Gilmore, Emily J.

Abstract Objective Ceribell Inc.'s point‐of‐care electroencephalographic (EEG) system and artificial intelligence‐based Automated Seizure Burden Estimator (ASBE; ClarityPro) have US Food and Drug Administration clearance for diagnosing electrographic status epilepticus (ESE). The AccuRASE study using ASBE version 6 (V6) showed high negative predictive value (NPV) but limited sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) at certain thresholds. Version 8 (V8) is the updated algorithm trained with additional EEG samples. Methods We tested V8 on the previously used rapid‐response EEG test dataset (not used to train V8). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were compared against blinded expert annotations. ESE, ESE and possible ESE (ESE/pESE), electrographic seizures (ESz), and Esz with highly epileptiform patterns (Esz/HEPs) at burden thresholds of >1%, >10%, >20%, >50%, and >90% were analyzed. Additionally, we evaluated the built‐in ESE and ESE/pESE alerts (≥90% over 5 min, ≥20% over 1 h, or ≥10 continuous minutes of seizure). Results V8 showed 100% sensitivity at lower thresholds (>10%–20%) for ESE (V6 .86), without a specificity loss (V8 .9 vs. V6 .85), and retained NPV (V8 1.0 vs. V6 .99). Sensitivity at 50% threshold was .86 for ESE (V6 .71), and specificity was .94 (V6 .91); PPV for ESE was 30% for ESE and 80% for ESE/pESE. The specificity for ESE remained high for 90% burden (V8 .96, V6 .97) but the sensitivity dropped (.29 vs. V6 .43). Sensitivity was lower for ESz/HEPs (.54 → .44 at >10% threshold), although the algorithm is not designed to detect HEPs. Built‐in alert analysis showed significantly improved sensitivity for ESE (.57 → .86); specificity and NPV remained high (>.94). Significance ASBE V8 showed meaningful improvements in sensitivity, continued excellent NPV, and improved built‐in alert accuracy for ESE and ESE/pESE. The best seizure burden threshold for ruling out ESE now is 20% (vs. 10% with V6) and that for ruling in ESE/pESE with reasonable certainty is 50% (vs. 90% with V6).

Importance The APOE ε4 variant is causally linked to cerebral amyloid angiopathy and is a risk factor for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) among warfarin-treated patients with atrial fibrillation. Nevertheless, its impact on those treated with apixaban remains unknown. Objective To test the hypothesis that APOE ε4 allele carriership is associated with an increased risk of ICH in patients with atrial fibrillation taking apixaban. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study involved data from the All of Us Research Program, a longitudinal, population-based study in the United States. Inclusion criteria were age older than 50 years, history of atrial fibrillation, and anticoagulation with apixaban. Participants with a history of ischemic stroke or ICH were excluded. Up to 3 years of follow-up data were available. Data were collected from 2017 to 2022 and analyzed from November 2023 to December 2024. Exposure APOE ε2, ε3, and ε4 were ascertained using variants rs429358 and rs7412. APOE ε4 was modeled dichotomously (noncarriers [no alleles] vs carriers [1 or 2 alleles]). Main Outcomes and Measures Incident ICH, including any new intraparenchymal, subdural, or subarachnoid hemorrhage after initiation of apixaban therapy. Results Of 413 477 All of Us participants, 2038 were eligible. Their mean (SD) age was 71 (9) years; 918 (45%) were female, 1120 (55%) were male, and 1710 (83%) had European ancestry. Among these participants, 483 (23.7%) were carriers of at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. After a median follow-up of 2.9 years, 26 participants sustained an ICH (cumulative incidence, 1.5%; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.2%), of whom 12 (cumulative incidence, 3.1%; 95% CI, 1.7%-5.3%) were carriers and 14 (cumulative incidence, 1%; 95% CI, 0.6%-1.7%) were noncarriers ( P = .007). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models confirmed this association: compared with noncarriership, APOE ε4 carriership was associated with a 3-fold increase in the risk of ICH (hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.42-6.65). APOE information improved the discrimination of risk prediction scores (C statistic of 0.74 and 0.68 for models with and without APOE , respectively; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance Further research is needed to evaluate whether cerebral amyloid angiopathy mediates the observed association and whether APOE e4 information improves clinical decision-making about anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. The latter is important now that APOE information is used in clinical settings to guide antiamyloid treatment for Alzheimer disease and has been returned to millions of persons by direct-to-consumer genotyping companies.

SummaryWe convened an international group of experts to standardize definitions of New‐Onset Refractory Status Epilepticus (NORSE), Febrile Infection‐Related Epilepsy Syndrome (FIRES), and related conditions. This was done to enable improved communication for investigators, physicians, families, patients, and other caregivers. Consensus definitions were achieved via email messages, phone calls, an in‐person consensus conference, and collaborative manuscript preparation. Panel members were from 8 countries and included adult and pediatric experts in epilepsy, electroencephalography (EEG), and neurocritical care. The proposed consensus definitions are as follows: NORSE isa clinical presentation, not a specific diagnosis, in a patient without active epilepsy or other preexisting relevant neurological disorder, with new onset of refractory status epilepticus without a clear acute or active structural, toxic or metabolic cause. FIRES is a subcategory of NORSE, applicable for all ages, that requires a prior febrile infection starting between 2 weeks and 24 hours prior to onset of refractory status epilepticus, with or without fever at onset of status epilepticus. Proposed consensus definitions are also provided for Infantile Hemiconvulsion‐Hemiplegia and Epilepsy syndrome (IHHE) and for prolonged, refractory and super‐refractory status epilepticus. This document has been endorsed by the Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium. We hope these consensus definitions will promote improved communication, permit multicenter research, and ultimately improve understanding and treatment of these conditions.