Awareness, attitudes, skills and training needs of psychiatrists working with adults with intellectual disability in managing epilepsy

Efficacy and tolerability of Brivaracetam in people with intellectual disability compared to those without intellectual disability

INTRODUCTION

In England, nearly a quarter of people with intellectual disability (PwID) have epilepsy. Though 70 % of PwID have pharmaco-resistant seizures only 10 % are prescribed anti-seizure medication (ASMs) licenced for pharmaco-resistance. Brivaracetam (BRV) licenced in 2016 has had nine post-marketing studies involving PwID. These studies are limited either by lack of controls or not looking at outcomes based on differing levels of ID severity. This study looks at evidence comparing effectiveness and side-effects in PwID to those without ID prescribed Brivaracetam (BRV).

METHODS

Pooled case note data for patients prescribed BRV (2016-2022) at 12 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Demographics, starting and maximum dose, side-effects, dropouts and seizure frequency between ID (mild vs. moderate-profound (M/P)) and general population for a 12-month period were compared. Descriptive analysis, Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact and logistic regression methods were employed.

RESULTS

37 PwID (mild 17 M/P 20) were compared to 102 without ID. Mean start and maximum dose was lower for PwID than non-ID. Mean maximum dose reduced slightly with ID severity. No difference was found between ID and non-ID or between ID groups (Mild vs M/P) in BRV's efficacy i.e. >50 % seizure reduction or tolerability. Mental and behavioural side-effects were more prevalent for PwID (27.0 % ID, 17.6 % no ID) but not significantly higher (P = 0.441) or associated with ID severity (p = 0.255).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study on BRV, which compares ID cohorts with differing severity and non-ID. Efficacy, tolerability and side-effects reported are similar across differing ID severity to those with no ID.

Antiseizure medications prescribing for behavioural and psychiatric concerns in adults with an intellectual disability living in England

Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are the second most widely prescribed psychotropic for people with intellectual disabilities in England. Multiple psychotropic prescribing is prevalent in almost half of people with intellectual disabilities on ASMs. This analysis identifies limited evidence of ASM benefit in challenging behaviour management and suggests improvements needed to inform clinical practice.

Epilepsy, anti-seizure medication, intellectual disability and challenging behaviour - Everyone's business, no one's priority

PURPOSE

People with Intellectual Disability (ID) and epilepsy are more likely to experience psychiatric conditions, challenging behaviour (CB), treatment resistance and adverse effects of anti-seizure medications (ASM) than those without. This population receives care from various professionals, depending on local care pathways. This study evaluates the training status, confidence, reported assessment and management practices of different professional groups involved in caring for people with ID, epilepsy and CB.

METHODS

A cross sectional survey using a questionnaire developed by expert consensus which measured self-reported training status, confidence, and approaches to assessment and management of CB in people with ID and epilepsy was distributed to practitioners involved in epilepsy and/or ID.

RESULTS

Of the 83 respondents, the majority had either a psychiatry/ID (n = 39), or Neurology/epileptology background (n = 31). Psychiatry/ID and Neurology/epileptology had similar confidence in assessing CB in ID-epilepsy cases, but Psychiatry/ID exhibited higher self-rated confidence in the management of these cases. While assessing and managing CB, Psychiatry/ID appeared more likely to consider mental health aspects, while Neurology/epileptology typically focused on ASM.

CONCLUSION

Psychiatry/ID and Neurology/epileptology professionals had varying training levels in epilepsy, ID and CB, had differing confidence levels in managing this patient population, and considered different factors when approaching assessment and management. As such, training opportunities in ID should be offered to neurology professionals, and vice versa. Based on the findings, a best practice checklist is presented, which aims to provide clinicians with a structured framework to consider causal explanations for CB in this population.

Seizure and Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) characteristics in an urban UK intellectual disability service

PURPOSE

This study identifies epilepsy-related characteristics and SUDEP risk factors in people with epilepsy (PWE) attending an urban community ID service in the UK where managing epilepsy is not part of the service remit, to understand the care provided to this vulnerable population.

METHODS

An electronic database search in a north London community ID service (catchment population approx. 290,000) identified relevant ID/epilepsy characteristics in PWE to compare those with mild ID to moderate-profound ID. The SUDEP and Seizure Safety Checklist ("Checklist"), was administered to patients and families/carers. Risk management data was compared to similar data from Cornwall UK where PWE are supported within the ID service and the Checklist is used annually.

RESULTS

One fifth (137/697) of people attending the service had epilepsy. Over 3/4 had moderate-profound ID. Neurodevelopmental disorders were coexistent in 2/3, psychiatric conditions in 1/3 (1/4 of which was psychosis). The mean number of anti-seizure drugs was 1.45 ± 0.98, and 1/4 were taking psychotropic medications. Over a third did not have an epilepsy care plan. None contacted (n = 103) had SUDEP awareness. The median number of Checklist risk factors was seven (IQR 4.5-9). A third had experienced seizures lasting >5 min or status epilepticus. In comparison to the Cornish ID data significant differences were evident in four of seven modifiable risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This real world study highlights the complexity and risks among PWE and ID. The lack of a "joined up" approach can undermine the safety of this vulnerable population. Person-centred risk communication and care plans are easily achievable and essential.