Comparison and Selection of Current Implantable Anti-Epileptic Devices

The role of neuromodulation in the management of drug-resistant epilepsy

Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) poses significant challenges in terms of effective management and seizure control. Neuromodulation techniques have emerged as promising solutions for individuals who are unresponsive to pharmacological treatments, especially for those who are not good surgical candidates for surgical resection or laser interstitial therapy (LiTT). Currently, there are three neuromodulation techniques that are FDA-approved for the management of DRE. These include vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). Device selection, optimal time, and DBS and RNS target selection can also be challenging. In general, the number and localizability of the epileptic foci, alongside the comorbidities manifested by the patients, substantially influence the selection process. In the past, the general axiom was that DBS and VNS can be used for generalized and localized focal seizures, while RNS is typically reserved for patients with one or two highly localized epileptic foci, especially if they are in eloquent areas of the brain. Nowadays, with the advance in our understanding of thalamic involvement in DRE, RNS is also very effective for general non-focal epilepsy. In this review, we will discuss the underlying mechanisms of action, patient selection criteria, and the evidence supporting the use of each technique. Additionally, we explore emerging technologies and novel approaches in neuromodulation, such as closed-loop systems. Moreover, we examine the challenges and limitations associated with neuromodulation therapies, including adverse effects, complications, and the need for further long-term studies. This comprehensive review aims to provide valuable insights on present and future use of neuromodulation.

Neurostimulation treatments for epilepsy: Deep brain stimulation, responsive neurostimulation and vagus nerve stimulation

Epilepsy is a common and debilitating neurological disorder, and approximately one-third of affected individuals have ongoing seizures despite appropriate trials of two anti-seizure medications. This population with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) may benefit from neurostimulation approaches, such as vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). In some patient populations, these techniques are FDA-approved for treating DRE. VNS is used as adjuvant therapy for children and adults. Acting via the vagus afferent network, VNS modulates thalamocortical circuits, reducing seizures in approximately 50 ​% of patients. RNS uses an adaptive (closed-loop) system that records intracranial EEG patterns to activate the stimulation at the appropriate time, being particularly well-suited to treat seizures arising within eloquent cortex. For DBS, the most promising therapeutic targets are the anterior and centromedian nuclei of the thalamus, with anterior nucleus DBS being used for treating focal and secondarily generalized forms of DRE and centromedian nucleus DBS being applied for treating generalized epilepsies such as Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Here, we discuss the indications, advantages and limitations of VNS, DBS and RNS in treating DRE and summarize the spatial distribution of neuroimaging observations related to epilepsy and stimulation using NeuroQuery and NeuroSynth.

Chronic subthreshold cortical stimulation: A promising therapy for motor cortex seizures

Chronic subthreshold cortical stimulation (CSCS) is a form of neurostimulation consisting of continuous or cyclic, open-loop, subthreshold electrical stimulation of a well-defined epileptogenic zone (EZ). CSCS has seen limited clinical use but could be a safe and effective long-term treatment of focal drug resistant epilepsy, in particular when the EZ is located in the motor cortex. We present a case of a 49-year-old woman suffering from debilitating focal motor seizures. Treatment with CSCS resulted in significant clinical improvement, enabling her to walk unaided for the first time in years.

Neuro-stimulation in focal epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Different neurostimulation modalities are available to treat drug-resistant focal epilepsy when surgery is not an option including vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS). Head-to-head comparisons of efficacy do not exist between them nor are likely to be available in the future. We performed a meta-analysis on VNS, RNS, and DBS outcomes to compare seizure reduction efficacy for focal epilepsy.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the literature for reported seizure outcomes following implantation with VNS, RNS, and DBS in focal-onset seizures and performed a meta-analysis. Prospective or retrospective clinical studies were included.

RESULTS

Sufficient data were available at years one (n = 642, two (n = 480), and three (n = 385) for comparing the three modalities with each other. Seizure reduction for the devices at years one, two, and three respectively were: RNS: 66.3%, 56.0%, 68.4%; DBS- 58.4%, 57.5%, 63.8%; VNS 32.9%, 44.4%, 53.5%. Seizure reduction at year one was greater for RNS (p < 0.01) and DBS (p < 0.01) compared to VNS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate the seizure reduction efficacy of RNS is similar to DBS, and both had greater seizure reductions compared to VNS in the first-year post-implantation, with the differences diminishing with longer-term follow-up.

SIGNIFICANCE

The results help guide neuromodulation treatment in eligible patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

Impact of Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Drug-Resistant Epilepsy on Patterns of Use and Cost of Health Care Services and Pharmacotherapy: Comparisons of the 24-Month Periods Before and After Implantation

PURPOSE

This study examines the impact of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) as treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) on the use and cost of health care services and pharmacotherapy.

METHODS

Using a large US health care claims database, we identified all patients with DRE who underwent VNS between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2019. VNS implantation date was designated as the index date, and patients had to be continuously enrolled for the 24-month period before this date (preindex period). Outcomes included all-cause and epilepsy-related hospitalization, emergency department (ED) visits, and health care costs; health care claims resulting in an epilepsy diagnosis and all claims for antiseizure medications were deemed epilepsy related. Preindex data, except care related to preoperative medical clearance for VNS, were used to estimate multivariate regression models predicting outcomes during the 24-month postindex period (follow-up period). Predicted outcomes during follow-up were then compared with observed values. As a sensitivity analysis, we also replicated all analyses among subgroups defined by comorbid depression.

FINDINGS

A total of 659 patients underwent VNS for DRE and met the selection criteria. For the composite outcome of all-cause hospitalizations and ED visits, observed values were 42% lower than expected during the 24-month follow-up period; for the composite outcome of epilepsy-related hospitalizations and ED visits, observed values were 49% lower (P < 0.001 for both). Observed mean total all-cause costs, inclusive of costs of the procedure, were not significantly different than expected costs by month 19 of follow-up; mean total epilepsy-related costs were comparable by month 18. Findings were similar in subgroups with and without depression, although nominally greater differences (observed - expected) were seen in those with comorbid depression.

IMPLICATIONS

Our findings suggest that VNS is associated with decreased risk of hospitalization or ED visits (all cause and epilepsy related) during the 2-year period subsequent to implantation and may become cost-neutral within 2 years of implantation (vs continued medical management of DRE without VNS). Although expected outcomes were estimated based on the 24-month period before implantation, the degree to which they approximated what would have happened in the absence of VNS is unknowable. Further research is needed to better understand the extend and duration of the impact of VNS on seizure frequency and severity and health-related quality of life, including its performance among those with and without comorbid depression.

Neurostimulation in generalized epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

There are three neurostimulation devices available to treat generalized epilepsy: vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). However, the choice between them is unclear due to lack of head-to-head comparisons. A systematic comparison of neurostimulation outcomes in generalized epilepsy has not been performed previously. The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine whether one of these devices is better than the others to treat generalized epilepsy.

METHODS

Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was performed for studies reporting seizure outcomes following VNS, RNS, and DBS implantation in generalized drug-resistant epilepsy between the first pivotal trial study for each modality through August 2022. Specific search criteria were used for VNS ("vagus", "vagal", or "VNS" in the title and "epilepsy" or "seizure"), DBS ("deep brain stimulation", "DBS", "anterior thalamic nucleus", "centromedian nucleus", or "thalamic stimulation" in the title and "epilepsy" or "seizure"), and RNS ("responsive neurostimulation" or "RNS" in the title and "epilepsy" or "seizure"). From 4409 articles identified, 319 underwent full-text reviews, and 20 studies were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model using the meta package in R.

RESULTS

Sufficient data for meta-analysis were available from seven studies for VNS (n = 510) and nine studies for DBS (n = 87). Data from RNS (five studies, n = 18) were insufficient for meta-analysis. The mean (SD) follow-up durations were as follows: VNS, 39.1 (23.4) months; DBS, 23.1 (19.6) months; and RNS, 22.3 (10.6) months. Meta-analysis showed seizure reductions of 48.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 38.7%-57.9%) for VNS and 64.8% (95% CI = 54.4%-75.2%) for DBS (p = .02).

SIGNIFICANCE

Our meta-analysis indicates that the use of DBS may lead to greater seizure reduction than VNS in generalized epilepsy. Results from RNS use are promising, but further research is required.

Responsive Neurostimulation for Seizure Control: Current Status and Future Directions

Electrocorticography (ECoG) data are commonly obtained during drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) workup, in which subdural grids and stereotaxic depth electrodes are placed on the cortex for weeks at a time, with the goal of elucidating seizure origination. ECoG data can also be recorded from neuromodulatory devices, such as responsive neurostimulation (RNS), which involves the placement of electrodes deep in the brain. Of the neuromodulatory devices, RNS is the first to use recorded ECoG data to direct the delivery of electrical stimulation in order to control seizures. In this review, we first introduced the clinical management for epilepsy, and discussed the steps from seizure onset to surgical intervention. We then reviewed studies discussing the emergence and therapeutic mechanism behind RNS, and discussed why RNS may be underperforming despite an improved seizure detection mechanism. We discussed the potential utility of incorporating machine learning techniques to improve seizure detection in RNS, and the necessity to change RNS targets for stimulation, in order to account for the network theory of epilepsy. We concluded by commenting on the current and future status of neuromodulation in managing epilepsy, and the role of predictive algorithms to improve outcomes.

Anterior nucleus of the thalamus deep brain stimulation vs temporal lobe responsive neurostimulation for temporal lobe epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Based on the promising results of randomized controlled trials, deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) are used increasingly in the treatment of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is an indication for either DBS of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT) or temporal lobe (TL) RNS, but there are no studies that directly compare the seizure benefits and adverse effects associated with these therapies in this patient population. We, therefore, examined all patients who underwent ANT-DBS or TL-RNS for drug-resistant TLE at our center.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who were treated with either ANT-DBS or TL-RNS for drug-resistant TLE with at least 12 months of follow-up. Along with the clinical characteristics of each patient's epilepsy, seizure frequency was recorded throughout each patient's postoperative clinical course.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients underwent ANT-DBS implantation and 32 patients underwent TL-RNS for drug-resistant TLE. The epilepsy characteristics of both groups were similar. Patients who underwent ANT-DBS demonstrated a median seizure reduction of 58% at 12-15 months, compared to a median seizure reduction of 70% at 12-15 months in patients treated with TL-RNS (p > .05). The responder rate (percentage of patients with a 50% decrease or more in seizure frequency) was 54% for ANT-DBS and 56% for TL-RNS (p > .05). The incidence of complications and stimulation-related side effects did not significantly differ between therapies.

SIGNIFICANCE

We demonstrate in our single-center experience that patients with drug-resistant TLE benefit similarly from either ANT-DBS or TL-RNS. Selection of either ANT-DBS or TL-RNS may, therefore, depend more heavily on patient and provider preference, as each has unique capabilities and configurations. Future studies will consider subgroup analyses to determine if specific patients have greater seizure frequency reduction from one form of neuromodulation strategy over another.

Optimized Design of a Self-Biased Amplifier for Seizure Detection Supplied by Piezoelectric Nanogenerator: Metaheuristic Algorithms versus ANN-Assisted Goal Attainment Method

This work is dedicated to parameter optimization for a self-biased amplifier to be used in preamplifiers for the diagnosis of seizures in neuro-diseases such as epilepsy. For the sake of maximum compactness, which is obligatory for all implantable devices, power is to be supplied by a piezoelectric nanogenerator (PENG). Several meta-heuristic optimization algorithms and an ANN (artificial neural network)-assisted goal attainment method were applied to the circuit, aiming to provide us with the set of optimal design parameters which ensure the minimal overall area of the preamplifier. These parameters are the slew rate, load capacitor, gain–bandwidth product, maximal input voltage, minimal input voltage, input voltage, reference voltage, and dissipation power. The results are re-evaluated and compared in the Cadence 180 nm SCL environment. It has been observed that, among the metaheuristic algorithms, the whale optimization technique reached the best values at low computational cost, decreased complexity, and the highest convergence speed. However, all metaheuristic algorithms were outperformed by the ANN-assisted goal attainment method, which produced a roughly 50% smaller overall area of the preamplifier. All the techniques described here are applicable to the design and optimization of wearable or implantable circuits.

Responsive Thalamic Neurostimulation: A Systematic Review of a Promising Approach for Refractory Epilepsy

Introduction

Responsive neurostimulation is an evolving therapeutic option for patients with treatment-refractory epilepsy. Open-loop, continuous stimulation of the anterior thalamic nuclei is the only approved modality, yet chronic stimulation rarely induces complete seizure remission and is associated with neuropsychiatric adverse effects. Accounts of off-label responsive stimulation in thalamic nuclei describe significant improvements in patients who have failed multiple drug regimens, vagal nerve stimulation, and other invasive measures. This systematic review surveys the currently available data supporting the use of responsive thalamic neurostimulation in primary and secondary generalized, treatment-refractory epilepsy.

Materials and Methods

A systematic review was performed using the following combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary: (“Seizures”[Mesh] AND “Thalamus”[Mesh] AND “Deep Brain Stimulation”[Mesh]) OR (responsive neurostim* AND (thalamus[MeSH])) OR [responsive neurostimulation AND thalamus AND (epilepsy OR seizures)]. In addition, a search of the publications listed under the PubMed “cited by” tab was performed for all publications that passed title/abstract screening in addition to manually searching their reference lists.

Results

Ten publications were identified describing a total of 29 subjects with a broad range of epilepsy disorders treated with closed-loop thalamic neurostimulation. The median age of subjects was 31 years old (range 10–65 years). Of the 29 subjects, 15 were stimulated in the anterior, 11 in the centromedian, and 3 in the pulvinar nuclei. Excluding 5 subjects who were treated for 1 month or less, median time on stimulation was 19 months (range 2.4–54 months). Of these subjects, 17/24 experienced greater than or equal to 50%, 11/24 least 75%, and 9/24 at least 90% reduction in seizures. Although a minority of patients did not exhibit significant clinical improvement by follow-up, there was a general trend of increasing treatment efficacy with longer periods on closed-loop thalamic stimulation.

Conclusion

The data supporting off-label closed-loop thalamic stimulation for refractory epilepsy is limited to 29 adult and pediatric patients, many of whom experienced significant improvement in seizure duration and frequency. This encouraging progress must be verified in larger studies.

Low Power EEG Data Encoding for Brain Neurostimulation Implants

Neurostimulation devices applied for the treatment of epilepsy that collect, encode, temporarily store, and transfer electroencephalographic (EEG) signals recorded intracranially from epileptic patients, suffer from short battery life spans. The principal goal of this study is to implement strategies for low power consumption rates during the device’s smooth and uninterrupted operation as well as during data transmission. Our approach is organised in three basic levels. The first level regards the initial modelling and creation of the template for the following two stages. The second level regards the development of code for programming integrated circuits and simulation. The third and final stage regards the transmitter’s implementation at the evaluation level. In particular, more than one software and device are involved in this phase, in order to achieve realistic performance. Our research aims to evolve such technologies so that they can transmit wireless data with simultaneous energy efficiency.

Combined VNS-RNS Neuromodulation for Epilepsy

SUMMARY

The vagus nerve stimulator (VNS) and responsive nerve stimulator (RNS) are nonpharmacological devices approved for drug-resistant epilepsy. Vagus nerve stimulator was removed before placing an RNS in clinical trials. Two cases of bilateral mesial temporal epilepsy treated concurrently with VNS and bilateral mesial temporal RNS devices were reported. In each case, the VNS device was turned off temporarily, which allowed for a direct comparison of RNS recordings and efficacy with and without simultaneous VNS stimulation. Temporary VNS cessation lead to increased clinical and electrocorticographic seizures despite continued anti-seizure drugs and RNS stimulation. In one case, VNS eliminated seizures from one epileptogenic area, whereas VNS and RNS were required to treat seizures from the contralateral mesial temporal structure. In another case, VNS effectively decreased seizure spread to the symptomatogenic zone. These cases demonstrate synergistic neuromodulation with concurrent use of VNS and RNS in intractable bitemporal epilepsy.

Evolution of the Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) Therapy System Technology for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

The vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) Therapy® System is the first FDA-approved medical device therapy for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy. Over the past two decades, the technology has evolved through multiple iterations resulting in software-related updates and implantable lead and generator hardware improvements. Healthcare providers today commonly encounter a range of single- and dual-pin generators (models 100, 101, 102, 102R, 103, 104, 105, 106, 1000) and related programming systems (models 250, 3000), all of which have their own subtle, but practical differences. It can therefore be a daunting task to go through the manuals of these implant models for comparison, some of which are not readily available. In this review, we highlight the technological evolution of the VNS Therapy System with respect to device approval milestones and provide a comparison of conventional open-loop vs. the latest closed-loop generator models. Battery longevity projections and an in-depth examination of stimulation mode interactions are also presented to further differentiate amongst generator models.

Comparison of utilization and cost of healthcare services and pharmacotherapy following implantation of vagus nerve stimulation vs. responsive neurostimulation or deep brain stimulation for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy: analyses of a large United States healthcare claims database

AIM

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS) all are options for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). However, little is known about how the choice of neurostimulation impacts subsequent healthcare costs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a large US healthcare claims database to identify all patients with epilepsy who underwent neurostimulation between 2012 and 2019. Eligible patients were identified and stratified based on procedure received (VNS vs. RNS/DBS). VNS patients were matched by propensity scoring to RNS/DBS patients. Use and cost of healthcare resources and pharmacotherapy were ascertained over the 24-month period following neurostimulation, incorporating all-cause and epilepsy-related measures. Disease-related care was defined based on diagnoses of claims for medical care and relevant pharmacotherapies.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and ninety-two patients met all selection criteria. VNS patients were younger, were prescribed a higher pre-index mean number of anti-seizure medications (ASMs), and had higher pre-index levels of use and cost of epilepsy-related healthcare services. We propensity matched 148 VNS patients to an equal number of RNS/DBS patients. One year following index date (inclusive), mean total all-cause healthcare costs were 50% lower among VNS patients than RNS/DBS patients, and mean epilepsy-related costs were 55% lower; corresponding decreases at the two-year mark were 41% and 48%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Some clinical variables, such as seizure frequency and severity, quality of life, and functional status were unavailable in the database, precluding our ability to comprehensively assess differences between devices. Administrative claims data are subject to billing code errors, inaccuracies, and missing data, resulting in possible misclassification and/or unmeasured confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

After matching, VNS was associated with significantly lower all-cause and epilepsy-related costs for the two-year period following implantation. All-cause and epilepsy-related costs remained statistically significantly lower for VNS even after costs of implantation were excluded.

Three dimensional microelectrodes enable high signal and spatial resolution for neural seizure recordings in brain slices and freely behaving animals

Neural recordings made to date through various approaches—both in-vitro or in-vivo—lack high spatial resolution and a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) required for detailed understanding of brain function, synaptic plasticity, and dysfunction. These shortcomings in turn deter the ability to further design diagnostic, therapeutic strategies and the fabrication of neuro-modulatory devices with various feedback loop systems. We report here on the simulation and fabrication of fully configurable neural micro-electrodes that can be used for both in vitro and in vivo applications, with three-dimensional semi-insulated structures patterned onto custom, fine-pitch, high density arrays. These microelectrodes were interfaced with isolated brain slices as well as implanted in brains of freely behaving rats to demonstrate their ability to maintain a high SNR. Moreover, the electrodes enabled the detection of epileptiform events and high frequency oscillations in an epilepsy model thus offering a diagnostic potential for neurological disorders such as epilepsy. These microelectrodes provide unique opportunities to study brain activity under normal and various pathological conditions, both in-vivo and in in-vitro, thus furthering the ability to develop drug screening and neuromodulation systems that could accurately record and map the activity of large neural networks over an extended time period.

Grey and white matter microstructure changes in epilepsy patients with vagus nerve stimulators

OBJECTIVES

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) has been widely used as an effective treatment for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). However, little is known about grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) microstructure changes caused by VNS. This study aimed to detect consistent GM and WM alterations in epilepsy patients with vagus nerve stimulators.

METHODS

The diffusion tensor imaging data was acquired from 15 patients who underwent VNS implantation. The voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS) were used to detect group differences in GM and WM microstructure and explore their correlation with postoperative seizure reduction.

RESULTS

After 3 months of stimulation, GM density reduced in right cerebellum, left superior temporal gyrus, right inferior temporal gyrus and left thalamus, and increased in left cerebellum, left inferior parietal lobule, left middle occipital gyrus and left gyrus rectus. No significant volume changes had been found in 14 subcortical nuclei. The fractional anisotropy (FA) values reduced in left superior longitudinal fasciculus and left corticospinal tract, and increased in bilateral cingulum and body of corpus callosum. The mean diffusivity (MD) values reduced in right retrolenticular part of internal capsule, right posterior corona radiata and right superior longitudinal fasciculus. The seizure reduction had positive correlation trends with the volume reduction in left nucleus accumbens and right amygdala, and MD reduction in right medial lemniscus and right posterior corona radiata.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that VNS could cause changes of GM density, WM FA and MD values in epilepsy patients. The volume and MD reduction in some subcortical structures might participate in the seizure frequency reduction of VNS.

Neuromodulation in Drug Resistant Epilepsy

Epilepsy affects approximately 70 million people worldwide, and it is a significant contributor to the global burden of neurological disorders. Despite the advent of new AEDs, drug resistant-epilepsy continues to affect 30-40% of PWE. Once identified as having drug-resistant epilepsy, these patients should be referred to a comprehensive epilepsy center for evaluation to establish if they are candidates for potential curative surgeries. Unfortunately, a large proportion of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy are poor surgical candidates due to a seizure focus located in eloquent cortex, multifocal epilepsy or inability to identify the zone of ictal onset. An alternative treatment modality for these patients is neuromodulation. Here we present the evidence, indications and safety considerations for the neuromodulation therapies in vagal nerve stimulation (VNS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), or deep brain stimulation (DBS).

Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment of Refractory Epilepsy

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been used in the treatment of motor diseases with remarkable safety and efficacy, which abet the interest of its application in the management of other neurologic and psychiatric disorders such as epilepsy. Experimental data demonstrated that electric current could modulate distinct brain circuits and decrease the neuronal hypersynchronization seen in epileptic activity. The ability to carefully choose the most suitable anatomical target as well as to define the most reasonable stimulation parameters is highly dependable on the comprehension of the underlying mechanisms of action, which remain unclear. This review aimed to explore the relevant clinical data regarding the use of DBS in the treatment of refractory epilepsy.

Role of Neuromodulation for Treatment of Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

The choice of neuromodulation techniques has greatly increased over the past two decades. While vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) has become established, newer variations of VNS have been introduced. Following the SANTE's trial, deep brain stimulation (DBS) is now approved for clinical use. In addition, responsive neurostimulation (RNS) has provided exciting new opportunities for treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy. While neuromodulation mostly offers only a 'palliative' measure, it still provides a significant reduction of frequency and intensity of epilepsy. We provide an overview of all the techniques of neuromodulation which are available, along with long-term outcomes. Further research is required to delineate the exact mechanism of action, the indications and the stimulation parameters to extract the maximum clinical benefit from these techniques.

Comparison of efficiency between VNS and ANT-DBS therapy in drug-resistant epilepsy: A one year follow up study

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and anterior thalamic deep brain stimulation (ANT-DBS) have both been used for treatments of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). However, there is no comparative study on the effectiveness of two methods from one single center. 17 patients with DRE who underwent VNS therapy and 18 patients who underwent DBS were enrolled. A retrospective study was performed starting from baseline before operation extending to 12 months after operation. The seizure types, duration of epilepsy, age at implantation, failed numbers of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) before operation, history of craniotomy, stimulation parameters and response rate were described. The analysis of liner regression on the age of onset, duration of epilepsy, numbers of AEDs, and the seizure reduction at 12 months after operation was applied. The mean seizure reduction in patients with DBS at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after the operation was 57.22%, 61.61%, 63.94% and 65.28%, and that in cases with VNS was 36.06%, 39.94%, 45.24% and 48.35%, respectively. At 1 year after the operation, the patients with older operation age, focal seizures and older age of onset responded better to VNS; and those older operation age, focal generalized seizures, history of craniotomy and longer duration of disease responded better to DBS. The efficiency of ANT-DBS was higher than that of VNS at each follow up time point. Patients can choose the appropriate treatment according to the individual clinical characteristics.

The surgical treatment of epilepsy

In 2009, the Commission for Epilepsy Surgery of the Italian League Against Epilepsy (LICE) conducted an overview about the techniques used for the pre-surgical evaluation and the surgical treatment of epilepsies. The recognition that, in selected cases, surgery can be considered the first-line approach, suggested that the experience gained by the main Italian referral centers should be pooled in order to provide a handy source of reference. In light of the progress made over these past years, some parts of that first report have accordingly been updated. The present revision aims to harmonize the general principles regulating the patient selection and the pre-surgical work-up, as well as to expand the use of epilepsy surgery, that still represents an underutilized resource, regrettably. The objective of this contribution is drawing up a methodological framework within which to integrate the experiences of each group in this complex and dynamic sector of the neurosciences.

Epilepsy Benchmarks Area III: Improved Treatment Options for Controlling Seizures and Epilepsy-Related Conditions Without Side Effects

The goals of Epilepsy Benchmark Area III involve identifying areas that are ripe for progress in terms of controlling seizures and patient symptoms in light of the most recent advances in both basic and clinical research. These goals were developed with an emphasis on potential new therapeutic strategies that will reduce seizure burden and improve quality of life for patients with epilepsy. In particular, we continue to support the proposition that a better understanding of how seizures are initiated, propagated, and terminated in different forms of epilepsy is central to enabling new approaches to treatment, including pharmacological as well as surgical and device-oriented approaches. The stubbornly high rate of treatment-resistant epilepsy—one-third of patients—emphasizes the urgent need for new therapeutic strategies, including pharmacological, procedural, device linked, and genetic. The development of new approaches can be advanced by better animal models of seizure initiation that represent salient features of human epilepsy, as well as humanized models such as induced pluripotent stem cells and organoids. The rapid advances in genetic understanding of a subset of epilepsies provide a path to new and direct patient-relevant cellular and animal models, which could catalyze conceptualization of new treatments that may be broadly applicable across multiple forms of epilepsies beyond those arising from variation in a single gene. Remarkable advances in machine learning algorithms and miniaturization of devices and increases in computational power together provide an enhanced opportunity to detect and mitigate seizures in real time via devices that interrupt electrical activity directly or administer effective pharmaceuticals. Each of these potential areas for advance will be discussed in turn.