Knupp, Kelly G.

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.

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.

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.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on global access to care and practice patterns for children with epilepsy. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, online survey of pediatric neurologists across the world affiliated with the International Child Neurology Association, the Chinese Child Neurology Society, the Child Neurology Society, and the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium. Results were analyzed in relation to regional burden of COVID-19 disease. Results: From April 10 to 24, 2020, a sample of 212 respondents from 49 countries indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically changed many aspects of pediatric epilepsy care, with 91.5% reporting changes to outpatient care, 90.6% with reduced access to electroencephalography (EEG), 37.4% with altered management of infantile spasms, 92.3% with restrictions in ketogenic diet initiation, 93.4% with closed or severely limited epilepsy monitoring units, and 91.3% with canceled or limited epilepsy surgery. Telehealth use had increased, with 24.7% seeing patients exclusively via telehealth. Changes in practice were related both to COVID-19 burden and location. Conclusions: In response to COVID-19, pediatric epilepsy programs have implemented crisis standards of care that include increased telemedicine, decreased EEG use, changes in treatments of infantile spasms, and cessation of epilepsy surgery. The long-term impact of these abrupt changes merit careful study.

Circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic have mandated a change to standard management of infantile spasms. On April 6, 2020, the Child Neurology Society issued an online statement of immediate recommendations to streamline diagnosis and treatment of infantile spasms with utilization of telemedicine, outpatient studies, and selection of first-line oral therapies as initial treatment. The rationale for the recommendations and specific guidance including follow-up assessment are provided in this manuscript. These recommendations are indicated as enduring if intended to outlast the pandemic, and limited if intended only for the pandemic health care crisis but may be applicable to future disruptions of health care delivery.