Wirrell, Elaine

AbstractFenfluramine (FFA), an antiseizure medication (ASM) with serotonergic and sigma‐1 receptor activity, is used to manage patients with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs). It is approved in the US for treating seizures associated with Dravet syndrome (DS) and Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) in patients ≥2 years old and as add‐on therapy for seizures associated with DS and LGS in the EU, UK, and Japan in similarly aged patients. Consensus guidelines for treatment of DS have recommended FFA to be an early‐line ASM, and it has also shown efficacy in managing seizures associated with LGS. DS and LGS are DEEs associated with a range of seizure types, developmental impairments, and multiple comorbidities. Here we provide case vignettes describing 4 patients (3 DS and 1 LGS) aged 4–29 years old in whom up to 14 ASMs had previously failed, to illustrate real‐world practice issues encountered by neurologists. This review provides guidance on the use of FFA in the context of ASM polytherapy and drug–drug interactions (DDIs), behavioral issues, dose titration, and adverse events. Along with data from the clinical trial program, these case vignettes emphasize the low risk of DDIs, a generally well‐tolerated safety profile, and other seizure and nonseizure benefits (eg, improved cognition and sleep) associated with the use of FFA in DS or LGS.Plain Language SummaryFenfluramine is used to treat seizures in individuals with Dravet syndrome and Lennox–Gastaut syndrome, but there are a range of issues that clinicians may face when treating patients. This review highlights four patients from the authors’ everyday clinical work and offers guidance and practical considerations by neurologists with expertise in managing these complex conditions related to drug interactions, dosing, and side effects associated with fenfluramine.

AbstractObjectivesWe aimed to develop consensus on comorbidities (frequency, severity, and prognosis) and overall outcomes in epilepsy, development, and cognition for the five phenotypes of SCN8A‐related disorders.MethodsA core panel consisting of 13 clinicians, 1 researcher, and 6 caregivers was formed and split into three workgroups. One group focused on comorbidities and prognosis. All groups performed a literature review and developed questions for use in a modified‐Delphi process. Twenty‐eight clinicians, one researcher, and 13 caregivers from 16 countries participated in three rounds of the modified‐Delphi process. Consensus was defined as follows: strong consensus ≥80% fully agree; moderate consensus ≥80% fully or partially agree, <10% disagree; and modest consensus 67%–79% fully or partially agree, <10% disagree.ResultsConsensus was reached on the presence of 14 comorbidities in patients with Severe Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathy (Severe DEE) spanning non‐seizure neurological disorders and other organ systems; impacts were mostly severe and unlikely to improve or resolve. Across Mild/Moderate Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathy (Mild/Moderate DEE), Neurodevelopmental Delay with Generalized Epilepsy (NDDwGE), and NDD without Epilepsy (NDDwoE) phenotypes, cognitive and sleep‐related comorbidities as well as fine and gross motor delays may be present but are less severe and more likely to improve compared to Severe DEE. There was no consensus on comorbidities in the SeL(F)IE phenotype but strong conesensus that seizures would largely resolve. Seizure freedom is rare in patients with Severe DEE but may occur in some with Mild/Moderate DEE and NDDwGE.SignificanceSignificant comorbidities are present in most phenotypes of SCN8A‐related disorders but are most severe and pervasive in the Severe DEE phenotype. We hope that this work will improve recognition, early intervention, and long‐term management for patients with these comorbidities and provide the basis for future evidence‐based studies on optimal treatments of SCN8A‐related disorders. Identifying the prognosis of patients with SCN8A‐related disorders will also improve care and quality‐of‐life for patients and their caregivers.

AbstractObjectiveWe aimed to develop consensus for diagnosis/management of SCN8A‐related disorders. Utilizing a modified Delphi process, a global cohort of experienced clinicians and caregivers provided input on diagnosis, phenotypes, treatment, and management of SCN8A‐related disorders.MethodsA Core Panel (13 clinicians, one researcher, six caregivers), divided into three subgroups (diagnosis/phenotypes, treatment, comorbidities/prognosis), performed a literature review and developed questions for the modified Delphi process. Twenty‐eight expert clinicians, one researcher, and 13 caregivers from 16 countries participated in the subsequent three survey rounds. We defined consensus as follows: strong consensus, ≥80% fully agree; moderate consensus, ≥80% fully/partially agree, <10% disagree; and modest consensus, 67%–79% fully/partially agree, <10% disagree.ResultsEarly diagnosis is important for long‐term clinical outcomes in SCN8A‐related disorders. There are five phenotypes: three with early seizure onset (severe developmental and epileptic encephalopathy [DEE], mild/moderate DEE, self‐limited (familial) infantile epilepsy [SeL(F)IE]) and two with later/no seizure onset (neurodevelopmental delay with generalized epilepsy [NDDwGE], NDD without epilepsy [NDDwoE]). Caregivers represented six patients with severe DEE, five mild/moderate DEE, one NDDwGE, and one NDDwoE. Phenotypes vary by age at seizures/developmental delay onset, seizure type, electroencephalographic/magnetic resonance imaging findings, and first‐line treatment. Gain of function (GOF) versus loss of function (LOF) is valuable for informing treatment. Sodium channel blockers are optimal first‐line treatment for GOF, severe DEE, mild/moderate DEE, and SeL(F)IE; levetiracetam is relatively contraindicated in GOF patients. First‐line treatment for NDDwGE is valproate, ethosuximide, or lamotrigine; sodium channel blockers are relatively contraindicated in LOF patients.SignificanceThis is the first‐ever global consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of SCN8A‐related disorders. This consensus will reduce knowledge gaps in disease recognition and inform preferred treatment across this heterogeneous disorder. Consensus of this type allows more clinicians to provide evidence‐based care and empowers SCN8A families to advocate for their children.

Abstract A variety of terms, such as “antiepileptic,” “anticonvulsant,” and “antiseizure” have been historically applied to medications for the treatment of seizure disorders. Terminology is important because using terms that do not accurately reflect the action of specific treatments may result in a misunderstanding of their effects and inappropriate use. The present International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) position paper used a Delphi approach to develop recommendations on English‐language terminology applicable to pharmacological agents currently approved for treating seizure disorders. There was consensus that these medications should be collectively named “antiseizure medications”. This term accurately reflects their primarily symptomatic effect against seizures and reduces the possibility of health care practitioners, patients, or caregivers having undue expectations or an incorrect understanding of the real action of these medications. The term “antiseizure” to describe these agents does not exclude the possibility of beneficial effects on the course of the disease and comorbidities that result from the downstream effects of seizures, whenever these beneficial effects can be explained solely by the suppression of seizure activity. It is acknowledged that other treatments, mostly under development, can exert direct favorable actions on the underlying disease or its progression, by having “antiepileptogenic” or “disease‐modifying” effects. A more‐refined terminology to describe precisely these actions needs to be developed.