Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a severe epileptic and developmental encephalopathy that is associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. It is characterized by multiple seizure types, abnormal electroencephalographic features, and intellectual disability. Although intellectual disability and associated behavioral problems are characteristic of LGS, they are not necessarily present at its outset and are therefore not part of its diagnostic criteria. LGS is typically treated with a variety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies, often in combination. Management and treatment decisions can be challenging, due to the multiple seizure types and comorbidities associated with the condition. A panel of five epileptologists met to discuss consensus recommendations for LGS management, based on the latest available evidence from literature review and clinical experience. Treatment algorithms were formulated. Current evidence favors the continued use of sodium valproate (VPA) as the first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed de novo LGS. If VPA is ineffective alone, evidence supports lamotrigine, or subsequently rufinamide, as adjunctive therapy. If seizure control remains inadequate, the choice of next adjunctive antiepileptic drug (AED) should be discussed with the patient/parent/caregiver/clinical team, as current evidence is limited. Non-pharmacological therapies, including resective surgery, the ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation, and callosotomy, should be considered for use alongside AED therapy from the outset of treatment. For patients with LGS that has evolved from another type of epilepsy who are already being treated with an AED other than VPA, VPA therapy should be considered if not trialed previously. Thereafter, the approach for a de novo patient should be followed. Where possible, no more than two AEDs should be used concomitantly. Patients with established LGS should undergo review by a neurologist specialized in epilepsy on at least an annual basis, including a thorough reassessment of their diagnosis and treatment plan. Clinicians should always be vigilant to the possibility of treatable etiologies and alert to the possibility that a patient’s diagnosis may change, since the seizure types and electroencephalographic features that characterize LGS evolve over time. To date, available treatments are unlikely to lead to seizure remission in the majority of patients and therefore the primary focus of treatment should always be optimization of learning, behavioral management, and overall quality of life.

SummaryAnimal models of human anxiety often invoke a conflict between approach and avoidance [1, 2]. In these, a key behavioral assay comprises passive avoidance of potential threat and inhibition, both thought to be controlled by ventral hippocampus [2–6]. Efforts to translate these approaches to clinical contexts [7, 8] are hampered by the fact that it is not known whether humans manifest analogous approach-avoidance dispositions and, if so, whether they share a homologous neurobiological substrate [9]. Here, we developed a paradigm to investigate the role of human hippocampus in arbitrating an approach-avoidance conflict under varying levels of potential threat. Across four experiments, subjects showed analogous behavior by adapting both passive avoidance behavior and behavioral inhibition to threat level. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we observe that threat level engages the anterior hippocampus, the human homolog of rodent ventral hippocampus [10]. Testing patients with selective hippocampal lesions, we demonstrate a causal role for the hippocampus with patients showing reduced passive avoidance behavior and inhibition across all threat levels. Our data provide the first human assay for approach-avoidance conflict akin to that of animal anxiety models. The findings bridge rodent and human research on passive avoidance and behavioral inhibition and furnish a framework for addressing the neuronal underpinnings of human anxiety disorders, where our data indicate a major role for the hippocampus.

Summary Objective To analyze the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel across different seizure types in routine clinical care of patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). Methods This multicenter, retrospective, 1‐year observational study collected data from patient records at 21 specialist epilepsy units in Spain. All patients who were aged ≥12 years, prescribed perampanel before December 2016, and had a confirmed diagnosis of IGE were included. Results The population comprised 149 patients with IGE (60 with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, 51 generalized tonic–clonic seizures [GTCS] only, 21 juvenile absence epilepsy, 10 childhood absence epilepsy, 6 adulthood absence epilepsy, and one Jeavons syndrome). Mean age was 36 years. The retention rate at 12 months was 83% (124/149), and 4 mg was the most common dose. At 12 months, the seizure‐free rate was 59% for all seizures (88/149); 63% for GTCS (72/115), 65% for myoclonic seizures (31/48), and 51% for absence seizures (24/47). Seizure frequency was reduced significantly at 12 months relative to baseline for GTCS (78%), myoclonic (65%), and absence seizures (48%). Increase from baseline seizure frequency was seen in 5.2% of patients with GTCS seizures, 6.3% with myoclonic, and 4.3% with absence seizures. Perampanel was effective regardless of epilepsy syndrome, concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), and prior AEDs, but retention and seizure freedom were significantly higher when used as early add‐on (after ≤2 prior AEDs) than late (≥3 prior AEDs). Adverse events were reported in 50% of patients over 12 months, mostly mild or moderate, and irritability (23%), somnolence (15%), and dizziness (14%) were most frequent. Significance In routine clinical care of patients with IGE, perampanel improved seizure outcomes for GTCS, myoclonic seizures, and absence seizures, with few discontinuations due to adverse events. This is the first real‐world evidence with perampanel across different seizure types in IGE.

No abstract

Temporal lobe epilepsy with GAD-ab is not a rare condition. In the subgroup of patients with high titres, this epilepsy is often pharmacoresistant and associated with memory impairment, depression and other autoimmune diseases.