Progressive myoclonus epilepsies (PMEs) comprise a group of clinically and genetically heterogeneous rare diseases. Over 70% of PME cases can now be molecularly solved. Known PME genes encode a variety of proteins, many involved in lysosomal and endosomal function. We performed whole-exome sequencing (WES) in 84 (78 unrelated) unsolved PME-affected individuals, with or without additional family members, to discover novel causes. We identified likely disease-causing variants in 24 out of 78 (31%) unrelated individuals, despite previous genetic analyses. The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for individuals studied as trios or families (14/28) versus singletons (10/50) (OR ¼ 3.9, p value ¼ 0.01, Fisher's exact test). The 24 likely solved cases of PME involved 18 genes. First, we found and functionally validated five heterozygous variants in NUS1 and DHDDS and a homozygous variant in ALG10, with no previous disease associations. All three genes are involved in dolichol-dependent protein glycosylation, a pathway not previously implicated in PME. Second, we independently validate SEMA6B as a dominant PME gene in two unrelated individuals. Third, in five families, we identified variants in established PME genes; three with intronic or copy-number changes (CLN6, GBA, NEU1) and two very rare causes (ASAH1, CERS1). Fourth, we found a group of genes usually associated with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, but here, remarkably, presenting as PME, with or without prior developmental delay. Our systematic analysis of these cases suggests that the small residuum of unsolved cases will most likely be a collection of very rare, genetically heterogeneous etiologies.

Objective Eyelid myoclonia with absences (EMA) is a syndrome characterized by eyelid myoclonia with or without absences, eye closure‐induced generalized electroencephalographic (EEG) paroxysms and photosensitivity. Few data are available about the prognostic factors of this syndrome. The main objectives of our study were to describe the clinical and EEG features of a group of patients with EMA and to evaluate the presence of prognostic factors. Methods We retrospectively selected a cohort of patients with diagnosis of EMA evaluated in the epilepsy service of the Neurological Clinic of Catania, in the Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiopathology Unit of Oasi Research Institute, Troina and in the Regional Epilepsy Centre of Bianchi‐Melacrino‐Morelli Hospital of Reggio Calabria. We considered the features of the patients during the first year of disease, and at the last follow‐up visit. We stratified the patients into two groups: “seizure‐free”, defined as the absence of seizures for at least 2 years, and “not seizure‐free” and we evaluated the evolution of their characteristics and the presence of factors associated with outcome. Results We enrolled 51 patients (40 women (78%); mean age: 30.8 years ± 15.5 [range 10‐79]). The mean follow‐up time was 8.7 ± 5.8 years. Eleven patients (21.6%) achieved the condition of seizure‐free. Family history of epilepsy was associated with the condition of seizure‐free (P = 0.05). At the last follow‐up visit, EEG photosensitivity and eye closure sensitivity were significantly associated with the condition of “not seizure‐free”. Significance The results of our study revealed that a positive family history of epilepsy might be associated with a better outcome in EMA. Furthermore, the persistence of photosensitivity and eye closure sensitivity might indicate persistence of seizures, offering an aid in therapeutic management.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionEpilepsy is one of the most common neurological diseases in Latin American Countries (LAC) and epilepsy associated with convulsive seizures is the most frequent type. Therefore, the detection of convulsive seizures is a priority, but a validated Spanish-language screening tool to detect convulsive seizures is not available. We performed a field validation to evaluate the accuracy of a Spanish-language questionnaire to detect convulsive seizures in rural Bolivia using a three-stage design. The questionnaire was also administered face-to-face, using a two-stage design, to evaluate the difference in accuracy.MethodsThe study was carried out in the rural communities of the Gran Chaco region. The questionnaire consists of a single screening question directed toward the householders and a confirmatory section administered face-to-face to the index case. Positive subjects underwent a neurological examination to detect false positive and true positive subjects. To estimate the proportion of false negative, a random sample of about 20% of the screened negative underwent a neurological evaluation.Results792 householders have been interviewed representing a population of 3,562 subjects (52.2% men; mean age 24.5 ± 19.7 years). We found a sensitivity of 76.3% (95% CI 59.8–88.6) with a specificity of 99.6% (95% CI 99.4–99.8). The two-stage design showed only a slightly higher sensitivity respect to the three-stage design.ConclusionOur screening tool shows a good accuracy and can be easily used by trained health workers to quickly screen the population of the rural communities of LAC through the householders using a three-stage design.

No abstract

Summary Objective Although many studies have attempted to describe treatment outcomes in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy, results are often limited by the adoption of nonhomogeneous criteria and different definitions of seizure freedom. We sought to evaluate treatment outcomes with a newly administered antiepileptic drug (AED) in a large population of adults with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy according to the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) outcome criteria. Methods This is a multicenter, observational, prospective study of 1053 patients with focal epilepsy diagnosed as drug‐resistant by the investigators. Patients were assessed at baseline and 6, 12, and 18 months, for up to a maximum of 34 months after introducing another AED into their treatment regimen. Drug resistance status and treatment outcomes were rated according to ILAE criteria by the investigators and by at least two independent members of an external expert panel (EP). Results A seizure‐free outcome after a newly administered AED according to ILAE criteria ranged from 11.8% after two failed drugs to 2.6% for more than six failures. Significantly fewer patients were rated by the EP as having a “treatment failure” as compared to the judgment of the investigator (46.7% vs 62.9%, P < 0.001), because many more patients were rated as “undetermined outcome” (45.6% vs 27.7%, P < 0.001); 19.3% of the recruited patients were not considered drug‐resistant by the EP. Significance This study validates the use of ILAE treatment outcome criteria in a real‐life setting, providing validated estimates of seizure freedom in patients with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy in relation to the number of previously failed AEDs. Fewer than one in 10 patients achieved seizure freedom on a newly introduced AED over the study period. Pseudo drug resistance could be identified in one of five cases.

Background and objectives:Eyelid myoclonia with absences (EMA) is a generalized epilepsy syndrome whose prognosis and clinical characteristics are still partially undefined. We investigated electroclinical endophenotypes and long-term seizure outcome in a large cohort of EMA patients.Methods:In this multicenter retrospective study, EMA patients with ≥5 years of follow-up were included. We investigated prognostic patterns and sustained terminal remission (STR), along with their prognostic factors. Moreover, a two-step cluster analysis was used to investigate the presence of distinct EMA endophenotypes.Results:We included 172 patients, with a median age at onset of 7 years (interquartile range (IQR) 5-10) and a median follow-up duration of 14 years (IQR 8.25-23.75). Sixty-six patients (38.4%) displayed a non-remission pattern, whereas remission and relapse patterns were encountered in 56 (32.6%) and 50 (29.1%) subjects. Early epilepsy onset, history of febrile seizures (FS) and eyelid myoclonia (EM) status epilepticus significantly predicted a non-remission pattern according to multinomial logistic regression analysis. STR was achieved by 68 (39.5%) patients with a mean latency of 14.05 years (SD ± 12.47). Early epilepsy onset, psychiatric comorbidities, and a history of FS and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) were associated with a lower probability of achieving STR according to a Cox regression proportional hazards model. Antiseizure medication (ASM) withdrawal was attempted in 62/172 patients, and seizures relapsed in 74.2%. Cluster analysis revealed two distinct clusters with 86 patients each. Cluster 2, which we defined as “EMA-plus”, was characterized by an earlier age at epilepsy onset, higher rate of intellectual disability, EM status epilepticus, generalized paroxysmal fast activity, self-induced seizures, FS, and poor ASM response, whereas Cluster 1, the “EMA-only” cluster, was characterized by a higher rate of seizure remission and more favorable neuropsychiatric outcome.Discussion:Early epilepsy onset was the most relevant prognostic factor for poor treatment response. A long latency between epilepsy onset and ASM response was observed, suggesting the impact of age-related brain changes in EMA remission. Finally, our cluster analysis showed a clear-cut distinction of EMA patients into an EMA-plus insidious subphenotype and an EMA-only benign cluster that strongly differed in terms of remission rates and cognitive outcomes.