Closed-loop vagal nerve stimulation for intractable epilepsy: A single-center experience

Neuromodulation Strategies in Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome: Practical Clinical Guidance from the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a severe developmental and epileptic encephalopathy characterized by multiple drug-resistant seizure types, cognitive impairment, and distinctive electroencephalographic patterns. Neuromodulation techniques, including vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and responsive neurostimulation (RNS), have emerged as important treatment options for patients with LGS who do not respond adequately to antiseizure medications. This review, developed with input from the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium (PERC) LGS Special Interest Group, provides practical guidance for clinicians on the use of these neuromodulation approaches in patients with LGS. We discuss patient selection criteria, expected seizure and non-seizure outcomes, potential complications, and device management considerations for each technique. The review also covers initiation and titration strategies, ongoing care requirements, and emerging data on combining multiple neuromodulation modalities. While all three approaches can reduce seizure frequency in patients with LGS, with commonly reported responder rates ranging from 50 % to 60 %, their impacts on cognition, behavior and quality of life are more variable. Careful patient selection, individualized programming, and long-term follow-up are essential to optimize outcomes with neuromodulation in this challenging patient population. Further research is needed to identify optimal candidates, determine the ideal timing during patients' clinical course to consider neuromodulation, develop standardized outcome measures, and evaluate the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different neuromodulation techniques for LGS.

Promising therapeutic strategies for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome: what's new?

INTRODUCTION

The seizures in Lennox-Gastaut syndrome are typically resistant to treatment. Seven antiseizure medications (ASMs) in the US (six in the UK/EU) are licensed for the treatment of seizures in LGS: lamotrigine, topiramate, rufinamide, clobazam, felbamate (not licensed in the UK/EU), cannabidiol and fenfluramine. Other options include neurostimulation, corpus callosotomy and dietary therapies, principally the ketogenic diet and its variants. New treatments and therapeutic strategies are needed to improve management of both seizures and cognitive/behavioral comorbidities in LGS.

AREAS COVERED

Embase and Medline were searched for articles published between 1 January 2014 and 21 August 2024 reporting efficacy data for pharmacological, neurostimulation, surgical and dietary interventions in individuals with LGS focusing on recent advances. Ongoing and prospective studies were identified from the National Library of Medicine register of clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

LGS remains a difficult-to-treat epilepsy. Although no major breakthroughs have been reported, several established and novel ASMs, some surgical strategies and other treatment approaches are of benefit or are showing promise. Progress remains incremental but any improvements in the management of this resistant epilepsy syndrome are worthwhile.

Efficacy and Safety of Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome: A Scoping Review

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a severe developmental and epileptic encephalopathy characterized by drug-resistant seizures, cognitive impairments, and abnormal electroencephalographic patterns. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a widely used neuromodulation therapy for LGS, but its effects on seizure outcomes, different seizure types, non-seizure outcomes, and adverse events in this population have not been comprehensively reviewed. To conduct a scoping review on the use of VNS in LGS, a literature search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Web of Science, and Embase from inception to 9 June 2024, using relevant keywords and without restrictions on study design. The search yielded forty eligible studies (twenty-four retrospective cohorts, fourteen prospective cohorts, and two registry analyses) comprising 1400 LGS patients treated with VNS. No randomized controlled trials were identified. Across studies, the median seizure reduction ranged from 20.6% to 65%, with 0% to 100% of patients achieving a ≥50% seizure reduction. No consistent preoperative biomarker of VNS responsiveness was identified in LGS. Although inconsistent among different studies, tonic, atonic, and tonic-clonic seizures responded best, while focal seizures responded worst. Improvements in seizure severity, alertness, and quality of life were reported in some studies, but cognitive and adaptive functioning generally remained unchanged. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, including hoarseness, cough, and paresthesia. Device-related complications and infections were uncommon. In conclusion, further research is needed to better understand VNS's position in the evolving LGS treatment landscape and its cost effectiveness.

Closed-loop neurostimulation for the treatment of psychiatric disorders

Despite increasing prevalence and huge personal and societal burden, psychiatric diseases still lack treatments which can control symptoms for a large fraction of patients. Increasing insight into the neurobiology underlying these diseases has demonstrated wide-ranging aberrant activity and functioning in multiple brain circuits and networks. Together with varied presentation and symptoms, this makes one-size-fits-all treatment a challenge. There has been a resurgence of interest in the use of neurostimulation as a treatment for psychiatric diseases. Initial studies using continuous open-loop stimulation, in which clinicians adjusted stimulation parameters during patient visits, showed promise but also mixed results. Given the periodic nature and fluctuations of symptoms often observed in psychiatric illnesses, the use of device-driven closed-loop stimulation may provide more effective therapy. The use of a biomarker, which is correlated with specific symptoms, to deliver stimulation only during symptomatic periods allows for the personalized therapy needed for such heterogeneous disorders. Here, we provide the reader with background motivating the use of closed-loop neurostimulation for the treatment of psychiatric disorders. We review foundational studies of open- and closed-loop neurostimulation for neuropsychiatric indications, focusing on deep brain stimulation, and discuss key considerations when designing and implementing closed-loop neurostimulation.

Contemporary Approaches Toward Neuromodulation of Fear Extinction and Its Underlying Neural Circuits

Neuroscience and neuroimaging research have now identified brain nodes that are involved in the acquisition, storage, and expression of conditioned fear and its extinction. These brain regions include the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), amygdala, insular cortex, and hippocampus. Psychiatric neuroimaging research shows that functional dysregulation of these brain regions might contribute to the etiology and symptomatology of various psychopathologies, including anxiety disorders and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Barad et al. Biol Psychiatry 60:322-328, 2006; Greco and Liberzon Neuropsychopharmacology 41:320-334, 2015; Milad et al. Biol Psychiatry 62:1191-1194, 2007a, Biol Psychiatry 62:446-454, b; Maren and Quirk Nat Rev Neurosci 5:844-852, 2004; Milad and Quirk Annu Rev Psychol 63:129, 2012; Phelps et al. Neuron 43:897-905, 2004; Shin and Liberzon Neuropsychopharmacology 35:169-191, 2009). Combined, these findings indicate that targeting the activation of these nodes and modulating their functional interactions might offer an opportunity to further our understanding of how fear and threat responses are formed and regulated in the human brain, which could lead to enhancing the efficacy of current treatments or creating novel treatments for PTSD and other psychiatric disorders (Marin et al. Depress Anxiety 31:269-278, 2014; Milad et al. Behav Res Ther 62:17-23, 2014). Device-based neuromodulation techniques provide a promising means for directly changing or regulating activity in the fear extinction network by targeting functionally connected brain regions via stimulation patterns (Raij et al. Biol Psychiatry 84:129-137, 2018; Marković et al. Front Hum Neurosci 15:138, 2021). In the past ten years, notable advancements in the precision, safety, comfort, accessibility, and control of administration have been made to the established device-based neuromodulation techniques to improve their efficacy. In this chapter we discuss ten years of progress surrounding device-based neuromodulation techniques-Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT), Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), Magnetic Seizure Therapy (MST), Transcranial Focused Ultrasound (TUS), Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS), Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS), and Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES)-as research and clinical tools for enhancing fear extinction and treating PTSD symptoms. Additionally, we consider the emerging research, current limitations, and possible future directions for these techniques.

Callosotomy vs Vagus Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a severe drug-resistant epileptic syndrome. Palliative treatments such as corpus callosotomy (CC) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) have emerged as treatments to reduce the number of seizures in patients. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of CC and VNS in patients with LGS studied in the last 30 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and collected papers from PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovidsp, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library data bases. The articles analyzed were published between January 1990 and December 2020. Keywords were chosen based on internal and external validation in the PubMed data base (the analysis is available in the Supplementary Data Supplementary Appendix). Prospective or retrospective case reports (n ≥ 2), case series, cohort studies, or case-control studies involving patients with LGS were included in the analysis. We selected studies that had no age or sex restriction and that provided data on seizures before and after treatments. Studies not written in English, published without peer review, or not indexed in the data bases were excluded. Other exclusion criteria were the absence of seizure data and the impossibility of extracting this information from the studies. To analyze the results, we used the random-effects model based on the assessment of heterogeneity (I² statistics) in two scenarios. In scenario 1, we assessed the incidence of patients with a seizure reduction ≥ 50%; in scenario 2, we assessed the incidence of patients with a seizure reduction > 0%.

RESULTS

Of the 7418 articles found using the keywords, 32 were considered eligible. Of these, 18 articles were on VNS (175 patients) and 14 on CC (107 patients). For scenario 1 (seizure reduction ≥ 50%), CC had an incidence of 65% (95% CI, 37%-94%), with an I² value of 82.7%; VNS had an incidence of 34% (95% CI, 11%-57%), with an I² value of 80.7%. For scenario 2 (seizure reduction > 0%), CC had an incidence of 80% (95% CI, 58%-100%), with an I² value of 84.7%; VNS had an incidence of 64% (95% CI, 38%-89%), with an I² value of 90.8%. There was an overlap of confidence intervals, with no statistical difference between the treatments in both scenarios.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis of LGS showed that the CC and VNS treatments are significantly beneficial to reducing seizures, without superiority between them.

Emerging Trends in Neuromodulation for Treatment of Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

Epilepsy is a neurological disorder that affects more than 70 million people globally. A considerable proportion of epilepsy is resistant to anti-epileptic drugs (AED). For patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE), who are not eligible for resective or ablative surgery, neuromodulation has been a palliative option. Since the approval of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in 1997, expansion to include other modalities, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS), has led to improved seizure control in this population. In this article, we discuss the current updates and emerging trends on neuromodulation for 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.