Are Seizure Detection Devices Ready for Prime Time?

Abstract

Standards for testing and clinical validation of seizure detection Beniczky S, Ryvlin P. Epilepsia. 2018;59(S1):9-13. doi:10.1111/epi.14049To increase the quality of studies on seizure detection devices, we propose standards for testing and clinical validation of such devices. We identified 4 key features that are important for studies on seizure detection devices: subjects, recordings, data analysis and alarms, and reference standard. For each of these features, we list the specific aspects that need to be addressed in the studies, and depending on these, studies are classified into 5 phases (0-4). We propose a set of outcome measures that need to be reported, and we propose standards for reporting the results. These standards will help in designing and reporting studies on seizure detection devices, they will give readers clear information on the level of evidence provided by the studies, and they will help regulatory bodies in assessing the quality of the validation studies. These standards are flexible, allowing classification of the studies into one of the 5 phases. We propose actions that can facilitate development of novel methods and devices. User-based evaluation of applicability and usability of a wearable accelerometer device for detecting bilateral tonic-clonic seizures: a field study Meritam P, Ryvlin P, Beniczky S. Epilepsia. 2018;59(S1):48-52. doi:10.1111/epi.14051Clinical validation studies of seizure detection devices conducted in epilepsy monitoring units (EMUs) can be biased by the artificial environment. We report a field (phase 4) study of a wearable accelerometer device (Epi-Care) that has previously been validated in EMUs for detecting bilateral tonic–clonic seizures (BTCS). Seventy-one patients using the device (or their caregivers) completed the modified Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire. Median time patients had been using the device was 15 months (range = 24 days to 6 years). In 10% of cases, patients stopped using the device due to reasons related to the device. The median sensitivity (90%) and false alarm rate (0.1/day) were similar to what had been determined in EMUs. Patients and caregivers were overall satisfied with the device (median = 5.5 on the 7-point Likert scale), considered the technical aspects satisfactory, and considered the device comfortable and efficient. Adverse effects occurred in 11% but were only mild: skin irritation at the wrist and interference with home electronic appliances. In 55%, the device influenced the number of seizures logged into the seizure diary, and in 40%, it contributed to fewer seizure-related injuries. This field study demonstrates the applicability and usability of the wearable accelerometer device for detecting BTCS. Wearable devices for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy prevention Ryvlin P, Ciumas C, Wisniewski I, Beniczky S. Epilepsia. 2018;59(S1):61-66. doi:10.1111/epi.14054Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is most often associated with the occurrence of generalized tonic–clonic seizures (GTCS), a seizure type that can now be detected with high sensitivity and specificity by wearable or bed devices. The recent development in such devices and their performance offer multiple opportunities to tackle SUDEP and its prevention. Reliable GTCS detection might help physicians optimize antiepileptic treatment, which could in turn reduce the risk of SUDEP. Generalized tonic–clonic seizures–triggered alarms can lead to immediate intervention by caregivers that are also likely to decrease the odd of SUDEP. The biosignals used to detect GTCS might provide novel SUDEP biomarkers, in particular, by informing on several important characteristics of the ictal and postictal periods (type of GTCS, duration of tonic phase, rotation in the prone position, presence and duration of postictal immobility and bradycardia, rise in electrodermal activity). Other biosensors not yet used for detecting GTCS might provide complementary information, such as the presence and intensity of ictal/postictal hypoxemia. The above biomarkers, if strongly predictive, could help identify patients at very high risk of SUDEP, enabling better assessment of individual risk, as well as selection of appropriate patients for clinical studies aiming at preventing SUDEP. The same biosignals could also be used as ancillary biomarkers to test the impact of various interventions before moving to highly challenging randomized controlled trials with SUDEP as a primary outcome.