Citations

Abstract In 2017, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Classification of Epilepsies described the “genetic generalized epilepsies” (GGEs), which contained the “idiopathic generalized epilepsies” (IGEs). The goal of this paper is to delineate the four syndromes comprising the IGEs, namely childhood absence epilepsy, juvenile absence epilepsy, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, and epilepsy with generalized tonic–clonic seizures alone. We provide updated diagnostic criteria for these IGE syndromes determined by the expert consensus opinion of the ILAE’s Task Force on Nosology and Definitions (2017–2021) and international external experts outside our Task Force. We incorporate current knowledge from recent advances in genetic, imaging, and electroencephalographic studies, together with current terminology and classification of seizures and epilepsies. Patients that do not fulfill criteria for one of these syndromes, but that have one, or a combination, of the following generalized seizure types: absence, myoclonic, tonic‐clonic and myoclonic‐tonic‐clonic seizures, with 2.5–5.5 Hz generalized spike‐wave should be classified as having GGE. Recognizing these four IGE syndromes as a special grouping among the GGEs is helpful, as they carry prognostic and therapeutic implications.

Abstract The epileptic network hypothesis and epileptogenic zone hypothesis are two theories of ictogenesis. The network hypothesis posits that coordinated activity among interconnected nodes produces seizures. The epileptogenic zone hypothesis posits that distinct regions are necessary and sufficient for seizure generation. High-frequency oscillations, and particularly fast ripples, are thought to be biomarkers of the epileptogenic zone. We sought to test these theories by comparing high-frequency oscillation rates and networks in surgical responders and non-responders, with no appreciable change in seizure frequency or severity, within a retrospective cohort of 48 patients implanted with stereo-EEG electrodes. We recorded inter-ictal activity during non-rapid eye movement sleep and semi-automatically detected and quantified high-frequency oscillations. Each electrode contact was localized in normalized coordinates. We found that the accuracy of seizure onset zone electrode contact classification using high-frequency oscillation rates was not significantly different in surgical responders and non-responders, suggesting that in non-responders the epileptogenic zone partially encompassed the seizure onset zone(s) (P > 0.05). We also found that in the responders, fast ripple on oscillations exhibited a higher spectral content in the seizure onset zone compared with the non-seizure onset zone (P < 1 × 10−5). By contrast, in the non-responders, fast ripple had a lower spectral content in the seizure onset zone (P < 1 × 10−5). We constructed two different networks of fast ripple with a spectral content >350 Hz. The first was a rate–distance network that multiplied the Euclidian distance between fast ripple-generating contacts by the average rate of fast ripple in the two contacts. The radius of the rate–distance network, which excluded seizure onset zone nodes, discriminated non-responders, including patients not offered resection or responsive neurostimulation due to diffuse multifocal onsets, with an accuracy of 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56–0.98]. The second fast ripple network was constructed using the mutual information between the timing of the events to measure functional connectivity. For most non-responders, this network had a longer characteristic path length, lower mean local efficiency in the non-seizure onset zone, and a higher nodal strength among non-seizure onset zone nodes relative to seizure onset zone nodes. The graphical theoretical measures from the rate–distance and mutual information networks of 22 non- responsive neurostimulation treated patients was used to train a support vector machine, which when tested on 13 distinct patients classified non-responders with an accuracy of 0.92 (95% CI 0.75–1). These results indicate patients who do not respond to surgery or those not selected for resection or responsive neurostimulation can be explained by the epileptic network hypothesis that is a decentralized network consisting of widely distributed, hyperexcitable fast ripple-generating nodes.

AbstractObjectiveCurrent diazepam nasal spray labeling requires waiting 4 h before administering a second dose. The objective of the current analyses was to examine safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of second doses of diazepam nasal spray given 0−4 h after the first dose.MethodsTwo datasets were analyzed. The first, a long‐term, repeat‐dose safety study of diazepam nasal spray, compared rates of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, and treatment‐related TEAEs for patients receiving ≥1 second dose ≤4 h versus all second doses >4 h after the first. The second was a population pharmacokinetic analysis using data from three phase 1 studies to model drug exposure when a second dose of diazepam nasal spray was administered across multiple time points (1 min−4 h) following the first dose.ResultsIn the repeat‐dose safety study, a second dose of diazepam nasal spray was administered ≤24 h after the first to treat 485 seizure clusters in 79 patients. Rates of TEAEs were similar between patients receiving ≥1 second dose in ≤4 h (89.5%, n = 38) compared with >4–24 h only (80.5%, n = 41). The most common treatment‐related TEAEs were associated with nasal discomfort, which was mild or moderate and transient. There were no reports of respiratory or cardiac depression. The pharmacokinetic simulations of second doses predicted comparable elevations of plasma diazepam concentrations with administrations across a range of intervals after the first dose (1 min−4 h).SignificanceThese data indicate that the safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of a second dose of diazepam nasal spray administered within 4 h of the first dose are consistent with those associated with current labeling. This is potentially important for patients with seizure clusters who have a recurrent seizure within 4 h of first treatment and might benefit from immediate retreatment to reduce the risk of progression to status epilepticus.

Abstract Objective An exploratory analysis from a long‐term, phase 3, open‐label, repeat‐dose safety study of diazepam nasal spray for acute treatment of seizure clusters assessed the use of a second dose up to 24 hours after the initial dose and effectiveness in potentially reducing the number of seizures. Methods Seizures and doses were recorded in diaries. Results Of 175 patients enrolled, 163 received ≥1 dose of diazepam nasal spray and were included in the safety population; those patients received a total of 4390 doses for a total of 3853 seizure clusters. Less than half of these patients used a second dose a least once during the study (79 patients [48.5%]), with a total of 485 second doses for seizure clusters (12.6% of all seizure clusters). Among these 79 patients, 33 (41.8%) used only one second dose during the study (range: 1–82). The proportion of seizure clusters treated with a second dose over time was consistently low across 24 h: 0–4 h, 152 (3.9%); 4–6 h, 72 (1.9%); 6–8 h, 39 (1.0%); 8–12 h, 55 (1.4%); 12–16 h, 42 (1.1%); 16–20 h, 42 (1.1%); 20–24 h, 83 (2.2%). Rates of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment‐related TEAEs occurring within 1 day of a second dose were low (15.2% and 5.1%, respectively). Significance Patients with epilepsy may experience seizure clusters lasting up to 24 hours, and little is known about the effectiveness of rescue therapies for that duration. The current labeling of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved outpatient treatments for seizure clusters (rectal diazepam, intranasal midazolam, and diazepam nasal spray) allows for a second dose, if needed, for control. These findings support the safety profile of second doses, and the low use supports the effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray across 24 hours.

Abstract Objective A Phase 3 open‐label safety study (NCT02721069) evaluated long‐term safety of diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco) in patients with epilepsy and frequent seizure clusters. Methods Patients were 6–65 years old with diagnosed epilepsy and seizure clusters despite stable antiseizure medications. The treatment period was 12 months, with study visits at Day 30 and every 60 days thereafter, after which patients could elect to continue. Doses were based on age and weight. Seizure and treatment information was recorded in diaries. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), nasal irritation, and olfactory changes were recorded. Results Of 163 patients in the safety population, 117 (71.8%) completed the study. Duration of exposure was ≥12 months for 81.6% of patients. There was one death (sudden unexpected death in epilepsy) and one withdrawal owing to a TEAE (major depression), both considered unlikely to be related to treatment. Diazepam nasal spray was administered 4390 times for 3853 seizure clusters, with 485 clusters treated with a second dose within 24 h; 53.4% of patients had monthly average usage of one to two doses, 41.7% two to five doses, and 4.9% more than five doses. No serious TEAEs were considered to be treatment related. TEAEs possibly or probably related to treatment ( n = 30) were most commonly nasal discomfort (6.1%); headache (2.5%); and dysgeusia, epistaxis, and somnolence (1.8% each). Only 13 patients (7.9%) showed nasal irritation, and there were no relevant olfactory changes. The safety profile of diazepam nasal spray was generally similar across subgroups based on age, monthly usage, concomitant benzodiazepine therapy, or seasonal allergy/rhinitis. Significance In this large open‐label safety study, the safety profile of diazepam nasal spray was consistent with the established profile of rectal diazepam, and the high retention rate supports effectiveness in this population. A second dose was used in only 12.6% of seizure clusters.

AbstractObjectiveNeed for rescue therapy differs among patients with seizure clusters. Diazepam nasal spray is approved to treat seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy ≥6 years of age. This analysis used interim data from a phase 3 safety study to assess safety profile and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray using average number of doses/month as a proxy measurement.MethodsThis phase 3, open‐label, repeat‐dose, safety study of diazepam nasal spray enrolled patients (6‐65 years) with epilepsy and need of benzodiazepine rescue. Patients were stratified by average number of doses/month (<2, moderate frequency; 2‐5, high frequency; >5, very‐high frequency). Safety was evaluated based on treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), assessed nasal irritation, and olfaction. The proportion of treatments given as a second dose was used as an exploratory proxy for effectiveness.ResultsOf 175 enrolled patients (data cutoff, October 31, 2019), 158 received ≥1 dose of diazepam nasal spray. Frequency of use was moderate in 43.7% of patients, high in 50.6% of patients, and very high in 5.7% of patients. Patients treated 3397 seizure episodes (moderate frequency, 14.2%; high frequency, 59.9%; very high frequency, 25.8%). Nasal discomfort was the most common treatment‐related TEAE in all groups. No notable changes in nasal irritation or olfaction were observed. Second doses represented only 2.5%, 7.5%, and 17.2% of all doses in the moderate‐, high‐, and very‐high‐frequency groups, respectively. Overall retention rate was 82.9%, without an observed relationship to frequency of use.SignificanceFrequency of dosing diazepam nasal spray had little impact on the safety/tolerability profile across a range of <2 to >5 doses/month. Effectiveness was suggested for all dosing frequencies by the high proportion of seizure clusters not treated with a second dose. These results support the utility, safety profile, and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray across frequencies of seizure cluster burden.

Abstract Objective Diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco), indicated for acute treatment of frequent seizure activity (seizure clusters) in patients with epilepsy ≥6 years of age, is designed to be a rapid, noninvasive, socially acceptable route of administration. This interim analysis evaluated the safety profile of diazepam nasal spray in patients with and without concomitant use of benzodiazepines, with use of a second dose for a seizure cluster as a proxy for effectiveness. Methods A long‐term, phase 3, open‐label safety study enrolled patients with epilepsy who had seizures despite a stable antiseizure medication regimen. Results Among 175 patients enrolled by October 31, 2019, a total of 158 were treated with diazepam nasal spray (aged 6–65 years; 53.8% female). Of those, 119 (75.3%) received concomitant benzodiazepines (60, chronic; 59, intermittent); 39 (24.7%) did not. Use of a second dose was similar in patients using chronic concomitant benzodiazepines (second dose in 11.1% [144/1299]) and those with no concomitant benzodiazepines (second dose in 10.3% [41/398]). Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred for 80.0% with chronic use of concomitant benzodiazepines and 61.5% without. Cardiorespiratory depression was not reported, and no serious TEAEs were treatment related. Study retention was high: 83.3% in the chronic benzodiazepine group and 76.9% in the no‐benzodiazepine group. Findings were similar in a sub‐analysis of patients who were ( n = 44) or were not ( n = 75) taking clobazam. Significance This analysis of patients from a long‐term study shows a similar safety profile of diazepam nasal spray in patients with and without concomitant benzodiazepines, and consistent with the established profile for diazepam. Use of a single dose of diazepam nasal spray and high study retention rates suggest the effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray in patients irrespective of chronic daily benzodiazepine use. Results were similar in the clobazam sub‐analysis. These results support the safety and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray in patients with concomitant benzodiazepine use.

Abstract Scientists debate where, when, and how different visual, orthographic, lexical, and semantic features are involved in visual word recognition. In this study, we investigate intracranial neurophysiology data from 151 patients engaged in reading single words. Using representational similarity analysis, we characterize the neural representation of a hierarchy of word features across the entire cerebral cortex. We find evidence of both feed-forward and feedback processing, with early representation of visual and lexical information in lingual gyrus followed by lexical representation in fusiform gyrus and semantic sensitivity in inferior frontal gyrus, with letter representation emerging later in fusiform gyrus. Furthermore, we observed a variety of anatomically heterogeneous temporal response shapes, and these functional populations had significant feature sensitivity. Taken together, our results demonstrate the early influence of lexical, phonological, and semantic features in visual word recognition and reveal feed-forward, feed-back, and anatomically distributed processing mechanisms that contribute to visual word recognition.

Chronically implantable neurostimulation devices are becoming a clinically viable option for treating patients with neurological disease and psychiatric disorders. Neurostimulation offers the ability to probe and manipulate distributed networks of interacting brain areas in dysfunctional circuits. Here, we use tools from network control theory to examine the dynamic reconfiguration of functionally interacting neuronal ensembles during targeted neurostimulation of cortical and subcortical brain structures. By integrating multimodal intracranial recordings and diffusion-weighted imaging from patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, we test hypothesized structural and functional rules that predict altered patterns of synchronized local field potentials. We demonstrate the ability to predictably reconfigure functional interactions depending on stimulation strength and location. Stimulation of areas with structurally weak connections largely modulates the functional hubness of downstream areas and concurrently propels the brain towards more difficult-to-reach dynamical states. By using focal perturbations to bridge large-scale structure, function, and markers of behavior, our findings suggest that stimulation may be tuned to influence different scales of network interactions driving cognition.