Sullivan, Joseph

Abstract Objective This study was undertaken to gain consensus from experienced physicians and caregivers regarding optimal diagnosis and management of Dravet syndrome (DS), in the context of recently approved, DS‐specific therapies and emerging disease‐modifying treatments. Methods A core working group was convened consisting of six physicians with recognized expertise in DS and two representatives of the Dravet Syndrome Foundation. This core group summarized the current literature (focused on clinical presentation, comorbidities, maintenance and rescue therapies, and evolving disease‐modifying therapies) and nominated the 31‐member expert panel (ensuring international representation), which participated in two rounds of a Delphi process to gain consensus on diagnosis and management of DS. Results There was strong consensus that infants 2–15 months old, presenting with either a first prolonged hemiclonic seizure or first convulsive status epilepticus with fever or following vaccination, in the absence of another cause, should undergo genetic testing for DS. Panelists agreed on evolution of specific comorbidities with time, but less agreement was achieved on optimal management. There was also agreement on appropriate first‐ to third‐line maintenance therapies, which included the newly approved agents. Whereas there was agreement for recommendation of disease‐modifying therapies, if they are proven safe and efficacious for seizures and/or reduction of comorbidities, there was less consensus for when these should be started, with caregivers being more conservative than physicians. Significance This International DS Consensus, informed by both experienced global caregiver and physician voices, provides a strong overview of the impact of DS, therapeutic goals and optimal management strategies incorporating the recent therapeutic advances in DS, and evolving disease‐modifying therapies.

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.

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.

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

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.