Valente, Kette

Abstract Objective Dravet syndrome (DS) is a developmental and epileptic encephalopathy. Diagnosis is clinical, but ~90% of patients have pathogenic variants in SCN1A . ATP6V0C has recently been proposed as a novel candidate gene for epilepsy, with or without developmental delay. Here we describe two adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of DS associated with ATP6V0C variants. Methods Patients with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies were evaluated by physicians who are experts in DS, and their clinical diagnosis was correlated with genetic findings. A subgroup of those patients with DS but without known genetic causes were evaluated through gene panels, whole exome sequencing, and chromosome microarray. Phenotype was determined by pediatric and adult chart reviews, interviews, and physical examinations. Results Of 753 patients with DS, two unrelated individuals with classic features of DS during childhood and adulthood were identified with heterozygous de novo missense variants in ATP6V0C (c.319G > C, p.(Gly107Arg) and c.284C > T, p.(Ala95Val), respectively). Both variants were absent in normal populations and computational prediction algorithms suggested deleterious effects on protein structure and/or function. No disease‐causing variants in other genes previously associated with DS were found. Significance Here we describe two adult patients with Dravet‐like syndrome and pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in ATP6V0C . We propose that abnormal ATP6V0C function can, at the severe end of the clinical spectrum, be associated with Dravet‐like phenotype. This is relevant, as these patients would not qualify for disease‐modifying antisense nucleotide or gene therapies targeting SCN1A .

AbstractThe Psychiatric Pediatric Issues Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) aimed to develop recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of anxiety and depression in children and adolescents with epilepsy. The Task Force conducted a systematic review and identified two studies that assessed the accuracy of four screening measures for depression and anxiety symptoms compared with a psychiatric interview. Nine studies met the eligibility criteria for treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders or symptoms. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed. The evidence generated by this review followed by consensus where evidence was missing generated 47 recommendations. Those with a high level of agreement (≥80%) are summarized. Diagnosis: (1) Universal screening for anxiety and depression is recommended. Closer surveillance is recommended for children after 12 years, at higher risk (e.g., suicide‐related behavior), with subthreshold symptoms, and experiencing seizure worsening or therapeutic modifications. (2) Multiple sources of ascertainment and a formal screening are recommended. Clinical interviews are recommended whenever possible. The healthcare provider must always explain that symptom recognition is essential to optimize treatment outcomes and reduce morbidity. (3) Questioning about the relationship between symptoms of anxiety or depression with seizure worsening/control and behavioral adverse effects of antiseizure medications is recommended. Treatment: (1) An individualized treatment plan is recommended. (2) For mild depression, active monitoring must be considered. (3) Referral to a mental health care provider must be considered for moderate to severe depression and anxiety. (4) Clinical care pathways must be developed. (5) Psychosocial interventions must be tailored and age‐appropriate. (6) Healthcare providers must monitor children with epilepsy who are prescribed antidepressants, considering symptoms and functioning that may not improve simultaneously. (7) Caregiver education is essential to ensure treatment adherence. (8) A shared‐care model involving all healthcare providers is recommended for children and adolescents with epilepsy and mental health disorders. We identified clinical decisions in the management of depression and anxiety that lack solid evidence and provide consensus‐based guidance to address the care of children and adolescents with epilepsy.

AbstractLimited guidance exists regarding the assessment and management of psychogenic non‐epileptic seizures (PNES) in children. Our aim was to develop consensus‐based recommendations to fill this gap. The members of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Pediatric Psychiatric Issues conducted a scoping review adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐SR) standards. This was supplemented with a Delphi process sent to pediatric PNES experts. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement. The systematic search identified 77 studies, the majority (55%) of which were retrospective (only one randomized clinical trial). The primary means of PNES identification was video electroencephalography (vEEG) in 84% of studies. Better outcome was associated with access to counseling/psychological intervention. Children with PNES have more frequent psychiatric disorders than controls. The Delphi resulted in 22 recommendations: Assessment—There was consensus on the importance of (1) taking a comprehensive developmental history; (2) obtaining a description of the events; (3) asking about potential stressors; (4) the need to use vEEG if available parent, self, and school reports and video recordings can contribute to a “probable” diagnosis; and (5) that invasive provocation techniques or deceit should not be employed. Management—There was consensus about the (1) need for a professional with expertise in epilepsy to remain involved for a period after PNES diagnosis; (2) provision of appropriate educational materials to the child and caregivers; and (3) that the decision on treatment modality for PNES in children should consider the child's age, cognitive ability, and family factors. Comorbidities—There was consensus that all children with PNES should be screened for mental health and neurodevelopmental difficulties. Recommendations to facilitate the assessment and management of PNES in children were developed. Future directions to fill knowledge gaps were proposed.

SummaryAttention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common and challenging comorbidity affecting many children with epilepsy. A working group under the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Pediatric Commission identified key questions on the identification and management of ADHD in children with epilepsy. Systematic reviews of the evidence to support approaches to these questions were collated and graded using criteria from the American Academy of Neurology Practice Parameter. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) requirements were followed, with PROSPERO registration (CRD42018094617). No increased risk of ADHD in boys with epilepsy compared to girls with epilepsy was found (Level A). Valproate use in pregnancy is associated with inattentiveness and hyperactivity in offspring (1 class I study), and children with intellectual and developmental disabilities are at increased risk of ADHD (Level A). Impact of early seizure onset on development of ADHD was unclear (Level U), but more evident with poor seizure control (Level B). ADHD screening should be performed from 6 years of age, or at diagnosis, and repeated annually (Level U) and reevaluated after change of antiepileptic drug (AED) (Level U). Diagnosis should involve health practitioners with expert training in ADHD (Level U). Use of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire screening tool is supported (Level B). Formal cognitive testing is strongly recommended in children with epilepsy who are struggling at school (Level U). Behavioral problems are more likely with polytherapy than monotherapy (Level C). Valproate can exacerbate attentional issues in children with childhood absence epilepsy (Level A). Methylphenidate is tolerated and effective in children with epilepsy (Level B). Limited evidence supports that atomoxetine is tolerated (Level C). Multidisciplinary involvement in transition and adult ADHD clinics is essential (Level U). In conclusion, although recommendations could be proposed for some of the study questions, this systematic review highlighted the need for more comprehensive and targeted large‐population prospective studies.