Friedman, Daniel

Abstract Objective To measure the relative levels of signal and noise in expert diagnosis of epilepsy. Methods Twenty multinational epileptologists independently reviewed 50 vignettes of adult and pediatric patients presenting with suspected seizure(s) on two separate occasions with a ≥30‐day washout period. Experts provided a diagnosis of epilepsy or non‐epilepsy based on clinical information and, if requested, routine EEG and neuroimaging data. Cases had an established clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or non‐epilepsy based on capture of habitual paroxysmal events on video‐EEG or long‐term clinical follow‐up. Experts' judgments were analyzed to decompose variability into different sources: signal (objective differences between cases), level noise (experts' bias toward over/under‐diagnosis), pattern noise (experts' idiosyncratic reactions to specific case features), and occasion noise (inconsistency across occasions). Results The probability of an expert making a different diagnosis for a given case on two different occasions was 16%. The probability of two different experts making a different diagnosis for the same case was 26%. Signal (case “difficulty”) accounted for 66–69% of total variation, with 31–34% attributable to noise. Level noise was the largest contributor in the absence of EEG/neuroimaging results (23%), while pattern noise dominated when test results were available (24%). Occasion noise contributed relatively little (1%) but was still sufficient to cause diagnostic reversals in 16–22% between occasions. Significance The degree of noise in expert diagnosis of epilepsy is substantial, stemming primarily from physicians' idiosyncratic interpretations of case features and variable dispositions toward over‐ or under‐diagnosis. Strategies to improve reliability are needed, including standardized data collection protocols and structured decision algorithms. For “difficult cases,” where expert reliability and accuracy are lowest, our findings support current clinical practice which favors early referral for video‐EEG monitoring over reliance on diagnostic anchoring. This diagnostic pathway may become more accessible with advances in EEG technology (e.g., wearable devices) and artificial intelligence.

AbstractRacial disparities affect multiple dimensions of epilepsy care including epilepsy surgery. This study aims to further explore these disparities by determining the utilization of invasive neuromodulation devices according to race and ethnicity in a multicenter study of patients living with focal drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). We performed a post hoc analysis of the Human Epilepsy Project 2 (HEP2) data. HEP2 is a prospective study of patients living with focal DRE involving 10 sites distributed across the United States. There were no statistical differences in the racial distribution of the study population compared to the US population using census data except for patients reporting more than one race. Of 154 patients enrolled in HEP2, 55 (36%) underwent invasive neuromodulation for DRE management at some point in the course of their epilepsy. Of those, 36 (71%) were patients who identified as White. Patients were significantly less likely to have a device if they identified solely as Black/African American than if they did not (odds ratio = .21, 95% confidence interval = .05–.96, p = .03). Invasive neuromodulation for management of DRE is underutilized in the Black/African American population, indicating a new facet of racial disparities in epilepsy care.

AbstractCorrectly diagnosing and classifying seizures and epilepsies is paramount to ensure the delivery of optimal care to patients with epilepsy. Focal seizures, defined as those that originate within networks limited to one hemisphere, are primarily subdivided into focal aware, focal impaired awareness, and focal to bilateral tonic–clonic seizures. Focal epilepsies account for most epilepsy cases both in children and adults. In children, focal epilepsies are typically subdivided in three groups: self‐limited focal epilepsy syndromes (e.g., self‐limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes), focal epilepsy of unknown cause but which do not meet criteria for a self‐limited focal epilepsy syndrome, and focal epilepsy of known cause (e.g., structural lesions—developmental or acquired). In adults, focal epilepsies are often acquired and may be caused by a structural lesion such as stroke, infection and traumatic brain injury, or brain tumors, vascular malformations, metabolic disorders, autoimmune, and/or genetic causes. In addition to seizure semiology, neuroimaging, neurophysiology, and neuropathology constitute the cornerstones of a diagnostic evaluation. Patients with focal epilepsy who become drug‐resistant should promptly undergo assessment in an epilepsy center. After excluding pseudo‐resistance, these patients should be considered for presurgical evaluation as a means to identify the location and extent of the epileptogenic zone and assess their candidacy for a surgical procedure. The goal of this seminar in epileptology is to summarize clinically relevant information concerning focal epilepsies. This contributes to the ILAE's mission to ensure that worldwide healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers continue to have access to high‐quality educational resources concerning epilepsy.

Summary Objective Limited data are available regarding the evolution over time of the rate of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy patients (SUDEP) in drug‐resistant epilepsy. The objective is to analyze a database of 40 443 patients with epilepsy implanted with vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy in the United States (from 1988 to 2012) and assess whether SUDEP rates decrease during the postimplantation follow‐up period. Methods Patient vital status was ascertained using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Death Index (NDI). An expert panel adjudicated classification of cause of deaths as SUDEP based on NDI data and available narrative descriptions of deaths. We tested the hypothesis that SUDEP rates decrease with time using the Mann‐Kendall nonparametric trend test and by comparing SUDEP rates of the first 2 years of follow‐up (years 1‐2) to longer follow‐up (years 3‐10). Results Our cohort included 277 661 person‐years of follow‐up and 3689 deaths, including 632 SUDEP. Primary analysis demonstrated a significant decrease in age‐adjusted SUDEP rate during follow‐up ( S = −27 P = .008), with rates of 2.47/1000 for years 1‐2 and 1.68/1000 for years 3‐10 (rate ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53‐0.87; P = .002). Sensitivity analyses confirm these findings. Significance Our data suggest that SUDEP risk significantly decreases during long‐term follow‐up of patients with refractory epilepsy receiving VNS Therapy. This finding might reflect several factors, including the natural long‐term dynamic of SUDEP rate, attrition, and the impact of VNS Therapy. The role of each of these factors cannot be confirmed due to the limitations of the study.

Transcranial electric stimulation aims to stimulate the brain by applying weak electrical currents at the scalp. However, the magnitude and spatial distribution of electric fields in the human brain are unknown. We measured electric potentials intracranially in ten epilepsy patients and estimated electric fields across the entire brain by leveraging calibrated current-flow models. When stimulating at 2 mA, cortical electric fields reach 0.8 V/m, the lower limit of effectiveness in animal studies. When individual whole-head anatomy is considered, the predicted electric field magnitudes correlate with the recorded values in cortical (r = 0.86) and depth (r = 0.88) electrodes. Accurate models require adjustment of tissue conductivity values reported in the literature, but accuracy is not improved when incorporating white matter anisotropy or different skull compartments. This is the first study to validate and calibrate current-flow models with in vivo intracranial recordings in humans, providing a solid foundation to target stimulation and interpret clinical trials.

Summary Objective Epilepsy surgery is the most effective treatment for select patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy. In this article, we aim to provide an accurate understanding of the current epidemiologic characteristics of this intervention, as this knowledge is critical for guiding educational, academic, and resource priorities. Methods We profile the practice of epilepsy surgery between 1991 and 2011 in nine major epilepsy surgery centers in the United States, Germany, and Australia. Clinical, imaging, surgical, and histopathologic data were derived from the surgical databases at various centers. Results Although five of the centers performed their highest number of surgeries for mesial temporal sclerosis ( MTS ) in 1991, and three had their highest number of MTS surgeries in 2001, only one center achieved its peak number of MTS surgeries in 2011. The most productive year for MTS surgeries varied then by center; overall, the nine centers surveyed performed 48% (95% confidence interval [CI] −27.3% to −67.4%) fewer such surgeries in 2011 compared to either 1991 or 2001, whichever was higher. There was a parallel increase in the performance of surgery for nonlesional epilepsy. Further analysis of 5/9 centers showed a yearly increase of 0.6 ± 0.07% in the performance of invasive electroencephalography ( EEG ) without subsequent resections. Overall, although MTS was the main surgical substrate in 1991 and 2001 (proportion of total surgeries in study centers ranging from 33.3% to 70.2%); it occupied only 33.6% of all resections in 2011 in the context of an overall stable total surgical volume. Significance These findings highlight the major aspects of the evolution of epilepsy surgery across the past two decades in a sample of well‐established epilepsy surgery centers, and the critical current challenges of this treatment option in addressing complex epilepsy cases requiring detailed evaluations. Possible causes and implications of these findings are discussed.