First do no harm: Preventing harm and optimizing care in psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

"This is real", "this is hard" and "I'm not making it up": Experience of diagnosis and living with non-epileptic attack disorder

PURPOSE

To use a qualitative research approach to explore adults' experience of living with non-epileptic attack disorder.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to explore the experience of adults (18 years+) with a confirmed diagnosis of non-epileptic attack disorder (NEAD) across the trajectory of the disorder. The topics investigated included the onset of symptoms, the experience of non-epileptic attacks, the diagnostic process and living with NEAD.

METHOD

Twelve people diagnosed with NEAD who attended a tertiary hospital neurology department took part in semi-structured interviews. The data generated were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven women and one man with median age of 25 years took part. Three themes were developed: mind-body (dis)connect, a stigmatised diagnosis and a role for containment. Adults spoke about their experience of nonepileptic attacks, the diagnostic and management process and the impact of both nonepileptic attacks and the NEAD diagnosis on their lives.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults' experience's within the healthcare system across the trajectory of NEAD influenced their own understanding and trust in their NEAD experience, how they shared this with others in their social and work lives and how they managed their NEAD symptoms on a daily basis. The research suggests the need for a consistent, timely implementation of a rule-in diagnostic approach and multi-disciplinary management of NEAD. It is recommended that lessons be taken from theoretical models including the common-sense model and a modified version of the reattribution model to support the de-stigmatisation of this diagnosis to inform psychoeducation and professionally facilitated peer-support groups.

A journey into the unknown: An ethnographic examination of drug-resistant epilepsy treatment and management in the United States

Patients often recognize unmet needs that can improve patient-provider experiences in disease treatment management. These needs are rarely captured and may be hard to quantify in difficult-to-treat disease states such as drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). To further understand challenges living with and managing DRE, a team of medical anthropologists conducted ethnographic field assessments with patients to qualitatively understand their experience with DRE across the United States. In addition, healthcare provider assessments were conducted in community clinics and Comprehensive Epilepsy Centers to further uncover patient-provider treatment gaps. We identified four distinct stages of the treatment and management journey defined by patients' perceived control over their epilepsy: Gripped in the Panic Zone, Diligently Tracking to Plan, Riding a Rollercoaster in the Dark, and Reframing Priorities to Redefine Treatment Success. We found that patients sought resources to streamline communication with their care team, enhanced education on treatment options beyond medications, and long-term resources to protect against a decline in control over managing their epilepsy once drug-resistant. Likewise, treatment management optimization strategies are provided to improve current DRE standard of care with respect to identified patient-provider gaps. These include the use of digital disease management tools, standardizing neuropsychiatrists into patients' initial care team, and introducing surgical and non-pharmacological treatment options upon epilepsy and DRE diagnoses, respectively. This ethnographic study uncovers numerous patient-provider gaps, thereby presenting a conceptual framework to advance DRE treatment. Further Incentivization from professional societies and healthcare systems to support standardization of the treatment optimization strategies provided herein into clinical practice is needed.

Validation of a predictive calculator to distinguish between patients presenting with dissociative versus epileptic seizures

Dissociative seizures (also known as psychogenic nonepileptic seizures) are a common functional neurological disorder that can be difficult to distinguish from epileptic seizures. Patients with dissociative seizures provide diagnostic challenges, leading to delays in care, inappropriate care, and significant healthcare utilization and associated costs. The dissociative seizure likelihood score (DSLS) was developed by Kerr and colleagues at UCLA to distinguish between patients with epileptic seizures and dissociative seizures based on clinical and medication history as well as features of seizure semiology. We validated this calculator at the University of Colorado, which is a Level 4 National Association of Epilepsy Center. The DSLS accurately predicted the diagnosis in 81% of patients, despite local variability in the factors associated with epileptic versus dissociative seizures between the two populations. The DSLS can be a useful tool to assist with history taking and may have important utility for clinical decision making with these difficult to distinguish patient populations.

Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures in Latin America: A survey describing current practices

OBJECTIVE

Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) are one of the most common differential diagnoses of epilepsy. This study provides an overview of diagnostic and treatment services for patients with PNES across Latin America.

METHODS

In 2017-2018, clinicians practicing in Latin America with responsibilities for patients with PNES were contacted to respond to a survey regarding the management of this disorder developed by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) PNES Task Force.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixty responses from 17 Latin American countries were analyzed. Most respondents were neurologists (81%) under 40 years of age (61%). Fifty-seven percent of professionals stated that they personally diagnose PNES, but only 33% stated that they provide follow-up, and only 20% that they recommend treatment. Many participants (54%) characterized themselves as either unfamiliar with the diagnosis or inexperienced in arranging treatment. Most respondents reported having access to brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 88%) and routine electroencephalogram (EEG; 71%), 64% have the access to video-EEG longer than 8 h, and 54% of professionals performed video-EEG to confirm PNES diagnoses. Although cognitive-behavioral therapy was recognized as the treatment of choice (by 82% of respondents), there was little access to it (60%). In contrast, a high proportion of respondents reported using antidepressant (67%), antiseizure (57%), and antipsychotic medications (54%) as treatments for PNES.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study reveals several deficiencies in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with PNES in Latin America. The barriers are reinforced by lack of knowledge among the specialists and poor healthcare system support. There is inadequate access to prolonged video-EEG and psychotherapy. An inappropriate use of antiseizure medicines seems commonplace, and there are low follow-up rates by neurologists after the diagnosis. Multidisciplinary guidelines are required to improve the approach of patients with PNES.