Prescribing anti-epileptic drugs for people with epilepsy and intellectual disability

This report addresses the extremely important area of epilepsy in the field of intellectual disability (ID), also known as learning disability. Epilepsy and ID are two conditions that carry stigma and can lead to social isolation. An individual who experiences both these problems faces huge challenges. This report aims to provide epileptologists, psychiatrists, doctors and clinicians working with people with ID and epilepsy an overview of good practice prescribing. Its focus is on using current evidence and applying it to support practical prescribing for people with ID. The document is not a substitute for recognised prescribing guides such as the British National Formulary (BNF). It is not a complete or comprehensive overview of epilepsy management or of epilepsy service provision. The contents of this report need to be considered as guidance, especially where most practitioners struggle when the evidence does not inform the complex clinical challenges. The report is a consensus statement on the application of current evidence used in the general population to people with ID and should be used for the purpose of guiding holistic decision-making in prescribing AEDs. It is important that clinicians keep themselves up to date using the latest information on the subject as part of their continuing professional development, as the subject area covered by this report changes rapidly

Protocol for the development of an international Core Outcome Set for treatment trials in adults with epilepsy: the EPilepsy outcome Set for Effectiveness Trials Project (EPSET).

BackgroundA Core Outcome Set (COS) is a standardised list of outcomes that should be reported as a minimum in all clinical trials. In epilepsy, the choice of outcomes varies widely among existing studies, particularly in clinical trials. This diminishes opportunities for informed decision-making, contributes to research waste and is a barrier to integrating findings in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Furthermore, the outcomes currently being measured may not reflect what is important to people with epilepsy. Therefore, we aim to develop a COS specific to clinical effectiveness research for adults with epilepsy using Delphi consensus methodology.MethodsThe EPSET Study will comprise of three phases and follow the core methodological principles as outlined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Phase 1 will include two focused literature reviews to identify candidate outcomes from the qualitative literature and current outcome measurement practice in phase III and phase IV clinical trials. Phase 2 aims to achieve international consensus to define which outcomes should be measured as a minimum in future trials, using a Delphi process including an online consensus meeting involving key stakeholders. Phase 3 will involve dissemination of the ratified COS to facilitate uptake in future trials and the planning of further research to identify the most appropriate measurement instruments to use to capture the COS in research practice.DiscussionHarmonising outcome measurement across future clinical trials should ensure that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and health services, and allow for more meaningful results to be obtained.Core outcome set registrationCOMET Initiative as study 118

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

Estimating the likelihood of epilepsy from clinically noncontributory electroencephalograms using computational analysis:A retrospective, multisite case–control study

Objective: This study was undertaken to validate a set of candidate biomarkers of seizure susceptibility in a retrospective, multisite case–control study, and to determine the robustness of these biomarkers derived from routinely collected electroencephalography (EEG) within a large cohort (both epilepsy and common alternative conditions such as nonepileptic attack disorder). Methods: The database consisted of 814 EEG recordings from 648 subjects, collected from eight National Health Service sites across the UK. Clinically noncontributory EEG recordings were identified by an experienced clinical scientist (N = 281; 152 alternative conditions, 129 epilepsy). Eight computational markers (spectral [n = 2], network‐based [n = 4], and model‐based [n = 2]) were calculated within each recording. Ensemble‐based classifiers were developed using a two‐tier cross‐validation approach. We used standard regression methods to assess whether potential confounding variables (e.g., age, gender, treatment status, comorbidity) impacted model performance. Results: We found levels of balanced accuracy of 68% across the cohort with clinically noncontributory normal EEGs (sensitivity =61%, specificity =75%, positive predictive value =55%, negative predictive value =79%, diagnostic odds ratio =4.64, area under receiver operated characteristics curve =.72). Group level analysis found no evidence suggesting any of the potential confounding variables significantly impacted the overall performance. Significance: These results provide evidence that the set of biomarkers could provide additional value to clinical decision‐making, providing the foundation for a decision support tool that could reduce diagnostic delay and misdiagnosis rates. Future work should therefore assess the change in diagnostic yield and time to diagnosis when utilizing these biomarkers in carefully designed prospective studies

A digital intervention for capturing the real-time health data needed for epilepsy seizure forecasting:formative codesign and the usability study protocol (the ATMOSPHERE study)

Background: Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder affecting individuals globally, marked by recurrent and apparently unpredictable seizures that pose significant challenges, including increased mortality, injuries, and diminished quality of life. Despite advancements in treatments, a significant proportion of people with epilepsy continue to experience uncontrolled seizures. The apparent unpredictability of these events has been identified as a major concern for people with epilepsy, highlighting the need for innovative seizure forecasting technologies.Objectives: The ATMOSPHERE study aims to develop and evaluate a digital intervention, using wearable technology and data science, that provides real-time, individualised seizure forecasting for individuals living with epilepsy. This paper reports the protocol for one of the workstreams focusing on the design and testing of a prototype to capture real-time input data needed for predictive modelling. The aims were/are to (1) collaboratively design the prototype (work completed) and (2) conduct an 'in-the-wild' study to assess usability and to refine the prototype (planned research).Methods: This study employs a person-based approach to design and usability test a prototype for real-time seizure precipitant data capture. Phase 1 (work completed) involved co-design with individuals living with epilepsy and healthcare professionals. Sessions explored users’ requirements for the prototype, followed by iterative design of low fidelity, static prototypes. Phase 2 (planned research) will be an 'in-the-wild' usability study involving the deployment of a mid-fidelity, interactive prototype for four weeks, with the collection of mixed-methods usability data to assess the prototype's real-world application, feasibility, acceptability, and engagement. This phase involves primary participants (adults diagnosed with epilepsy) and, optionally, their nominated significant other. The usability study will run in three waves of deployment and data collection, aiming to recruit five participants per wave, with prototype refinement between waves.Results: The phase 1 co-design study engaged 22 individuals, resulting in the development of a mid-fidelity, interactive prototype based on identified requirements, including the tracking of evidence-based and personalised seizure precipitants. The upcoming Phase 2 usability study is expected to provide insights into the prototype's real-world usability, identify areas for improvement, and refine the technology for future development. The estimated completion date of Phase 2 is the last quarter of 2024.Conclusions: The ATMOSPHERE study aims to make a significant step forward in epilepsy management, focusing on the development of a user-centred, non-invasive wearable device for seizure forecasting. Through a collaborative design process and comprehensive usability testing, this research aims to address the critical need for predictive seizure forecasting technologies, offering a promising approach to improving the lives of individuals with epilepsy. By leveraging predictive analytics and personalised machine learning models, this technology seeks to offer a novel approach to managing epilepsy, potentially improving clinical outcomes, including quality of life through increased predictability and seizure management.<br/