Summary Purpose To review the efficacy and tolerability of stiripentol in the treatment of U . S . children with D ravet syndrome. Methods U . S . clinicians who had prescribed stiripentol for two or more children with D ravet syndrome between March 2005 and 2012 were contacted to request participation in this retrospective study. Data collected included overall seizure frequency, frequency of prolonged seizures, and use of rescue medications and emergency room ( ER )/hospital visits in the year preceding stiripentol initiation, and with stiripentol therapy. We separately assessed efficacy in the following treatment groups: g roup A , stiripentol without clobazam or valproate; g roup B , stiripentol with clobazam but without valproate; g roup C , stiripentol with valproate but without clobazam; and g roup D , stiripentol with clobazam and valproate. In addition, adverse effects were recorded. Key Findings Thirteen of 16 clinicians contacted for study participated and provided data on 82 children. Stiripentol was initiated a median of 6.0 years after seizure onset and 1.2 years after diagnosis of D ravet syndrome. Compared to baseline, overall seizure frequency was reduced in 2/6 in g roup A , 28/35 in g roup B , 8/14 in g roup C , and 30/48 in g roup D . All children with prolonged seizure frequency greater than quarterly during the baseline period experienced a reduction in this frequency on the various treatment arms with stiripentol. Similarly, 2/4 patients in g roup A , 25/25 in g roup B , 5/10 in g roup C , and 26/33 in g roup D experienced reduction in frequency of rescue medication use and 1/1 in g roup A , 12/12 in g roup B , 3/5 in g roup C , and 18/19 in group D had reduction in frequency of ER /hospital visits. Adverse effects were reported in 38, most commonly sedation and reduced appetite. Four patients (5%) discontinued stiripentol for adverse effects and two (2%) for lack of efficacy. Significance Stiripentol is an effective and well‐tolerated therapy that markedly reduced frequency of prolonged seizures in D ravet syndrome.
Feasibility and Clinical Utility of Early Electroencephalogram (EEG) in Children With First Seizure
The feasibility and clinical utility of early electroencephalogram (within 48 hours) was studied in 127 children (age, 1 month-17 years) referred for a “first seizure.” The electroencephalogram was considered late after 48 hours. Electroencephalogram abnormalities were classified as nonepileptiform or epileptiform. Children were classified as having an “epileptic” or “nonepileptic” event. An early electroencephalogram was obtained in 23 (18%). Late referral (n = 36), weekend event (n = 23), difficulty contacting families (n = 11), parental schedules (n = 9), and laboratory scheduling (n = 11) resulted in late electroencephalograms. All 94 children with an epileptic event had an electroencephalogram, 19 (20%) within 48 hours. Results were abnormal in 9 (47%) early (7 epileptiform, 2 nonepileptiform) and 35 (44%) late (30 epileptiform, 5 nonepileptiform). Increased abnormalities were not seen with early electroencephalography ( P = .50). Early electroencephalograms may not be feasible in the pediatric population and did not show a higher yield of abnormalities.
Ambulatory Electroencephalography (EEG) in Children: Diagnostic Yield and Tolerability
Sixty-four children, aged 0-17 years, undergoing ambulatory electroencephalography (EEG) were prospectively recruited during a 12-month period. The diagnostic yield of ambulatory electroencephalography was determined for each of the following groups: group 1: differentiation of seizures from nonepileptic events; group 2: determination of seizure/interictal discharge frequency; and group 3: classification of seizure type or localization. The ambulatory electroencephalography answered the clinical question in 61% of group 1 (27/44) and 100% of groups 2 (16/16) and 3 (4/4). Of 44 cases in Group 1, clinical events were recorded in 61%; the ambulatory electroencephalography result changed the diagnosis from epileptic to nonepileptic or vice versa in 27%. When clinicians suspected that events were epileptic, ambulatory electroencephalography changed the clinical impression in 50%, whereas when events were suspected to be nonepileptic, ambulatory electroencephalography confirmed that impression in 83%.