Intrinsic Brain Activity Differences in Perampanel-responsive and Non-responsive Drug-resistant Epilepsy Patients: an EEG Microstate Analysis

Overview

Journal Ther Adv Neurol Disord

Specialty Neurology

Date 2024 Feb 1

PMID 38298737

Authors

Chaofeng Zhu

Juan Li

Dazhu Wei

Luyan Wu

Yuying Zhang

Huapin Huang

Wanhui Lin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) patients exhibit aberrant large-scale brain networks. Perampanel may be a therapeutic option for controlling seizures in these patients.

Objective: We aim to explore the differences of resting-state electroencephalogram (EEG) microstate in perampanel-responsive and non-responsive DRE patients.

Design: Retrospective study.

Methods: Clinical data were collected from DRE patients who received perampanel treatment at the Fujian Medical University Union Hospital from June 2020 to September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Patients were classified into three groups based on the extent of reduction in seizure frequency: non-responsive (seizure reduction <50%), responsive (seizure reduction >50% but not seizure-free), and seizure-free. Resting-state EEG data sets of all participants were subjected to EEG microstate analysis. The study comprehensively compared the mean duration, frequency per second, and temporal coverage of each microstate among the three groups.

Results: A total of 76 perampanel-treated DRE patients were categorized into three groups based on their response to treatment: non-responsive ( = 20), responsive ( = 36), and seizure-free ( = 20), according to the degree of seizure frequency reduction. The results of EEG microstate analysis revealed no statistically significant distinctions in frequency, duration, and coverage of microstate D in these DRE patients. However, the seizure-free group showed significantly increased duration and coverage of microstate A, frequency and coverage of microstate B, and significantly decreased duration, frequency, and coverage of microstate C when compared with the other groups.

Conclusion: Microstate A, B, and D is associated with the sensorimotor network, visual network, salience network, and attention network, respectively. This study demonstrates statistically significant differences in the sensorimotor, visual, and salience networks, but not in the attention network, between perampanel-responsive and non-responsive DRE patients.

Citing Articles

A comprehensive prediction model of drug-refractory epilepsy based on combined clinical-EEG microstate features.

Zhang J, Zhu C, Li J, Wu L, Zhang Y, Huang H Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2024; 17:17562864241276202.

PMID: 39371640 PMC: 11456178. DOI: 10.1177/17562864241276202.

References

Meyer G, Marco-Pallares J, Boulinguez P, Sescousse G . Electrophysiological underpinnings of reward processing: Are we exploiting the full potential of EEG?. Neuroimage. 2021; 242:118478. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118478. View

Zhang Z, Lu G, Zhong Y, Tan Q, Yang Z, Liao W . Impaired attention network in temporal lobe epilepsy: a resting FMRI study. Neurosci Lett. 2009; 458(3):97-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.04.040. View

Jiang Y, Zhu M, Hu Y, Wang K . Altered Resting-State Electroencephalography Microstates in Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy: A Prospective Case-Control Study. Front Neurol. 2021; 12:710952. PMC: 8645577. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.710952. View

Tangwiriyasakul C, Perani S, Abela E, Carmichael D, Richardson M . Sensorimotor network hypersynchrony as an endophenotype in families with genetic generalized epilepsy: A resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Epilepsia. 2019; 60(3):e14-e19. PMC: 6446943. DOI: 10.1111/epi.14663. View

Xiao F, Lei D, An D, Li L, Chen S, Chen F . Functional brain connectome and sensorimotor networks in rolandic epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2015; 113:113-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2015.03.015. View

Sultana B, Panzini M, Carpentier A, Comtois J, Rioux B, Gore G . Incidence and Prevalence of Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Neurology. 2021; 96(17):805-817. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011839. View

Rossi J, Cavallieri F, Bassi M, Biagini G, Rizzi R, Russo M . Efficacy and Tolerability of Perampanel in Brain Tumor-Related Epilepsy: A Systematic Review. Biomedicines. 2023; 11(3). PMC: 10045654. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11030651. View

Sun Y, Ren G, Ren J, Wang Q . Intrinsic Brain Activity in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy With and Without Depression: Insights From EEG Microstates. Front Neurol. 2022; 12:753113. PMC: 8764160. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.753113. View

Yang L, He J, Liu D, Zheng W, Song Z . EEG Microstate Features as an Automatic Recognition Model of High-Density Epileptic EEG Using Support Vector Machine. Brain Sci. 2022; 12(12). PMC: 9775561. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12121731. View

10.

Ricci L, Croce P, Pulitano P, Boscarino M, Zappasodi F, Narducci F . Levetiracetam Modulates EEG Microstates in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Brain Topogr. 2022; 35(5-6):680-691. PMC: 9684258. DOI: 10.1007/s10548-022-00911-2. View

11.

Vlachos I, Kugiumtzis D, Tsalikakis D, Kimiskidis V . TMS-induced brain connectivity modulation in Genetic Generalized Epilepsy. Clin Neurophysiol. 2021; 133:83-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2021.10.011. View

12.

V K, Rajagopalan S, Bhardwaj S, Panda R, Reddam V, Ganne C . Machine learning detects EEG microstate alterations in patients living with temporal lobe epilepsy. Seizure. 2018; 61:8-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2018.07.007. View

13.

Liguori C, Spanetta M, Izzi F, Russo A, Guerra A, Mercuri N . Perampanel Increases Cortical EEG Fast Activity in Child and Adult Patients Affected by Epilepsy: A Quantitative EEG Study. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2020; 52(5):360-370. DOI: 10.1177/1550059420947936. View

14.

Rohracher A, Kalss G, Leitinger M, Granbichler C, Deak I, Dobesberger J . Two-year real-world experience with perampanel in patients with refractory focal epilepsy: Austrian data. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2016; 9(6):445-453. PMC: 5066528. DOI: 10.1177/1756285616661115. View

15.

Musso F, Brinkmeyer J, Mobascher A, Warbrick T, Winterer G . Spontaneous brain activity and EEG microstates. A novel EEG/fMRI analysis approach to explore resting-state networks. Neuroimage. 2010; 52(4):1149-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.093. View

16.

Yuan H, Zotev V, Phillips R, Drevets W, Bodurka J . Spatiotemporal dynamics of the brain at rest--exploring EEG microstates as electrophysiological signatures of BOLD resting state networks. Neuroimage. 2012; 60(4):2062-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.031. View

17.

Khanna A, Pascual-Leone A, Michel C, Farzan F . Microstates in resting-state EEG: current status and future directions. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014; 49:105-13. PMC: 4305485. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.12.010. View

18.

Zaccara G, Giovannelli F, Cincotta M, Verrotti A, Grillo E . The adverse event profile of perampanel: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Neurol. 2013; 20(8):1204-11. DOI: 10.1111/ene.12170. View

19.

Ledingham D, Patsalos P . Perampanel: What is its Place in the Management of Partial Onset Epilepsy?. Neurol Ther. 2015; 2(1-2):13-24. PMC: 4389029. DOI: 10.1007/s40120-013-0012-3. View

20.

Liguori C, Spanetta M, Izzi F, Mercuri N, Placidi F . Perampanel effects on cognition and quantitative EEG in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2021; 117:107803. DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.107803. View