Berg, Anne T

Coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) has infected over 400 million people worldwide. Although COVID-19 causes predominantly respiratory symptoms, it can affect other organs including the brain, producing neurological symptoms. People with epilepsy (PWE) have been particularly impacted during the pandemic with decreased access to care, increased stress, and worsening seizures in up to 22% of them probably due to multiple factors. COVID-19 vaccines were produced in a record short time and have yielded outstanding protection with very rare serious side effects. Studies have found that COVID-19 vaccination does not increase seizures in the majority of PWE. COVID-19 does not produce a pathognomonic EEG or seizure phenotype, but rather 1 that can be seen in other types of encephalopathy. COVID-19 infection and its complications can lead to seizures, status epilepticus and post-COVID inflammatory syndrome with potential multi-organ damage in people without pre-existing epilepsy. The lack of access to care during the pandemic has forced patients and doctors to rapidly implement telemedicine. The use of phone videos and smart telemedicine are helping to treat patients during this pandemic and are becoming standard of care. Investment in infrastructure is important to make sure patients can have access to care even during a pandemic.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine whether selection of treatment for children with infantile spasms (IS) varies by race/ethnicity.MethodsThe prospective US National Infantile Spasms Consortium database includes children with IS treated from 2012 to 2018. We examined the relationship between race/ethnicity and receipt of standard IS therapy (prednisolone, adrenocorticotropic hormone, vigabatrin), adjusting for demographic and clinical variables using logistic regression. Our primary outcome was treatment course, which considered therapy prescribed for the first and, when needed, the second IS treatment together.ResultsOf 555 children, 324 (58%) were non‐Hispanic white, 55 (10%) non‐Hispanic Black, 24 (4%) non‐Hispanic Asian, 80 (14%) Hispanic, and 72 (13%) other/unknown. Most (398, 72%) received a standard treatment course. Insurance type, geographic location, history of prematurity, prior seizures, developmental delay or regression, abnormal head circumference, hypsarrhythmia, and IS etiologies were associated with standard therapy. In adjusted models, non‐Hispanic Black children had lower odds of receiving a standard treatment course compared with non‐Hispanic white children (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20–0.89; p = 0.02). Adjusted models also showed that children with public (vs. private) insurance had lower odds of receiving standard therapy for treatment 1 (OR, 0.42; CI, 0.21–0.84; p = 0.01).InterpretationNon‐Hispanic Black children were more often treated with non‐standard IS therapies than non‐Hispanic white children. Likewise, children with public (vs. private) insurance were less likely to receive standard therapies. Investigating drivers of inequities, and understanding the impact of racism on treatment decisions, are critical next steps to improve care for patients with IS. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:32–44

AbstractObjectiveVaccination against the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus is a primary tool to combat the COVID‐19 pandemic. However, vaccination is a common seizure trigger in individuals with Dravet syndrome (DS). Information surrounding COVID‐19 vaccine side effects in patients with DS would aid caregivers and providers in decisions for and management of COVID‐19 vaccination.MethodsA survey was emailed to the Dravet Syndrome Foundation's Family Network and posted to the Dravet Parent & Caregiver Support Group on Facebook between May and August 2021. Deidentified information obtained included demographics and vaccination status for individuals with DS. Vaccine type, side effects, preventative measures, and changes in seizure activity following COVID‐19 vaccination were recorded. For unvaccinated individuals, caregivers were asked about intent to vaccinate and reasons for their decision.ResultsOf 278 survey responses, 120 represented vaccinated individuals with DS (median age = 19.5 years), with 50% reporting no side effects from COVID‐19 vaccination. Increased seizures following COVID‐19 vaccination were reported in 16 individuals, but none had status epilepticus. Of the 158 individuals who had not received a COVID‐19 vaccination, 37 were older than 12 years (i.e., eligible at time of study), and only six of these caregivers indicated intent to seek vaccination. The remaining 121 responses were caregivers to children younger than 12 years, 60 of whom indicated they would not seek COVID‐19 vaccination when their child with DS became eligible. Reasons for vaccine hesitancy were fear of increased seizure activity and concerns about vaccine safety.SignificanceThese results indicate COVID‐19 vaccination is well tolerated by individuals with DS. One main reason for vaccine hesitancy was fear of increased seizure activity, which occurred in only 13% of vaccinated individuals, and none had status epilepticus. This study provides critical and reassuring insights for caregivers and health care providers making decisions about the safety of COVID‐19 vaccinations for individuals with DS.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the adherence to neuroimaging guidelines and the diagnostically relevant yield of neuroimaging in newly presenting early life epilepsy (ELE). METHODS: There were 775 children with a new diagnosis of epilepsy (<3 years old at onset) who were recruited through the ELE study at 17 US pediatric epilepsy centers (2012–2015) and managed prospectively for 1 year. The data were analyzed to assess the proportion of children who underwent neuroimaging, the type of neuroimaging, and abnormalities. RESULTS: Of 725 children (93.5%) with neuroimaging, 714 had an MRI (87% with seizure protocols) and 11 had computed tomography or ultrasound only. Etiologically relevant abnormalities were present in 290 individuals (40%) and included: an acquired injury in 97 (13.4%), malformations of cortical development in 56 (7.7%), and other diffuse disorders of brain development in 51 (7.0%). Neuroimaging was abnormal in 160 of 262 (61%) children with abnormal development at diagnosis versus 113 of 463 (24%) children with typical development. Neuroimaging abnormalities were most common in association with focal seizure semiology (40%), spasms (47%), or unclear semiology (42%). In children without spasms or focal semiology with typical development, 29 of 185 (16%) had imaging abnormalities. Pathogenic genetic variants were identified in 53 of 121 (44%) children with abnormal neuroimaging in whom genetic testing was performed. CONCLUSIONS: Structural abnormalities occur commonly in ELE, and adherence to neuroimaging guidelines is high at US pediatric epilepsy centers. These data support the universal adoption of imaging guidelines because the yield is substantially high, even in the lowest risk group.

Summary Objective Infantile spasms ( IS ) represent a severe epileptic encephalopathy presenting in the first 2 years of life. Recommended first‐line therapies (hormonal therapy or vigabatrin) often fail. We evaluated response to second treatment for IS in children in whom the initial therapy failed to produce both clinical remission and electrographic resolution of hypsarhythmia and whether time to treatment was related to outcome. Methods The National Infantile Spasms Consortium established a multicenter, prospective database enrolling infants with new diagnosis of IS. Children were considered nonresponders to first treatment if there was no clinical remission or persistence of hypsarhythmia. Treatment was evaluated as hormonal therapy (adrenocorticotropic hormone [ ACTH ] or oral corticosteroids), vigabatrin, or “other.” Standard treatments (hormonal and vigabatrin) were compared to all other nonstandard treatments. We compared response rates using chi‐square tests and multivariable logistic regression models. Results One hundred eighteen infants were included from 19 centers. Overall response rate to a second treatment was 37% (n = 44). Children who received standard medications with differing mechanisms for first and second treatment had higher response rates than other sequences (27/49 [55%] vs. 17/69 [25%], p < 0.001). Children receiving first treatment within 4 weeks of IS onset had a higher response rate to second treatment than those initially treated later (36/82 [44%] vs. 8/34 [24%], p = 0.040). Significance Greater than one third of children with IS will respond to a second medication. Choosing a standard medication ( ACTH , oral corticosteroids, or vigabatrin) that has a different mechanism of action appears to be more effective. Rapid initial treatment increases the likelihood of response to the second treatment.

ObjectiveInfantile spasms are seizures associated with a severe epileptic encephalopathy presenting in the first 2 years of life, and optimal treatment continues to be debated. This study evaluates early and sustained response to initial treatments and addresses both clinical remission and electrographic resolution of hypsarrhythmia. Secondarily, it assesses whether response to treatment differs by etiology or developmental status.MethodsThe National Infantile Spasms Consortium established a multicenter, prospective database enrolling infants with new diagnosis of infantile spasms. Children were considered responders if there was clinical remission and resolution of hypsarrhythmia that was sustained at 3 months after first treatment initiation. Standard treatments of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), oral corticosteroids, and vigabatrin were considered individually, and all other nonstandard therapies were analyzed collectively. Developmental status and etiology were assessed. We compared response rates by treatment group using chi‐square tests and multivariate logistic regression models.ResultsTwo hundred thirty infants were enrolled from 22 centers. Overall, 46% of children receiving standard therapy responded, compared to only 9% who responded to nonstandard therapy (p < 0.001). Fifty‐five percent of infants receiving ACTH as initial treatment responded, compared to 39% for oral corticosteroids, 36% for vigabatrin, and 9% for other (p < 0.001). Neither etiology nor development significantly modified the response pattern by treatment group.InterpretationResponse rate varies by treatment choice. Standard therapies should be considered as initial treatment for infantile spasms, including those with impaired development or known structural or genetic/metabolic etiology. ACTH appeared to be more effective than other standard therapies. ANN NEUROL 2016;79:475–484