Unlike people who have other chronic health conditions, PWE appeared not to be at risk of digital exclusion. This study highlighted a great interest in the use of wearable technology across epilepsy service users, carers, and healthcare professionals, which was independent of demographic and clinical factors and outpaced data security and technology usability concerns.

No abstract

Noninvasive wearable devices have great potential to aid the management of epilepsy, but these devices must have robust signal quality, and patients must be willing to wear them for long periods of time. Automated machine learning classification of wearable biosensor signals requires quantitative measures of signal quality to automatically reject poor‐quality or corrupt data segments. In this study, commercially available wearable sensors were placed on patients with epilepsy undergoing in‐hospital or in‐home electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring, and healthy volunteers. Empatica E4 and Biovotion Everion were used to record accelerometry (ACC), photoplethysmography (PPG), and electrodermal activity (EDA). Byteflies Sensor Dots were used to record ACC and PPG, the Activinsights GENEActiv watch to record ACC, and Epitel Epilog to record EEG data. PPG and EDA signals were recorded for multiple days, then epochs of high‐quality, marginal‐quality, or poor‐quality data were visually identified by reviewers, and reviewer annotations were compared to automated signal quality measures. For ACC, the ratio of spectral power from 0.8 to 5 Hz to broadband power was used to separate good‐quality signals from noise. For EDA, the rate of amplitude change and prevalence of sharp peaks significantly differentiated between good‐quality data and noise. Spectral entropy was used to assess PPG and showed significant differences between good‐, marginal‐, and poor‐quality signals. EEG data were evaluated using methods to identify a spectral noise cutoff frequency. Patients were asked to rate the usability and comfort of each device in several categories. Patients showed a significant preference for the wrist‐worn devices, and the Empatica E4 device was preferred most often. Current wearable devices can provide high‐quality data and are acceptable for routine use, but continued development is needed to improve data quality, consistency, and management, as well as acceptability to patients.

SummaryObjectiveAntiepileptic drug (AED) treatment failures may occur because there is insufficient drug in the brain or because of a lack of relevant therapeutic response. Until now it has not been possible to measure these factors. It has been recently shown that the combination of transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (TMS‐EEG) can measure the effects of drugs in healthy volunteers. TMS‐evoked EEG potentials (TEPs) comprise a series of positive and negative deflections that can be specifically modulated by drugs with a well‐known mode of action targeting inhibitory neurotransmission. Therefore, we hypothesized that TMS‐EEG can detect effects of two widely used AEDs, lamotrigine and levetiracetam, in healthy volunteers.MethodsFifteen healthy subjects participated in a pseudo‐randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, crossover design, using a single oral dose of lamotrigine (300 mg) and levetiracetam (3,000 mg). TEPs were recorded before and 120 min after drug intake, and the effects of drugs on the amplitudes of TEP components were statistically evaluated.ResultsA nonparametric cluster‐based permutation analysis of TEP amplitudes showed that AEDs both increased the amplitude of the negative potential at 45 msec after stimulation (N45) and suppressed the positive peak at 180 msec (P180). This is the first demonstration of AED‐induced modulation of TMS‐EEG measures.SignificanceDespite the different mechanism of action that lamotrigine and levetiracetam exert at the molecular level, both AEDs impact the TMS‐EEG response in a similar way. These TMS‐EEG fingerprints observed in healthy subjects are candidate predictive markers of treatment response in patients on monotherapy with lamotrigine and levetiracetam.

If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.