Perspectives on the burden of drug-resistant epilepsy and treatment priorities: Findings from a multistakeholder survey.

For people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment was effective in reducing seizure frequency. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for long-term use of rufinamide. In the short term, rufinamide as an add-on was associated with several adverse events. This review focused on the use of rufinamide in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of rufinamide when used as monotherapy.

Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder. In approximately 30% of epilepsy cases, seizures are uncontrolled by one antiepileptic drug (AED). These people require treatment with a combination of multiple AEDs and are described as having drug-resistant epilepsy. Oxcarbazepine is a keto-analogue of carbamazepine, an established AED, and can be used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy. To assess the efficacy and tolerability of oxcarbazepine as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The following databases were searched on 24 September 2018: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Medline (Ovid) 1946 to 21 September 2018; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Originally, we also searched SCOPUS as a substitute for Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. Randomised controlled trials with parallel-group or cross-over design, recruiting people of any age with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We accepted any level of blinding and trials could be placebo- or active-controlled. In accordance with the methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration, two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility before extracting data and assessing risk of bias. We assessed the primary outcomes: median percentage seizure reduction per 28 days; 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; and adverse effects including ataxia, hyponatraemia, and somnolence. We assessed the secondary outcomes: seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; cognitive effects; and quality of life. We used an intention-to-treat population for all primary analyses. We present results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), with the exception of adverse effects which we present with 99% CI. We identified six eligible studies, involving 1593 participants. We judged that three studies were at unclear risk of bias and three were at high risk of bias. Bias mainly arose from lack of methodological details and from high attrition rates. Participants were aged 1 month to 65 years, with a diagnosis of drug-resistant focal epilepsy. All studies were either placebo- or alternative-dose-controlled with parallel-group design. The treatment period varied from 9 days to 26 weeks. The median percentage seizure reduction per 28 days (3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) ranged from 26% to 83.3% for participants randomised to experimental oxcarbazepine compared to 7.6% to 28.7% for participants randomised to control treatment. Oxcarbazepine may increase the responder rate for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to control treatment (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.56; random-effects model; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). For seizure freedom, the RR was 2.86 (95% CI 1.19 to 6.87; random-effects model; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), suggesting an advantageous effectiveness of oxcarbazepine over control treatment. Treatment with oxcarbazepine was associated with an increased treatment withdrawal rate compared to control (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; fixed-effect model; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). The largest oxcarbazepine dose used, 2400 mg/d, was associated with a higher treatment withdrawal rate (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.92 to 2.94; fixed-effect model; 2 studies) compared to control, than 1200 mg/d (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.95; fixed-effect model; 3 studies) or 600 mg/d oxcarbazepine (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; fixed-effect model; 1 study). Treatment with oxcarbazepine was associated with an increased incidence of multiple adverse effects including: ataxia (RR 2.54, 99% CI 0.86 to 7.54; random-effects model; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); and somnolence (RR 2.03, 99% CI 1.17 to 3.54; random-effects model; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). Hyponatraemia occurred more frequently with oxcarbazepine treatment but not significantly so (RR 2.53, 99% CI 0.27 to 23.85; fixed-effect model; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Oxcarbazepine might be effective at reducing seizure frequency when used as an add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The efficacy outcomes - 50% or greater seizure reduction and seizure freedom - were derived from low-certainty evidence. We are, therefore, uncertain whether the estimated effect size is representative of the true effect. In contrast, the evidence for median percentage seizure reduction and treatment withdrawal were of moderate certainty: thus, we are fairly certain of the effect estimates' reliability. Overall, we are unsure of the true efficacy of oxcarbazepine, but have concerns about its tolerability.

Achieving seizure freedom following failure of several antiseizure medications (ASMs) is rare, with the likelihood of achieving further control decreasing with each successive ASM trial. When cases of drug-resistant epilepsy arise, a diagnostic procedure known as stereoelectroencephalography (sEEG) can be used to identify epileptogenic zones (EZ) within the brain. After localization of these zones, they can be targeted for future surgical intervention. Here, we describe a case of complete seizure freedom off medication after sEEG without resection or other therapeutic intervention. In 2017, a 36-year-old right-handed male presented with drug-resistant epilepsy stemming from prior traumatic brain injury. Due to ongoing seizures, in 2020 a robotic-assisted sEEG electrode placement procedure was employed to localize the seizure onset zone. During sEEG monitoring, a single event was captured where the patient had dysarthric speech, left arm dystonic flexion, and difficulty responding to questioning. Notably, this event had no sEEG correlate, suggesting seizure occurrence in a region not monitored by implanted electrodes, which prompted the placement of scalp electrodes following this event. However, no further clinical events consistent with seizure were provoked through the remainder of recording. Following the 13-day admission, the patient chose to self-discontinue all seizure medications and has remained seizure free as of October 2023, more than 3.5 years later. While sEEG is considered a relatively safe procedure for seizure localization in drug resistant epilepsy, the possibility of microlesions created by sEEG depth electrodes remains largely unexplored. Further evaluation should be performed into potential tissue injury produced by depth electrode insertion.

Stereoelectroencephalography-guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation (SEEG-RFTC) has emerged as a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Although evidence from real-world studies remains limited, numerous pediatric cases have demonstrated promising outcomes. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the seizure outcomes of SEEG-RFTC in pediatric patients and identify predictive factors associated with seizure freedom. A retrospective observational study was conducted across two epilepsy centers, including 111 children with drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent SEEG-RFTC. Postoperative outcomes were assessed primarily by the rate of seizure freedom at the last follow-up (minimum 1 year). Potential predictive factors were analyzed through comparisons of clinical, neuroimaging, electrophysiological, and etiological variables. All patients were followed for at least 1 year post-procedure, with 73 (65.8%) achieving seizure freedom. Among 46 patients with focal cortical dysplasia, the seizure-free rate was 80.4%. In 10 patients with hippocampus sclerosis, 6 (60%) were seizure-free at the final follow-up. Statistical analysis identified the course of illness (p < 0.01) and positron emission tomography (PET) findings (p = 0.01) as significant predictors of seizure freedom. SEEG-RFTC is a safe procedure that yields favorable outcomes in a substantial proportion of pediatric patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The duration of epilepsy and PET characteristics are significantly associated with the likelihood of achieving seizure freedom. These findings highlight the potential of SEEG-RFTC as a valuable therapeutic option in this population.

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. It is estimated that up to 30% of individuals with epilepsy continue to have epileptic seizures despite treatment with an antiepileptic drug. These patients are classified as drug-resistant and require treatment with a combination of multiple antiepileptic drugs. Brivaracetam is a third-generation antiepileptic drug that is a high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A. In this review we investigated the use of brivaracetam as add-on therapy for epilepsy. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. For the latest update we searched the following databases on 7 September 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web); MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to 3 September 2021. CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We searched for parallel-group RCTs that recruited people of any age with drug-resistant epilepsy. We accepted studies with any level of blinding (double-blind, single-blind, or unblinded). In accordance with standard Cochrane methodological procedures, two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion before evaluating trial quality and extracting relevant data. The primary outcome to be assessed was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes were: seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse events, the proportion of participants who experienced any adverse events, and drug interactions. We used an intention-to-treat population for all primary analyses, and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore the results and conclusions of the review are unchanged. The previous review included six studies involving a total of 2411 participants. Only one study included participants with both focal and generalised onset seizures; the other five trials included participants with focal onset seizures only. Study participants were aged 16 to 80 years. Treatment periods ranged from 7 to 16 weeks. We judged two studies to have low risk of bias and four to have unclear risk of bias. Details on the method used for allocation concealment and how blinding was maintained were insufficient in one study each. One study did not report all outcomes prespecified in the trial protocol, and there were discrepancies in reporting in a further study. Participants receiving brivaracetam add-on were more likely to experience a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those receiving placebo (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.14; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants receiving brivaracetam were more likely to attain seizure freedom; however, the evidence is of low certainty (RR 5.89, 95% CI 2.30 to 15.13; 6 studies). The incidence of treatment withdrawal for any reason was slightly greater for participants receiving brivaracetam compared to those receiving placebo (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.74; 6 studies; low-certaintyevidence). The risk of participants experiencing one or more adverse events did not differ significantly following treatment with brivaracetam compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, participants receiving brivaracetam did appear to be more likely to withdraw from treatment due to adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.33; 6 studies; low-certaintyevidence). When used as add-on therapy for individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy, brivaracetam may be effective in reducing seizure frequency and may aid patients in achieving seizure freedom. However, add-on brivaracetam is probably associated with a greater proportion of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo. It is important to note that only one of the eligible studies included participants with generalised epilepsy. None of the included studies involved participants under the age of 16, and all studies were of short duration. Consequently, the findings of this review are mainly applicable to adult patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Future research should focus on investigating the tolerability and efficacy of brivaracetam during longer-term follow-up, as well as assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam in managing other types of seizures and in other age groups.

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. It is estimated that up to 30% of patients with epilepsy continue to have epileptic seizures despite treatment with an antiepileptic drug. These patients are classified as drug-resistant and require treatment with a combination of multiple antiepileptic drugs. Brivaracetam is a third-generation antiepileptic drug that is a high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A. This review investigates the use of brivaracetam as add-on therapy for epilepsy. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. We searched the following databases on 9 October 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Medline (Ovid) 1946 to 8 October 2018; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Originally we also searched SCOPUS as a substitute for Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We sought randomised controlled trials with parallel-group design, recruiting people of any age with drug-resistant epilepsy. We accepted studies with any level of blinding (double-blind, single-blind, or unblind). In accordance with standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration, two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion before evaluating trial quality and extracting relevant data. The primary outcome to be assessed was 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes were: seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal for any reason, treatment withdrawal due to adverse events, the proportion of participants who experienced any adverse events, and drug interactions. We used an intention-to-treat (ITT) population for all primary analyses, and we presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The review included six trials representing 2411 participants. Only one study included participants with both focal and generalised onset seizures; the other five trials included participants with focal onset seizures only. All six studies included adult participants between 16 and 80 years old, and treatment periods ranged from 7 to 16 weeks. We judged two studies to have low risk of bias and four to have unclear risk of bias. One study failed to provide details on the method used for allocation concealment, and one did not report all outcomes prespecified in the trial protocol. One study did not describe how blinding was maintained, and another noted discrepancies in reporting.Participants receiving brivaracetam add-on were significantly more likely to experience a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency than those receiving placebo (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.14; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Participants receiving brivaracetam were also significantly more likely to attain seizure freedom (RR 5.89, 95% CI 2.30 to 15.13; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The incidence of treatment withdrawal for any reason (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.74; 6 studies; low-quality evidence), as well as the risk of participants experiencing one or more adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence), was not significantly different following treatment with brivaracetam compared to placebo. However, participants receiving brivaracetam did appear to be significantly more likely to withdraw from treatment specifically because of adverse events compared with those receiving placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.33; 6 studies; low-quality evidence). Brivaracetam, when used as add-on therapy for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, is effective in reducing seizure frequency and can aid patients in achieving seizure freedom. However, add-on brivaracetam is associated with a greater proportion of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo. It is important to note that only one of the eligible studies included participants with generalised epilepsy. None of the studies included participants under the age of 16, and all studies were of short duration. Consequently, these findings are mainly applicable to adult patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Future research should thus focus on investigating the tolerability and efficacy of brivaracetam during longer-term follow-up, and should also assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam in managing other types of seizures and its use in other age groups.

<h3>Objective:</h3> To determine the efficacy and safety of RNS in the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy and to determine the potential complications. <h3>Background:</h3> Epilepsy Surgery is an effective treatment for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Although resection/ablation of the epileptogenic zone is the preferred method to achieve seizure freedom, many patients are not appropriate for resection/ablation due to potential neurologic risks or limited benefits. Responsive Neurostimulation System (RNS) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration FDA as an adjunctive treatment of drug-resistant focal epilepsy. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> A database search was performed for patients who underwent RNS placement between 01/01/2014–04/01/2022 at our institution. Patients with &gt;12 months follow-up duration were included in the final data analysis. The primary outcome is seizure freedom as defined by Engel/ILAE seizure outcome classification systems. Variables were reported as mean or median for numerical variables and percentage for categorical variables. The Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were applied to compare independent groups for categorical variables. <h3>Results:</h3> A total of 50 patients fit the inclusion criteria during this time period. 19 were excluded as they had less than one-year follow-up. Overall, 22.6% reached a state of freedom from disabling seizures (Engel 1 or ILAE I/II). With 28 total patients getting RNS alone or as a final procedure, 21.4% achieved freedom from debilitating seizures (Engel 1 or ILAE I/II), and 60.7% had a &gt;50% reduction in seizure frequency (ILAE III/IV). There was no difference regarding seizure freedom in patients based on electrode placement (p = 0.645). Four patients (8%) had complications (1 encephalopathy, 2 scalp infections, and 1 scalp infection with meningitis). The other 92% had no major complications. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Overall, RNS provides worthwhile seizure reduction in most of the population seen at the University of Kansas Medical Center. The outcome from our center is comparable to the outcomes reported in literature. <b>Disclosure:</b> Dr. Beattie has nothing to disclose. Dr. Ortiz Guerrero has nothing to disclose. Dr. Uysal has nothing to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of epilepsy surgery in children and adolescents with drug resistant focal epilepsy at three years in a tertiary care epilepsy center in Thailand

Drug resistant epilepsy (DRE) is defined as the persistence of seizures despite at least two syndrome-adapted antiseizure drugs (ASD) used at efficacious daily dose. Despite the increasing number of available ASD, about a third of patients with epilepsy still suffer from drug resistance. Several factors are associated with the risk of evolution to DRE in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy, including epilepsy onset in the infancy, intellectual disability, symptomatic epilepsy and abnormal neurological exam. Pharmacological management often consists in ASD polytherapy. However, because quality of life is driven by several factors in patients with DRE, including the tolerability of the treatment, ASD management should try to optimize efficacy while anticipating the risks of drug-related adverse events. All patients with DRE should be evaluated at least once in a tertiary epilepsy center, especially to discuss eligibility for non-pharmacological therapies. This is of paramount importance in patients with drug resistant focal epilepsy in whom epilepsy surgery can result in long-term seizure freedom. Vagus nerve stimulation, deep brain stimulation or cortical stimulation can also improve seizure control. Lastly, considering the effect of DRE on psychologic status and social integration, comprehensive care adaptations are always needed in order to improve patients’ quality of life.

Clinical characteristics, surgical and neuropsychological outcomes in drug resistant tumoral temporal lobe epilepsy

Geriatric cancer patients and their caregivers have unique needs that make it difficult for their healthcare providers (HCPs) to effectively communicate with them. As ineffective communication can lead to negative health outcomes, it is important that oncology HCPs receive specialized training on communication with older adult patients and their caregivers. We conducted a small pilot study examining audio recordings of clinical encounters between HCPs and older adult cancer patients/caregivers and questionnaires completed by the patients and their caregivers before and after the HCPs participated in a geriatric communication skills training program. Eleven HCPs completed the 6-h Geriatric Comskil Training. Two clinic consultations with unique geriatric patients (n = 44) and their caregivers (n = 29) were recorded before and after training and coded for HCPs' use of communication skills. Patients and caregivers also completed surveys measuring their satisfaction with HCP communication and perceived empathy. Analysis of the audio recordings revealed that HCPs did not increase their use of communication skills after training. Although our sample was too small to detect statistical significance, measures of effect size showed trending improvements in patients' and caregivers' perceptions of HCPs' empathy and satisfaction with their communication after training. Our findings build on previous studies evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of the Geriatric Comskil Training in real world setting and indicate that the training may have improved HCPs' communication with older adult patients and their caregivers even if their use of their observable communication skills did not change.

A french real-world experience with cenobamate in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy: A retrospective observational study

The objective of this article is to provide a summary of the perceptions of healthcare providers and family members toward their role in active patient care in the ICU and compare the views of healthcare providers with those of relatives of critically ill patients. The search was conducted using PubMed as the primary search engine and EMBASE as a secondary search engine. Studies were included if they were conducted in the ICU, had an adult patient population, and contained a discussion of active patient care, including perspective or actions of family members or healthcare providers about the active participation. Titles and abstracts of articles identified through PubMed and EMBASE were assessed for relevancy of family involvement. The full article was reviewed of titles and abstracts involving family involvement of care in the ICU to assess if the topic was active care and if the article involved perceptions of healthcare providers or family members. The references of all selected articles were then evaluated for the inclusion of additional studies. Articles including perceptions of healthcare providers were grouped separately from articles including attitudes of family members. Articles that contained the perceptions of both healthcare providers and family members were considered in both groups but were evaluated with each perspective separately. Examples of specific patient care tasks that were mentioned in each article were identified. A positive attitude exists among both family members and providers toward the involvement of family members in active care tasks. Providers and family members share the attitude that a partnership is necessary and that encouragement for family members to participate is essential. The findings in this review support the need for more objective research regarding how families are caring for their loved ones and how family involvement in care is affecting patient and family outcomes.

Cenobamate (CNB) has demonstrated remarkable efficacy in the treatment of drug-resistant focal epilepsy (FE). However, its role in other epilepsy types - such as drug-resistant generalized epilepsies (GEs), combined generalized and focal epilepsies (CGFEs), and developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs) - remains poorly explored. This article assesses the current evidence of CNB efficacy in these often complex and challenging patient populations. A case report is presented detailing a 22-year-old male with drug-resistant epilepsy with myoclonic-atonic seizures (EMAtS) who achieved seizure freedom on CNB. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate CNB's efficacy in GEs, CGFEs, and DEEs, summarizing seizure outcomes, adverse events (AEs), and dose-response relationships. The case report highlights a patient achieving 18 months of sustained seizure freedom and improved quality of life with tapering of concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs). The systematic review included 32 patients from six studies. Overall, 59.4 % achieved a ≥ 50 % seizure reduction, and 9.4 % attained seizure freedom. Subgroup analysis showed ≥50 % reduction in 50 % of patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) and 80 % with Dravet syndrome (DS), with seizure freedom rates of 20 % in DS and 50 % in epilepsy with eyelid myoclonia (EEM). AEs, primarily sedation and fatigue, were reported in 74 % of patients, while 31.25 % reduced or tapered off ASMs. CNB demonstrates potential efficacy in managing seizures across drug-resistant epilepsy syndromes, extending its established use beyond FE. Further prospective trials are needed to validate these findings and optimize dosing strategies.

A third of people with epilepsy are drug resistant. People with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) have a higher risk of mortality and physical injuries than those who respond to anti-seizure medication (ASM). This study describes patient characteristics, comorbidities, and mortality in people with DRE in the UK. The Clinical Practice Research Datalink was utilised to select people with DRE prescribed a third ASM between 1 January 2011 and 31 March 2021. Annual incidence and prevalence of DRE, patient characteristics, comorbidities, and mortality rates were analysed. Subgroup analysis was performed by age, sex, presence of intellectual disabilities and time from epilepsy diagnosis to DRE. A total of 34,647 people with DRE were included (mean ± SD age 42.68 ± 23.59years, 52.6% females). During the study period, annual DRE incidence ranged from 1.99% to 3.12%. As of 31 March 2021, DRE prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.3%-26.8%). A greater proportion of people with DRE resided in the most deprived regions, with 21.1% and 16.7% in the top two quintiles of the Index of Multiple Deprivation respectively, compared to < 15% in the three less deprived regions. All-cause mortality ranged from 3,687 to 4,802 per 100,000 persons with DRE, four times higher than that in the general population in the UK. Variations existed across subgroups. Considerable disease burden was observed in people with DRE in the UK. The findings emphasise the importance of early DRE diagnosis and appropriate disease management in people who develop DRE.