The Use of Placebo as a Provocative Test in the Diagnosis of Psychogenic Non Epileptic Seizures

Use of suggestive seizure manipulation methods in the investigation of patients with possible psychogenic nonepileptic seizures-An international ILAE survey

Video‐encephalographic (vEEG) seizure recordings make essential contributions to the differentiation of epilepsy and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). The yield of vEEG examinations can be increased through suggestive seizure manipulation (SSM) (ie, activation/provocation/cessation procedures), but its use has raised ethical concerns. In preparation for guidelines on the investigation of patients with PNES, the ILAE PNES Task Force carried out an international survey to investigate practices of and opinions about SSM. An online questionnaire was developed by the ILAE PNES Task Force. Questions were asked at clinical unit or individual respondent level. All ILAE chapters were encouraged to send questionnaires to their members. The survey was open from July 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019. A total of 487 clinicians from 411 units across 94 countries responded. Some form of SSM was used in 296/411 units (72.0%). Over 90% reported the use of verbal suggestion, over 80% the use of activation procedures also capable of eliciting epileptic activity (hyperventilation or photic stimulation). Only 26.3% of units used techniques specifically intended to provoke PNES (eg, saline injection). Fewer than 10% of units had established protocols for SSM, only 20% of units required written patient consent, in 12.2% of units patients received explicitly false information to provoke seizures. Clinicians using SSM tended to perceive no ethical problems, whereas those not using SSM were likely to have ethical concerns about these methods. We conclude that the use of invasive nocebo techniques intended to provoke PNES in diagnostic settings has declined, but SSM is commonly combined with activation procedures also capable of eliciting epileptic activity. While research suggests that openness about the use of PNES‐specific nocebo techniques does not reduce diagnostic yield, very few units have suggestion protocols or seek patient consent. This could be addressed through establishing consensus guidance for the practice of SSM.

Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures: Diagnosis, Management, and Bioethics

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis and management of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) is often challenging and fraught with discord and disagreement between patients, parents, and physicians. Furthermore, there are ethical challenges when making the diagnosis, communicating this information, and instituting management.

METHODS

We reviewed the current body of knowledge regarding the characteristic differences between epileptic seizures and PNES, and the high incidence of psychiatric comorbidities. An ethical analysis was made of diagnosis and management based on ethical principles, virtue ethics, and the social contract that health professionals have with patients.

RESULTS

Key distinctions between PNES and epilepsy lie in both patient and seizure characteristics. Long duration, eye closure, asynchronous movements, frequent recurrence in the same context, intra-ictal awareness, and lack of post ictal state are useful in helping establish the diagnosis. Psychiatric comorbidities, history of abuse, cognitive impairment, and multiple non specific somatic complaints are some salient patient features that should increase suspicion for the diagnosis of PNES. However, definitive diagnosis rests on capturing the events on video EEG.

CONCLUSION

Effective diagnosis and management of PNES requires the use of video EEG and an early collaborative approach between pediatricians, neurologists, psychiatrists, nursing staff, and other professional colleagues. Ethical questions that may arise should be addressed with the virtues of competence, courage, compassion, prudence, and honesty; and the principles of respect beneficence, and the avoidance of unnecessary harm.