Explore the vast range of titles available.

Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are the mainstay of symptomatic epilepsy treatment. The primary goal of pharmacotherapy with ASMs in epilepsy is to achieve complete seizure remission while minimizing therapy-related adverse events. Over the years, more ASMs have been introduced, with approximately 30 now in everyday use. With such a wide variety, much guidance is needed in choosing ASMs for initial therapy, subsequent replacement monotherapy, or adjunctive therapy. The specific ASMs are typically tailored by the patient’s related factors, including epilepsy syndrome, age, sex, comorbidities, and ASM characteristics, including the spectrum of efficacy, pharmacokinetic properties, safety, and tolerability. Weighing these key clinical variables requires experience and expertise that may be limited. Furthermore, with this approach, patients may endure multiple trials of ineffective treatments before the most appropriate ASM is found. A more reliable way to predict response to different ASMs is needed so that the most effective and tolerated ASM can be selected. Soon, alternative approaches, such as deep machine learning (ML), could aid the individualized selection of the first and subsequent ASMs. The recognition of epilepsy as a network disorder and the integration of personalized epilepsy networks in future ML platforms can also facilitate the prediction of ASM response. Augmenting the conventional approach with artificial intelligence (AI) opens the door to personalized pharmacotherapy in epilepsy. However, more work is needed before these models are ready for primetime clinical practice.

Despite progress in understanding the genetics of rare epilepsies, the more common epilepsies have proven less amenable to traditional gene-discovery analyses. We aimed to assess the contribution of ultra-rare genetic variation to common epilepsies. We did a case-control sequencing study with exome sequence data from unrelated individuals clinically evaluated for one of the two most common epilepsy syndromes: familial genetic generalised epilepsy, or familial or sporadic non-acquired focal epilepsy. Individuals of any age were recruited between Nov 26, 2007, and Aug 2, 2013, through the multicentre Epilepsy Phenome/Genome Project and Epi4K collaborations, and samples were sequenced at the Institute for Genomic Medicine (New York, USA) between Feb 6, 2013, and Aug 18, 2015. To identify epilepsy risk signals, we tested all protein-coding genes for an excess of ultra-rare genetic variation among the cases, compared with control samples with no known epilepsy or epilepsy comorbidity sequenced through unrelated studies. We separately compared the sequence data from 640 individuals with familial genetic generalised epilepsy and 525 individuals with familial non-acquired focal epilepsy to the same group of 3877 controls, and found significantly higher rates of ultra-rare deleterious variation in genes established as causative for dominant epilepsy disorders (familial genetic generalised epilepsy: odd ratio [OR] 2·3, 95% CI 1·7–3·2, p=9·1 × 10−8; familial non-acquired focal epilepsy 3·6, 2·7–4·9, p=1·1 × 10−17). Comparison of an additional cohort of 662 individuals with sporadic non-acquired focal epilepsy to controls did not identify study-wide significant signals. For the individuals with familial non-acquired focal epilepsy, we found that five known epilepsy genes ranked as the top five genes enriched for ultra-rare deleterious variation. After accounting for the control carrier rate, we estimate that these five genes contribute to the risk of epilepsy in approximately 8% of individuals with familial non-acquired focal epilepsy. Our analyses showed that no individual gene was significantly associated with familial genetic generalised epilepsy; however, known epilepsy genes had lower p values relative to the rest of the protein-coding genes (p=5·8 × 10−8) that were lower than expected from a random sampling of genes. We identified excess ultra-rare variation in known epilepsy genes, which establishes a clear connection between the genetics of common and rare, severe epilepsies, and shows that the variants responsible for epilepsy risk are exceptionally rare in the general population. Our results suggest that the emerging paradigm of targeting of treatments to the genetic cause in rare devastating epilepsies might also extend to a proportion of common epilepsies. These findings might allow clinicians to broadly explain the cause of these syndromes to patients, and lay the foundation for possible precision treatments in the future. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), and Epilepsy Research UK.

Purpose Awake craniotomy with intraoperative functional brain mapping (FBM) bedside neurological testing is an important technique used to optimize resective brain surgeries near eloquent cortex. Awake craniotomy performed with electrocorticography (ECoG) and direct electrical stimulation (DES) for FBM can delineate eloquent cortex from lesions and epileptogenic regions. However, current electrode technology demonstrates spatial limitations. Our group has developed a novel circular grid with the goal of improving spatial recording of ECoG to enhance detection of ictal and interictal activity. Methods This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board at Mayo Clinic Florida. We analyzed patients undergoing awake craniotomy with ECoG and DES and compared ECoG data obtained using the 22 contact circular grid to standard 6 contact strip electrode. Results We included 144 cases of awake craniotomy with ECoG, 73 using circular grid and 71 with strip electrode. No significant differences were seen regarding preoperative clinical and demographic data, duration of ECoG recording (p = 0.676) and use of DES (p = 0.926). Circular grid was more sensitive in detecting periodic focal epileptiform discharges (PFEDs) (p = 0.004), PFEDs plus (p = 0.032), afterdischarges (ADs) per case (p = 0.022) at lower minimum (p = 0.012) and maximum (p < 0.0012) intensity stimulation, and seizures (p = 0.048). PFEDs (p < 0.001), PFEDs plus (p < 0.001), and HFOs (p < 0.001) but not ADs (p = 0.255) predicted electrographic seizures. Conclusion We demonstrate higher sensitivity in detecting ictal and interictal activity on ECoG during awake craniotomy with a novel circular grid compared to strip electrode, likely due to better spatial sampling during ECoG. We also found association between PFEDs and intraoperative seizures.

There are now 24 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) approved for use in epilepsy in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google for all English-language articles that discuss newly approved AEDs and the use of AEDs in epilepsy in the United States from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2011. Five new agents were identified that have come onto the market within the past 2 years. Moreover, 3 trends involving AEDs have become clinically important and must be considered by all who treat patients with epilepsy. These trends include issues of generic substitution of AEDs, pharmacogenomics predicting serious adverse events in certain ethnic populations, and the issue of the suicide risk involving the entire class of AEDs. This article discusses the most recent AEDs approved for use in the United States and the 3 important trends shaping the modern medical management of epilepsy.

Epilepsy is a common yet heterogeneous disease. As a result, management often requires complex decision making. The ultimate goal of seizure management is for the patient to have no seizures and no considerable adverse effects from the treatment. Antiepileptic drugs are the mainstay of therapy, with more than 20 medications currently approved in the United States. Antiepileptic drug selection requires an understanding of the patient's epilepsy, along with consideration of comorbidities and potential for adverse events. After a patient has failed at least 2 appropriate antiepileptic drugs, they are determined to be medically refractory. At this time, additional therapy, including dietary, device, or surgical treatments, need to be considered, typically at a certified epilepsy center. All these treatments require consideration of the potential for seizure freedom, balanced against potential adverse effects, and can have a positive effect on seizure control and quality of life. This review article discussed the treatment options available for adults with epilepsy, including medical, surgical, dietary, and device therapies.

To assess whether antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) should be prescribed to patients with brain tumors who have no history of seizures. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (1966-2004) that evaluated the efficacy of AED prophylaxis vs no treatment or placebo to prevent seizures in patients with brain tumors who had no history of epilepsy. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Three subanalyses were performed to assess pooled ORs of seizures in patients with primary glial tumors, cerebral metastases, and meningiomas. Of 474 articles found in the initial search, 17 were identified as primary studies. Five trials met inclusion criteria: patients with a neoplasm (primary glial tumors, cerebral metastases, and meningiomas) but no history of epilepsy who were randomized to either an AED or placebo. The 3 AEDs studied were phenobarbital, phenytoin, and valproic acid. Of the 5 trials, 4 showed no statistical benefit of seizure prophylaxis with an AED. Meta-analysis confirmed the lack of AED benefit at 1 week (OR, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-1.83) and at 6 months (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.51-1.98) of follow-up. The AEDs had no effect on seizure prevention for specific tumor pathology, including primary glial tumors (OR, 3.46; 95% CI, 0.32-37.47), cerebral metastases (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 0.25-24.72), and meningiomas (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.10-3.85). No evidence supports AED prophylaxis with phenobarbital, phenytoin, or valproic acid in patients with brain tumors and no history of seizures, regardless of neoplastic type. Subspecialists who treat patients with brain tumors need more education on this issue. Future randomized controlled trials should address whether any of the newer AEDs are useful for seizure prophylaxis.