism, and neurological regression in childhood. 123 I-FP-CIT SPECT (DaTScan) was performed in 3 patients and demonstrated reduced or absent tracer uptake in the basal ganglia. CSF neurotransmitter analysis revealed an isolated reduction of homovanillic acid. Auxilin levels were significantly reduced in both patient fibroblasts and CSF. Cyclin G-associated kinase levels in CSF were significantly increased, whereas a number of presynaptic dopaminergic proteins were reduced. CONCLUSIONS: DNAJC6 is an emerging cause of recessive juvenile parkinsonism-dystonia. DNAJC6 encodes the cochaperone protein auxilin, involved in CME of synaptic vesicles. The observed dopamine dyshomeostasis in patients is likely to be multifactorial, secondary to auxilin deficiency and/or neurodegeneration. Increased patient CSF cyclin G-associated kinase, in tandem with reduced auxilin levels, suggests a possible compensatory role of cyclin G-associated kinase, as observed in the auxilin knockout mouse. DNAJC6 parkinsonism-dystonia should be considered as a differential diagnosis for pediatric neurotransmitter disorders associated with low homovanillic acid levels. Future research in elucidating disease pathogenesis will aid the development of better treatments for this pharmacoresistant disorder. © 2020 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society