Coryell, Jason

Abstract Objective Despite being safe and effective, surgery for pediatric epilepsy is underutilized. Social determinants of health (SDoH) are important to consider when examining this treatment gap. This study examined the potential systemic inequities at three different stages in the journey toward epilepsy surgery across the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium (PERC). Methods Any youth in the PERC prospective surgery database (≤18 years) was eligible and included if sociodemographic factors were also available. We examined if there were differences in disparity factors in: (1) referral to Phase I evaluation, (2) offering of surgery, and (3) completion of surgery. Results Of 1309 patients, the majority were male (53%, p = .04), White (82.2%, p < .001), not Hispanic or Latino (84.3%, p < .001), and privately insured (56.3%, p < .001). Of the youth who were offered surgical treatment ( n = 1103, 84.3%), there were no significant differences in race/ethnicity or sex. Those with a structural lesion were more likely to be offered surgery, and historically marginalized youth were more likely to have a lesion. Of patients who completed surgery ( n = 927, 84.0%), White patients were 1.88 times (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14–3.04) more likely than Black patients to complete surgery ( p = .01). Significance Youth who began surgery evaluation are not representative of the demographics of those with epilepsy in the United States, with greater representation of White, non‐Hispanic male individuals. In addition, youth who began surgery evaluation disproportionally have private insurance. At the next stage of offering surgery, there were no differences based on SDoH. However, there is evidence that underrepresented youth that were magnetic resonance negative were less likely to be referred for surgical workup and that Black youth were less likely to undergo surgery. Therefore, efforts to provide equitable opportunity for all youth with refractory epilepsy should be concentrated at the referral for surgery evaluation point of care; however, additional efforts are also needed at later stages.

Abstract Objective This study was undertaken to evaluate the response to second treatments for infantile epileptic spasms syndrome (IESS). Methods Infants aged 2–24 months with IESS were prospectively enrolled in the National Infantile Spasms Cohort study at 21 pediatric epilepsy centers in the United States from 2012 to 2018. We analyzed data from infants who initially received standard treatment (hormonal therapy [adrenocorticotropic hormone, high‐dose prednisolone] or vigabatrin), had continued or recurring epileptic spasms, and received a second treatment. We excluded those with tuberous sclerosis. Treatment groups included hormonal therapy followed by vigabatrin (reference), hormonal‐to‐hormonal, hormonal‐to‐nonstandard, vigabatrin‐to‐hormonal, and vigabatrin‐to‐nonstandard. Nonstandard treatments included other antiseizure medications and dietary therapy. Treatment groups were tested for differences in 3‐month clinical remission using a binary logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs). Results There were 153 infants with IESS who received second treatments. The highest rates of 3‐month remission were among infants in the hormonal‐to‐vigabatrin (22/65, 34%) and vigabatrin‐to‐hormonal (9/26, 35%) groups, followed by vigabatrin‐to‐nonstandard (3/10, 30%), hormonal‐to‐hormonal (4/22, 18%), and hormonal‐to‐nonstandard (1/30, 3.3%). Compared to the hormonal‐to‐vigabatrin group (reference), fewer infants had remission in the hormonal‐to‐nonstandard group (OR = .07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .01–.53), and there was a trend toward fewer infants in the hormonal‐to‐hormonal group (OR = .43, 95% CI = .13–1.4, p = .17). Following initial hormonal treatment, the number needed to treat was three infants for one additional infant to have remission when treated with vigabatrin compared to nonstandard therapy as the second treatment. Significance This updated analysis with an expanded sample size provided power for additional subgroup analysis. Overall response rates were low, and at best only one third had remission after second treatment. Results support a clinical strategy of switching mechanism of action when selecting a second medication for epileptic spasms (i.e., use vigabatrin after hormonal therapy, or hormonal therapy after vigabatrin). Our findings also support the use of standard over nonstandard therapies.

AbstractObjectivesCorpus callosotomy (CC) is used to reduce seizures, primarily in patients with generalized drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). The invasive nature of the procedure contributes to underutilization despite its potential superiority to other palliative procedures. The goal of this study was to use a multi‐institutional epilepsy surgery database to characterize the use of CC across participating centers.MethodsData were acquired from the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium (PERC) Surgery Database, a prospective observational study collecting data on children 0–18 years referred for surgical evaluation of DRE across 22 U.S. pediatric epilepsy centers. Patient, epilepsy, and surgical characteristics were collected across multiple CC modalities. Outcomes and complications were recorded and analyzed statistically.ResultsEighty‐three patients undergoing 85 CC procedures at 14 participating epilepsy centers met inclusion criteria. Mean age at seizure onset was 2.3 years (0–9.4); mean age for Phase I evaluation and surgical intervention were 9.45 (.1–20) and 10.46 (.2–20.6) years, respectively. Generalized seizure types were the most common (59%). Complete CC was performed in 88%. The majority of CC procedures (57%) were via open craniotomy, followed by laser interstitial thermal therapy (LiTT) (20%) and mini‐craniotomy/endoscopic (mc/e) (22%). Mean operative times were significantly longer for LiTT, whereas mean estimated blood loss was greater in open cases. Complications occurred in 11 cases (13%) and differed significantly between surgical techniques (p < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in length of postoperative stay across approaches. Mean follow‐up was 12.8 months (range 1–39). Favorable Engel outcomes were experienced by 37 (78.7%) of the patients who underwent craniotomy, 10 (58.8%) with LiTT, and 12 (63.2%) with mc/e; these differences were not statistically significant.SignificanceCC is an effective surgical modality for children with DRE. Regardless of surgical modality, complication rates are acceptable and seizure outcomes generally favorable. Newer, less‐invasive, surgical approaches may lead to increased adoption of this efficacious therapeutic option for pediatric DRE.

Objective: In a randomized trial, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of cosyntropin injectable suspension, 1 mg/mL, compared to vigabatrin for infantile spasms syndrome. An additional arm was included to assess the efficacy of combination therapy (cosyntropin and vigabatrin) compared with cosyntropin monotherapy. Methods: Children (2 months to 2 years) with new-onset infantile spasms syndrome and hypsarhythmia were randomized into 3 arms: cosyntropin, vigabatrin, and cosyntropin and vigabatrin combined. Daily seizures and adverse events were recorded, and EEG was repeated at day 14 to assess for resolution of hypsarhythmia. The primary outcome measure was the composite of resolution of hypsarhythmia and absence of clinical spasms at day 14. Fisher exact test was used to compare outcomes. Results: 37 children were enrolled and 34 were included in the final efficacy analysis (1 withdrew prior to treatment and 2 did not return seizure diaries). Resolution of both hypsarhythmia and clinical spasms was achieved in in 9 of 12 participants (75%) treated with cosyntropin, 1/9 (11%) vigabatrin, and 5/13 (38%) cosyntropin and vigabatrin combined. The primary comparison of cosyntropin versus vigabatrin was significant (64% [95% confidence interval 21, 82], P < .01). Adverse events were reported in all 3 treatment arms: 31 (86%) had an adverse event, 7 (19%) had a serious adverse event, and 15 (42%) had an adverse event of special interest with no difference between treatment arms. Significance: This randomized trial was underpowered because of incomplete enrollment, yet it demonstrated that cosyntropin was more effective for short-term outcomes than vigabatrin as initial treatment for infantile spasms.

AbstractObjectiveDrug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE) occurs at higher rates in children <3 years old. Epilepsy surgery is effective, but rarely utilized in young children despite developmental benefits of early seizure freedom. The present study aims to identify unique patient characteristics and evaluation strategies in children <3 years old who undergo epilepsy surgery evaluation as a means to assess contributors and potential solutions to health care disparities in this group.MethodsThe Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium Epilepsy Surgery Database, a multicentered, cross‐sectional collaboration of 21 US pediatric epilepsy centers, collects prospective data on children <18 years of age referred for epilepsy surgery evaluation. We compared patient characteristics, diagnostic utilization, and surgical treatment between children <3 years old and those older undergoing initial presurgical evaluation. We evaluated patient characteristics leading to delayed referral (>1 year) after DRE diagnosis in the very young.ResultsThe cohort included 437 children, of whom 71 (16%) were <3 years of age at referral. Children evaluated before the age of 3 years more commonly had abnormal neurological examinations (p = .002) and daily seizures (p = .001). At least one ancillary test was used in 44% of evaluations. Fifty‐nine percent were seizure‐free following surgery (n = 34), with 35% undergoing limited focal resections. Children with delayed referrals more often had focal aware (p < .001) seizures and recommendation for palliative surgeries (p < .001).SignificanceThere are relatively few studies of epilepsy surgery in the very young. Surgery is effective, but may be disproportionally offered to those with severe presentations. Relatively low utilization of ancillary testing may contribute to reduced surgical therapy for those without evident lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Despite this, a sizeable portion of patients have favorable outcome after focal epilepsy surgery resections.

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 (&lt;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.