Timing the clinical onset of epileptic spasms in infantile epileptic spasms syndrome: A tertiary health center's experience

Aristides Hadjinicolaou,Christina Briscoe Abath,Avantika Singh,Stephanie Donatelli,Catherine L. Salussolia,Alexander Li Cohen,Jie He,Nishtha Gupta,Sabrina Merchant,Bo Zhang,Heather Olson,Christopher J. Yuskaitis,Mark H. Libenson,Chellamani Harini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.17900

IF: 6.74

2024-02-07

Epilepsia

Abstract:Objective Lead time to treatment (clinical onset of epileptic spasms [ES] to initiation of appropriate treatment) is known to predict outcomes in infantile epileptic spasms syndrome (IESS). Timing the clinical onset of ES is crucial to establish lead time. We investigated how often ES onset could be established to the nearest week. We aimed to (1) ascertain the exact date or estimate the nearest week of ES onset and (2) compare clinical/demographic factors between patients where date of ES onset was determined or estimated to the nearest week and patients whose date of ES onset could not be estimated to the nearest week. Reasons for difficulties in estimating date of ES onset were explored. Methods Retrospective chart review of new onset IESS patients (January 2019–May 2022) extracted the date or week of the clinical onset of ES. Predictors of difficulty in date of ES onset estimation to the nearest week were examined by regression analysis. Sources contributing to difficulties determining date of ES onset were assessed after grouping into categories (provider‐, caregiver‐, disease‐related). Results Among 100 patients, date of ES onset was estimated to the nearest week in 47%. On univariable analysis, age at diagnosis (p = .021), development delay (p = .007), developmental regression/stagnation (p = .021), ES intermixed with other seizures (p = .011), and nonclustered ES at onset (p = .005) were associated with difficulties estimating date of ES onset. On multivariable analysis, failure to establish date of ES onset was related to ES intermixed with other seizures (p = .004) and nonclustered ES at onset (p = .003). Sources contributing to difficulties determining date of ES onset included disease‐related factors (ES characteristics, challenges interpreting electroencephalograms) and provider/caregiver‐related factors (delayed diagnosis). Significance Difficulties with estimation of lead time (due to difficulties timing ES onset) can impact clinical care (prognostication), as even small increments in lead time duration can have adverse developmental consequences.

clinical neurology