Treatment Guidelines for Rare, Early-Onset, Treatment-Resistant Epileptic Conditions: A Literature Review on Dravet Syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome and CDKL5 Deficiency Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dravet syndrome (DS), Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) and CDKL5 deficiency disorder (CDD) are rare epileptic conditions, characterised by drug-resistant seizures. Seizure management in these patients requires careful therapy selection. This targeted literature review (TLR) aimed to collate and synthesise information from country-specific and international treatment guidelines for DS, LGS and CDD. Methods: A TLR was performed between 25th January and 11th March 2021. Online rare diseases and guideline databases were manually searched in addition to websites of national health technology assessment bodies for the following countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Spain, Switzerland, UK and US, as defined by pre-specified eligibility criteria. Search terms, developed for each condition, were translated into local languages where appropriate. Descriptive analyses were performed to examine the geographical distribution of included guidelines; methodologies used to develop guidelines; cross-referencing of treatment recommendations made within other guidelines; patterns of treatment recommendations. An author map was created using R version 3.5.1, to visualise the extent of collaboration between authors. Results: Forty total guidelines were included, of which 29, 34 and 0 contained recommendations for DS, LGS and CDD, respectively (some provided recommendations for ≥1 condition). Most were country-specific, with guideline authors predominantly publishing in regional groups. Five guidelines were classified as “International” and displayed connections between author groups in the US, UK, France and Italy. Reported guideline development processes were lacking [43% (17 guidelines) had unclear/absent literature review methodologies] and those reported were variable, including both systematic and targeted literature reviews. Use of expert consultation was also variable. A high degree of heterogeneity was observed in the availability of treatment recommendations across disorders, with 271 and 190 recommendations for LGS and DS, respectively, and contradictory positive and negative treatment recommendations for several drugs in each indication [35% (11/31) and 22% (6/27) in LGS and DS, respectively]. Conclusions: This review highlights the need for further high-quality international consensus-based treatment guidelines for LGS, DS, and particularly for CDD (for which no treatment guidelines were identified). Supra-national consensus guidance based on findings from a wider geographical range may improve resource allocation and establish an improved world-wide standard of care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".