Grinspan, Zachary M.

Abstract Objective Surgery is an effective, yet underutilized treatment for children with drug‐resistant epilepsy. Although predictors of surgical outcomes are well described, the decision to recommend surgery varies by institution. We aim to evaluate the rates of not recommending surgery, identify associated patient characteristics, and quantify variability across centers. Methods We queried the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium Surgery database, a prospective multicenter cohort of children (0–18 years) undergoing initial evaluation for epilepsy surgery. Patients with documented surgical decisions were included. Demographic, clinical, and presurgical evaluation variables were compared by surgical recommendation status. Logistic regression identified factors associated with not recommending surgery. Mixed‐effects models quantified between‐center variability. Results Among 2480 patients across 29 centers, 532 (21%) were not recommended epilepsy surgery (median center rate 17%, interquartile range [IQR] 10%–28%). After accounting for patient characteristics associated with surgical candidacy, substantial variation in decision‐making remained across centers, with a median twofold difference in the odds of not recommending surgery between otherwise similar patients evaluated at different institutions (Median Odds Ratio = 2.25; Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = .18). The clinical characteristics most strongly associated with not recommending surgery included monthly or less frequent seizures (odds ratio [OR] 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.75–2.69), non‐structural etiology (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.56–2.61), and taking ≤2 anti‐seizure medications (ASMs) (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.34–2.08, all p 's < .01). These characteristics showed minimal clustering across centers (ICCs < .05). Significance One in five children evaluated for epilepsy surgery are not recommended to pursue surgical treatment. Although clinical factors influence decision‐making, they do not explain the substantial variation in recommendations across pediatric epilepsy centers. Similar children evaluated at different institutions had significant differences in the odds of not being recommended surgery, suggesting that institutional decision‐making contributes importantly to surgical candidacy.

Abstract Objective Despite being safe and effective, surgery for pediatric epilepsy is underutilized. Social determinants of health (SDoH) are important to consider when examining this treatment gap. This study examined the potential systemic inequities at three different stages in the journey toward epilepsy surgery across the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium (PERC). Methods Any youth in the PERC prospective surgery database (≤18 years) was eligible and included if sociodemographic factors were also available. We examined if there were differences in disparity factors in: (1) referral to Phase I evaluation, (2) offering of surgery, and (3) completion of surgery. Results Of 1309 patients, the majority were male (53%, p = .04), White (82.2%, p < .001), not Hispanic or Latino (84.3%, p < .001), and privately insured (56.3%, p < .001). Of the youth who were offered surgical treatment ( n = 1103, 84.3%), there were no significant differences in race/ethnicity or sex. Those with a structural lesion were more likely to be offered surgery, and historically marginalized youth were more likely to have a lesion. Of patients who completed surgery ( n = 927, 84.0%), White patients were 1.88 times (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14–3.04) more likely than Black patients to complete surgery ( p = .01). Significance Youth who began surgery evaluation are not representative of the demographics of those with epilepsy in the United States, with greater representation of White, non‐Hispanic male individuals. In addition, youth who began surgery evaluation disproportionally have private insurance. At the next stage of offering surgery, there were no differences based on SDoH. However, there is evidence that underrepresented youth that were magnetic resonance negative were less likely to be referred for surgical workup and that Black youth were less likely to undergo surgery. Therefore, efforts to provide equitable opportunity for all youth with refractory epilepsy should be concentrated at the referral for surgery evaluation point of care; however, additional efforts are also needed at later stages.

ABSTRACT Rationale Longer duration of epilepsy before surgery is a predictor of poor outcome. While referral delays of surgical candidates are well documented, factors causing delay during the presurgical evaluation remain unclear and may vary depending on institutional characteristics. By benchmarking the duration of presurgical evaluation across multiple centers and identifying patient and evaluation characteristics contributing to duration, we can ascertain best practices and address modifiable contributors to reduce delays. Methods We queried the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium Surgery Database, a prospective, observational multicenter study enrolling children 0–18 years at 27 US pediatric epilepsy centers, for all patients undergoing initial presurgical evaluation for drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). We included patients with completed evaluations and data on duration from initiation of presurgical evaluation to final surgical decision. We compared patient characteristics and evaluation components between those with long duration evaluations (> 75% quartile) and those with short evaluations (< 25% quartile). Akaike information criteria selection identified variables associated with longer duration. From these, we developed a logistic prediction model for evaluation duration, using a random 80/20 training/testing split of the entire cohort. The model was tested among institutions with ≥ 10 patients in the cohort to assess its accuracy in predicting long durations. Linear models for each site assessed each variable's impact on duration. Variables with < 10% of the patient population at each site were excluded. Beta values were compared to identify intra‐ and inter‐institution variability and to delineate institutions with the shortest added duration for each variable. Results Of 2318 patients undergoing surgical evaluation, 1655 (71%) from 23 sites had complete data. Median evaluation duration was 8 weeks (interquartile range 3–22); 453 (27%) were short‐duration evaluations and 414 (25%) were long‐duration evaluations. Multiple patient and evaluation characteristics were associated with duration (Table 1). Table 6 provides the average duration each variable contributes to evaluation by site, highlighting the shortest durations compared with other groups. Conclusions Duration of presurgical evaluation for DRE can be accurately modeled using multiple patient characteristics and testing strategies commonly employed in epilepsy surgery evaluations. This predictive model can not only estimate evaluation duration but also identify opportunities to improve systemic efficiency. Institution‐level modeling identifies specific program strengths, providing an opportunity to learn from successful processes. Subsequent research will focus on institutional process mapping to better understand systemic practices that lead to improved efficiencies, then sharing these processes across the consortium to shorten evaluation durations.

Abstract Objective This study was undertaken to evaluate the response to second treatments for infantile epileptic spasms syndrome (IESS). Methods Infants aged 2–24 months with IESS were prospectively enrolled in the National Infantile Spasms Cohort study at 21 pediatric epilepsy centers in the United States from 2012 to 2018. We analyzed data from infants who initially received standard treatment (hormonal therapy [adrenocorticotropic hormone, high‐dose prednisolone] or vigabatrin), had continued or recurring epileptic spasms, and received a second treatment. We excluded those with tuberous sclerosis. Treatment groups included hormonal therapy followed by vigabatrin (reference), hormonal‐to‐hormonal, hormonal‐to‐nonstandard, vigabatrin‐to‐hormonal, and vigabatrin‐to‐nonstandard. Nonstandard treatments included other antiseizure medications and dietary therapy. Treatment groups were tested for differences in 3‐month clinical remission using a binary logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs). Results There were 153 infants with IESS who received second treatments. The highest rates of 3‐month remission were among infants in the hormonal‐to‐vigabatrin (22/65, 34%) and vigabatrin‐to‐hormonal (9/26, 35%) groups, followed by vigabatrin‐to‐nonstandard (3/10, 30%), hormonal‐to‐hormonal (4/22, 18%), and hormonal‐to‐nonstandard (1/30, 3.3%). Compared to the hormonal‐to‐vigabatrin group (reference), fewer infants had remission in the hormonal‐to‐nonstandard group (OR = .07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .01–.53), and there was a trend toward fewer infants in the hormonal‐to‐hormonal group (OR = .43, 95% CI = .13–1.4, p = .17). Following initial hormonal treatment, the number needed to treat was three infants for one additional infant to have remission when treated with vigabatrin compared to nonstandard therapy as the second treatment. Significance This updated analysis with an expanded sample size provided power for additional subgroup analysis. Overall response rates were low, and at best only one third had remission after second treatment. Results support a clinical strategy of switching mechanism of action when selecting a second medication for epileptic spasms (i.e., use vigabatrin after hormonal therapy, or hormonal therapy after vigabatrin). Our findings also support the use of standard over nonstandard therapies.

AbstractObjectivesCorpus callosotomy (CC) is used to reduce seizures, primarily in patients with generalized drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). The invasive nature of the procedure contributes to underutilization despite its potential superiority to other palliative procedures. The goal of this study was to use a multi‐institutional epilepsy surgery database to characterize the use of CC across participating centers.MethodsData were acquired from the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium (PERC) Surgery Database, a prospective observational study collecting data on children 0–18 years referred for surgical evaluation of DRE across 22 U.S. pediatric epilepsy centers. Patient, epilepsy, and surgical characteristics were collected across multiple CC modalities. Outcomes and complications were recorded and analyzed statistically.ResultsEighty‐three patients undergoing 85 CC procedures at 14 participating epilepsy centers met inclusion criteria. Mean age at seizure onset was 2.3 years (0–9.4); mean age for Phase I evaluation and surgical intervention were 9.45 (.1–20) and 10.46 (.2–20.6) years, respectively. Generalized seizure types were the most common (59%). Complete CC was performed in 88%. The majority of CC procedures (57%) were via open craniotomy, followed by laser interstitial thermal therapy (LiTT) (20%) and mini‐craniotomy/endoscopic (mc/e) (22%). Mean operative times were significantly longer for LiTT, whereas mean estimated blood loss was greater in open cases. Complications occurred in 11 cases (13%) and differed significantly between surgical techniques (p < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in length of postoperative stay across approaches. Mean follow‐up was 12.8 months (range 1–39). Favorable Engel outcomes were experienced by 37 (78.7%) of the patients who underwent craniotomy, 10 (58.8%) with LiTT, and 12 (63.2%) with mc/e; these differences were not statistically significant.SignificanceCC is an effective surgical modality for children with DRE. Regardless of surgical modality, complication rates are acceptable and seizure outcomes generally favorable. Newer, less‐invasive, surgical approaches may lead to increased adoption of this efficacious therapeutic option for pediatric DRE.

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.

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