Millichap, J Gordon

With more than 6000 attendees between in-person and virtual offerings, the American Epilepsy Society Meeting 2022 in Nashville, felt as busy as in prepandemic times. An ever-growing number of physicians, scientists, and allied health professionals gathered to learn a variety of topics about epilepsy. The program was carefully tailored to meet the needs of professionals with different interests and career stages. This article summarizes the different symposia presented at the meeting. Basic science lectures addressed the primary elements of seizure generation and pathophysiology of epilepsy in different disease states. Scientists congregated to learn about anti-seizure medications, mechanisms of action, and new tools to treat epilepsy including surgery and neurostimulation. Some symposia were also dedicated to discuss epilepsy comorbidities and practical issues regarding epilepsy care. An increasing number of patient advocates discussing their stories were intertwined within scientific activities. Many smaller group sessions targeted more specific topics to encourage member participation, including Special Interest Groups, Investigator, and Skills Workshops. Special lectures included the renown Hoyer and Lombroso, an ILAE/IBE joint session, a spotlight on the impact of Dobbs v. Jackson on reproductive health in epilepsy, and a joint session with the NAEC on coding and reimbursement policies. The hot topics symposium was focused on traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic epilepsy. A balanced collaboration with the industry allowed presentations of the latest pharmaceutical and engineering advances in satellite symposia.

AbstractThis study assessed the effectiveness of genetic testing in shortening the time to diagnosis of late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2) disease. Individuals who received epilepsy gene panel testing through Behind the Seizure®, a sponsored genetic testing program (Cohort A), were compared to children outside of the sponsored testing program during the same period (Cohort B). Two cohorts were analyzed: children aged ≥24 to ≤60 months with unprovoked seizure onset at ≥24 months between December 2016 and January 2020 (Cohort 1) and children aged 0 to ≤60 months at time of testing with unprovoked seizure onset at any age between February 2019 and January 2020 (Cohort 2). The diagnostic yield in Cohort 1A (n = 1814) was 8.4% (n = 153). The TPP1 diagnostic yield within Cohort 1A was 2.9‐fold higher compared to Cohort 1B (1.0%, n = 18/1814 vs. .35%, n = 8/2303; p = .0157). The average time from first symptom to CLN2 disease diagnosis was significantly shorter than previously reported (9.8 vs. 22.7 months, p < .001). These findings indicate that facilitated access to early epilepsy gene panel testing helps to increase diagnostic yield for CLN2 disease and shortens the time to diagnosis, enabling earlier intervention.

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.

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