Associations between testing and treatment pathways in lesional temporal or extratemporal epilepsy: A census survey of NAEC center directors

Objective

The evaluation to determine candidacy and treatment for epilepsy surgery in persons with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) is not uniform. Many non-invasive and invasive tests are available to ascertain an appropriate treatment strategy. This study examines expert response to clinical vignettes of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–positive lesional focal cortical dysplasia in both temporal and extratemporal epilepsy to identify associations in evaluations and treatment choice.

Methods

We analyzed annual report data and a supplemental epilepsy practice survey reported in 2020 from 206 adult and 136 pediatric epilepsy center directors in the United States. Non-invasive and invasive testing and surgical treatment strategies were compiled for the two scenarios. We used chi-square tests to compare testing utilization between the two scenarios. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was performed to assess associations between variables.

Results

The supplemental survey response rate was 100% with 342 responses included in the analyses. Differing testing and treatment approaches were noted between the temporal and extratemporal scenarios such as chronic invasive monitoring selected in 60% of the temporal scenario versus 93% of the extratemporal scenario. Open resection was the most common treatment choice; however, overall treatment choices varied significantly (p < .001). Associations between non-invasive testing, invasive testing, and treatment choices were present in both scenarios. For example, in the temporal scenario stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) was more commonly associated with fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) (odds ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–3.29; p = .033), magnetoencephalography (MEG) (OR 2.90; 95% CI 1.60–5.28; p = <.001), high density (HD) EEG (OR 2.80; 95% CI 1.27–6.24; p = .011), functional MRI (fMRI) (OR 2.17; 95% CI 1.19–4.10; p = .014), and Wada (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.28–3.66; p = .004). In the extratemporal scenario, choosing SEEG was associated with increased odds of neuromodulation over open resection (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.24–7.89; p = .016).

Significance

In clinical vignettes of temporal and extratemporal lesional DRE, epilepsy center directors displayed varying patterns of non-invasive testing, invasive testing, and treatment choices. Differences in practice underscore the need for comparative trials for the surgical management of DRE.     

Discriminating promiscuous from target-specific autoantibodies in COVID-19

Diverse autoantibodies were suggested to contribute to severe outcomes of COVID-19, but their functional implications are largely unclear. ACE2, the SARS-CoV-2 receptor and a key regulator of blood pressure, was described to be one of many targets of autoantibodies in COVID-19. ACE2 in its soluble form (sACE2) is highly elevated in the blood of critically ill patients, raising the question of whether sACE2:spike complexes induce ACE2 reactivity. Screening 247 COVID-19 patients, we observed elevated sACE2 and anti-ACE2 IgG that were poorly correlated. Interestingly, levels of IgGs recognizing ACE2, IFNα2, and CD26 strongly correlated in severe COVID-19, with 15% of sera showing polyreactivity versus 4.1% exhibiting target-directed autoimmunity. Promiscuous autoantibodies failed to impair the activity of ACE2 and IFNα2, while only specific anti-IFNα2 IgG compromised cytokine function. Our study suggests that the detection of autoantibodies in COVID-19 is often attributed to a promiscuous reactivity, potentially misinterpreted as target-specific autoimmunity with functional impact.     

Epilepsy center characteristics and geographic region influence presurgical testing in the United States

Objective

Persons with drug-resistant epilepsy may benefit from epilepsy surgery and should undergo presurgical testing to determine potential candidacy and appropriate intervention. Institutional expertise can influence use and availability of evaluations and epilepsy surgery candidacy. This census survey study aims to examine the influence of geographic region and other center characteristics on presurgical testing for medically intractable epilepsy.

Methods

We analyzed annual report and supplemental survey data reported in 2020 from 206 adult epilepsy center directors and 136 pediatric epilepsy center directors in the United States. Test utilization data were compiled with annual center volumes, available resources, and US Census regional data. We used Wilcoxon rank-sum, Kruskal–Wallis, and chi-squared tests for univariate analysis of procedure utilization. Multivariable modeling was also performed to assign odds ratios (ORs) of significant variables.

Results

The response rate was 100% with individual element missingness < 11% across 342 observations undergoing univariate analysis. A total of 278 complete observations were included in the multivariable models, and significant regional differences were present. For instance, compared to centers in the South, those in the Midwest used neuropsychological testing (OR = 2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2–6.86; p = .018) and fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography (OR = 2.74, 95% CI = = 1.14–6.61; p = .025) more commonly. For centers in the Northeast (OR = .46, 95% CI = .23–.93; p = .031) and West (OR = .41, 95% CI = .19–.87; p = .022), odds of performing single-photon emission computerized tomography were lower by nearly 50% compared to those in the South. Center accreditation level, demographics, volume, and resources were also associated with varying individual testing rates.

Significance

Presurgical testing for drug-resistant epilepsy is influenced by US geographic region and other center characteristics. These findings have potential implications for comparing outcomes between US epilepsy centers and may inject disparities in access to surgical treatment.     

Securing wider EU commitment to the elimination of hepatitis C virus

In 2016, the Hepatitis B and C Public Policy Association (HepBCPPA), gathered all the main stakeholders in the field of hepatitis C virus (HCV) to launch the now landmark HCV Elimination Manifesto, calling for the elimination of HCV in the EU by 2030. Since then, many European countries have made progress towards HCV elimination. Multiple programmes—from the municipality level to the EU level—were launched, resulting in an overall decrease in viremic HCV infections and liver-related mortality. However, as of 2021, most countries are not on track to reach the 2030 HCV elimination targets set by the WHO. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a decrease in HCV diagnoses and fewer direct-acting antiviral treatment initiations in 2020. Diagnostic and therapeutic tools to easily diagnose and treat chronic HCV infection are now well established. Treating all patients with chronic HCV infection is more cost-saving than treating and caring for patients with liver-related complications, decompensated cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. It is more important than ever to reinforce and scale-up action towards HCV elimination. Yet, efforts urgently need the dedicated commitment of policymakers at all governmental and policy levels. Therefore, the third EU Policy Summit, held in March 2021, featured EU parliamentarians and other key decision makers to promote dialogue and take strides towards securing wider EU commitment to advance and achieve HCV elimination by 2030. We have summarized the key action points and reported the ‘Call-to-Action’ statement supported by all the major relevant European associations in the field.