Epilepsy deaths: Learning from health service delivery and trying to reduce risk

Educational inequalities in epilepsy mortality in the Baltic countries and Finland in 2000-2015

Little is known about socioeconomic differences in epilepsy mortality. This study examined educational inequalities in epilepsy mortality in the general population in the Baltic countries and Finland in 2000-2015. Education-specific mortality estimates for individuals aged 30-74 in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were obtained from census-linked mortality datasets while data for Finland came from the register-based population and death data file of Statistics Finland. Trends and educational inequalities in epilepsy mortality were assessed using age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) per 100,000 person years and age-adjusted mortality rate ratios (RRs) calculated using Poisson regression. ASMRs were higher in men than women in all countries. ASMRs reduced in 2000-2015 among all men and women except for Finnish women. Among men, an inverse educational gradient in epilepsy mortality in 2000-2007 widened in 2008-2015 with ASMRs falling among high and mid educated men in all countries but increasing among low educated men in three countries. An inverse educational gradient in female mortality remained in all countries throughout 2000-2015. Although epilepsy mortality fell in the Baltic countries and Finland (men only) in 2000-2015, this masked a clear inverse educational gradient in mortality that became steeper across the period.

Epilepsy mortality in Wales during COVID-19

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased mortality worldwide and those with chronic conditions may have been disproportionally affected. However, it is unknown whether the pandemic has changed mortality rates for people with epilepsy. We aimed to compare mortality rates in people with epilepsy in Wales during the pandemic with pre-pandemic rates.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study using individual-level linked population-scale anonymised electronic health records. We identified deaths in people with epilepsy (DPWE), i.e. those with a diagnosis of epilepsy, and deaths associated with epilepsy (DAE), where epilepsy was recorded as a cause of death on death certificates. We compared death rates in 2020 with average rates in 2015-2019 using Poisson models to calculate death rate ratios.

RESULTS

There were 188 DAE and 628 DPWE in Wales in 2020 (death rates: 7.7/100,000/year and 25.7/100,000/year). The average rates for DAE and DPWE from 2015 to 2019 were 5.8/100,000/year and 23.8/100,000/year, respectively. Death rate ratios (2020 compared to 2015-2019) for DAE were 1.34 (95%CI 1.14-1.57, p<0.001) and for DPWE were 1.08 (0.99-1.17, p = 0.09). The death rate ratios for non-COVID deaths (deaths without COVID mentioned on death certificates) for DAE were 1.17 (0.99-1.39, p = 0.06) and for DPWE were 0.96 (0.87-1.05, p = 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

The significant increase in DAE in Wales during 2020 could be explained by the direct effect of COVID-19 infection. Non-COVID-19 deaths have not increased significantly but further work is needed to assess the longer-term impact.

Loss-of-function variants in Kv 11.1 cardiac channels as a biomarker for SUDEP

Objective

To compare the frequency and impact on the channel function of KCNH2 variants in SUDEP patients with epilepsy controls comprising patients older than 50 years, a group with low SUDEP risk, and establish loss‐of‐function KCNH2 variants as predictive biomarkers of SUDEP risk.

Methods

We searched for KCNH2 variants with a minor allele frequency of <5%. Functional analysis in Xenopus laevis oocytes was performed for all KCNH2 variants identified.

Results

KCNH2 variants were found in 11.1% (10/90) of SUDEP individuals compared to 6.0% (20/332) of epilepsy controls (p = 0.11). Loss‐of‐function KCNH2 variants, defined as causing >20% reduction in maximal amplitude, were observed in 8.9% (8/90) SUDEP patients compared to 3.3% (11/332) epilepsy controls suggesting about threefold enrichment (nominal p = 0.04). KCNH2 variants that did not change channel function occurred at a similar frequency in SUDEP (2.2%; 2/90) and epilepsy control (2.7%; 9/332) cohorts (p > 0.99). Rare KCNH2 variants (<1% allele frequency) associated with greater loss of function and an ~11‐fold enrichment in the SUDEP cohort (nominal p = 0.03). In silico tools were unable to predict the impact of a variant on function highlighting the need for electrophysiological analysis.

Interpretation

These data show that loss‐of‐function KCNH2 variants are enriched in SUDEP patients when compared to an epilepsy population older than 50 years, suggesting that cardiac mechanisms contribute to SUDEP risk. We propose that genetic screening in combination with functional analysis can identify loss‐of‐function KCNH2 variants that could act as biomarkers of an individual’s SUDEP risk.

Evaluating risk to people with epilepsy during the COVID-19 pandemic: Preliminary findings from the COV-E study

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused global anguish unparalleled in recent times. As cases rise, increased pressure on health services, combined with severe disruption to people's everyday lives, can adversely affect individuals living with chronic illnesses, including people with epilepsy. Stressors related to disruption to healthcare, finances, mental well-being, relationships, schooling, physical activity, and increased isolation could increase seizures and impair epilepsy self-management. We aim to understand the impact that COVID-19 has had on the health and well-being of people with epilepsy focusing on exposure to increased risk of seizures, associated comorbidity, and mortality. We designed two online surveys with one addressing people with epilepsy directly and the second for caregivers to report on behalf of a person with epilepsy. The survey is ongoing and has yielded 463 UK-based responses by the end of September 2020. Forty percent of respondents reported health changes during the pandemic (n = 185). Respondents cited a change in seizures (19%, n = 88), mental health difficulties (34%, n = 161), and sleep disruption (26%, n = 121) as the main reasons. Thirteen percent found it difficult to take medication on time. A third had difficulty accessing medical services (n = 154), with 8% having had an appointment canceled (n = 39). Only a small proportion reported having had discussions about epilepsy-related risks, such as safety precautions (16%, n = 74); mental health (29%, n = 134); sleep (30%, n = 140); and Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP; 15%, n = 69) in the previous 12 months. These findings suggest that people with epilepsy are currently experiencing health changes, coupled with inadequate access to services. Also, there seems to be a history of poor risk communication in the months preceding the pandemic. As the UK witnesses a second COVID-19 wave, those involved in healthcare delivery must ensure optimal care is provided for people with chronic conditions, such as epilepsy, to ensure that avoidable morbidity and mortality is prevented during the pandemic, and beyond.

Would people living with epilepsy benefit from palliative care?

Palliative care (PC) is an approach to the care of persons living with serious illness and their families that focuses on improving quality of life and reducing suffering by addressing complex medical symptoms, psychosocial needs, spiritual well-being, and advance care planning. While PC has traditionally been associated with hospice care for persons with cancer, there is now recognition that PC is relevant to many noncancer diagnoses, including neurologic illness, and at multiple points along the illness journey, not just end of life. Despite the recent growth of the field of neuropalliative care there has been scant attention paid to the relevance of PC principles in epilepsy or the potential for PC approaches to improve outcomes for persons living with epilepsy and their families. We believe this has been a significant oversight and that PC may provide a useful framework for addressing the many sources of suffering facing persons living with epilepsy, for engaging patients and families in challenging conversations, and to focus efforts to improve models of care for this population. In this manuscript we review areas of significant unmet needs where a PC approach may improve patient and family-centered outcomes, including complex symptom management, goals of care, advance care planning, psychosocial support for patient and family and spiritual well-being. When relevant we highlight areas where epilepsy patients may have unique PC needs compared to other patient populations and conclude with suggestions for future research, clinical, and educational efforts.