Non-epileptic attack disorder and clinical outcome: a pilot study

A systematic review and narrative synthesis of group self-management interventions for adults with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a serious and costly long-term condition that negatively affects quality of life, especially if seizures persist on medication. Studies show that people with epilepsy (PWE) want to learn more about the condition and some educational self-management courses have been trialled internationally. The objectives of this review were to evaluate research and summarise results on group self-management interventions for PWE.

METHODS

We searched Medline and PsycINFO for results published in English between 1995 and 2015. Only studies evaluating face-to-face, group interventions for adults with epilepsy were included. Heterogeneity in study outcomes prevented the carrying out of a meta-analysis; however, a Cochrane style review was undertaken.

RESULTS

We found eleven studies, nine of which were randomised controlled trials. There were variable standards of methodological reporting with some risk of bias. Seven of the studies used quality of life as an outcome, with four finding statistically significant improvements in mean total score. Two found an improvement in outcome subscales. One study included some additional semi-qualitative data.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified promising trends in the trials reviewed. In particular, there were significant improvements in quality of life scales and seizure frequency in many of the interventions. However, considerable heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes made comparison between the studies difficult. Courses that included psychological interventions and others that had a high number of sessions showed more effect than short educational courses. Furthermore, the evidence was predominantly from pilot studies with small sample sizes and short follow-up duration. Further research is needed to better evaluate the role of group self-management interventions in outpatient epilepsy management.

Prognosis of functional neurologic disorders

The prognosis of functional (psychogenic) neurologic disorders is important in being able to help answer patients' and carers' questions, determine whether treatment is worthwhile, and to find out which factors predict outcome. We reviewed data on prognosis of functional neurologic disorders from two systematic reviews on functional motor disorders and dissociative (nonepileptic) seizures as well as additional studies on functional visual and sensory symptoms. Methodologic problems include heterogeneity in studied samples and outcome measures, diagnostic suspicion and referral bias, small size and retrospective design of available studies, possible treatments during follow-up, and literature review bias. With these caveats, the prognosis of functional neurologic disorders does appear to be generally unfavorable. In most studies, functional motor symptoms and psychogenic nonepileptic attacks remain the same or are worse in the majority of patients at follow-up. Measures of quality of life and working status were often poor at follow-up. Frequency of misdiagnosis at follow-up was as low as other neurologic and psychiatric disorders. Long duration of symptoms was the most distinct negative predictor. Early diagnosis and young age seem to predict good outcome. Emotional disorders and personality disorders were inconsistent predictors. Litigation and state benefits were found to be negative predictors in some studies, but others found they did not influence outcome.

Psychogenic Paroxysmal Nonepileptic Events in Children: A Review

BACKGROUND

Paroxysmal nonepileptic events are common in children. Events with a psychological basis, historically referred to as pseudoseizures, are a large subset of paroxysmal nonepileptic events.

METHODS

A review of the relevant pediatric and adult literature was performed.

RESULTS

It was found that these events have many semioloigc features similar to epileptic events and can be challenging to correctly identify. The use of a detailed history in combination with video encephalography and knowledge of psychogenic paroxysmal nonepileptic events will facilitate making the correct diagnosis. Paroxysmal nonepileptic events are important to identify as comorbid disorders such as depression, anxiety disorder, family discord, and school issues are frequent. In addition, prior sexual, emotional, and/or physical abuse may be present.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric patients with paroxysmal nonepileptic events need to be recognized in order to avoid unnecessary antiepileptic drugs and emergency department or hospital visits and to facilitate appropriate psychological intervention to address the underlying etiologies. This review will focus on evaluation and identification of paroxysmal nonepileptic events, in addition to reviewing the various comorbidities, effective treatments, and outcomes for pediatric patients. The key differences between pediatric and adult patients with paroxysmal nonepileptic events are addressed.

Clinical profile of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures in adults: A study of 63 cases

AIMS

To evaluate clinical profile and short-term outcome of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) in Indian adult population.

SETTING AND DESIGN

A prospective observational study, conducted at tertiary teaching institute at New Delhi.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-three patients with confirmed PNES were enrolled. The diagnosis was based on witnessing the event during video-electroencephalography (Video-EEG) monitoring. A detailed clinical evaluation was done including evaluation for coexistent anxiety or depressive disorders. Patients were divided into two groups on the basis of excessive or paucity of movements during PNES attacks. Patients were followed-up to 12 months for their PNES frequency.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Means and standard deviations were calculated for continuous variables. Chi-square and Students t-test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables respectively.

RESULTS

The mean age at onset of PNES was 25.44 years; with F:M ratio of 9.5:1. Coexistent epilepsy was present in 13 (20.63%) cases. Twenty-two patients (44%) with only PNES (n = 50) had received antiepileptic drugs. Out of 63 patients of PNES 24 (38.1%) had predominant motor phenomenon, whereas 39 (61.9%) had limp attacks. The common features observed were pre-ictal headache, ictal eye closure, jaw clenching, resistant behavior, ictal weeping, ictal vocalization, and unresponsiveness during episodes. Comorbid anxiety and depressive disorders was seen in 62.3% and 90.16% patients, respectively. Short-term (6-12 months) outcome of 45 patients was good (seizure freedom in 46.66% and >50% improvement in 24.44% cases).

CONCLUSION

PNES is common, but frequently misdiagnosed and treated as epileptic seizures. A high index of suspicion is required for an early diagnosis. Proper disclosure of diagnosis and management of the psychiatric comorbidities can improve their outcome.

LIMITATION

Limited sample size and change in seizures frequency as the only parameter for the assessment of the outcome are the two major limitations of our study.

Health care utilization and poor reassurance: potential predictors of somatoform disorders

OBJECTIVE

Somatoform disorders are common conditions, but the current diagnostic criteria are considered to be unreliable, based largely on medically unexplained symptoms. DSM-5 is considering other possible characteristics of somatizers including high utilization, dissatisfaction with care, and poor response to reassurance. This paper reviews the available literature for evidence to support these criteria, and evaluates if distinctive aspects of these characteristics exist in somatizers.

METHODS

The Pubmed database was searched combining terms such as “somatoform disorder” with “reassurance,” “satisfaction,” and “utilization.” Articles were individually inspected.

RESULTS

Many studies report a deficit in long-term response to reassurance in somatizers; there was some evidence that patients respond initially to reassurance, followed by return of anxiety, leading to further reassurance seeking. There was insufficient evidence to support poor satisfaction with care as a characteristic of somatizers. While there is no standard criterion for high utilization, regardless of definition, evidence was found to support over-utilization, particularly in outpatient visits. However, no unique pattern of utilization was found that could identify somatizers within a broader group of high utilizers.

CONCLUSIONS

This review revealed evidence of over-utilization in many areas of healthcare, as well as poor long term response to reassurance in somatizers. Dissatisfaction with care, though, was not a consistent finding. It is difficult to study alternative diagnostic criteria for somatoform patients when the current criteria rest on so many problematic assumptions. Future research should attempt to validate criteria empirically in patient groups, with selection not based on medically unexplained symptoms.

Prognosis and outcome predictors in psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

It is estimated that one in five patients referred to specialist epilepsy clinics for refractory seizures have psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). Despite the high prevalence, little is known about the prognosis of patients with PNES. In this paper we set out to systematically assess published original studies on the prognosis and outcome predictors of patients with PNES. Our literature search across the databases Medline, PsycINFO, and EMBASE generated 18 original studies meeting the search criteria. Prognosis was found to be poor in adults, but good in children. Predictors of poor outcome included the presence of coexisting epilepsy or psychiatric comorbidities, violent seizure phenomenology, dependent lifestyle, and poor relationships. Overall, too much reliance is placed on seizure remission as an outcome measurement for patients with PNES, and the impact of many of the outcome predictors requires evaluation using larger studies with longer followup.

Nondrug treatments for psychogenic nonepileptic seizures: what's the evidence?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this Cochrane Review was to establish the evidence base for treatment of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures.

METHODS

Six hundred eight references were identified using a search strategy designed with the support of the Cochrane Review Epilepsy Group library. The search employed Medline and PsychInfo, and included hand searches of relevant journals (Seizure, Epilepsia, Epilepsy &Behavior, Epilepsy Research).

RESULTS

Three studies were found that met the inclusion criteria; two used hypnosis and one used paradoxical therapy. None included detailed reports of improved seizure frequency or quality of life, although reduction in seizure frequency was mentioned. All three studies concluded that the intervention used was beneficial in the treatment of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited number of studies and poor methodology preclude these results from being generalizable. There is a need for well-designed clinical trials to identify the most suitable treatments for this population.

Treatments for non-epileptic attack disorder

BACKGROUND

Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (NES) have the outward appearance of epilepsy in the absence of physiological or electroencephalographic correlates. Non-epileptic seizures can occur in isolation or in combination with epileptic seizures. The development and maintenance of non-epileptic seizures has been well documented and there is a growing literature on the treatment of NES which includes non-psychological (including anti-anxiety and antidepressant pharmacological treatment) and psychological therapies (including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), hypnotherapy and paradoxical therapy). Various treatment methodologies have been tried with variable success. The purpose of this Cochrane review was to establish the evidence base for the treatment of NES.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether treatments for NES result in a reduction in frequency of seizures and/or improvement in quality of life, and whether any treatment is significantly more effective than others.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (September 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2005), and PsycINFO (1806 to July 2005). No language restrictions were imposed. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised studies were included that assessed one or more types of psychological or non-psychological interventions for the treatment of NES. Studies of childhood NES were excluded from our review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes included reduction in seizure frequency and improvements in quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

Three small studies met our inclusion criteria and were of poor methodological quality. Two assessed hypnosis and the other paradoxical therapy. There were no detailed reports of improved seizure frequency or quality of life outcomes, and these trials provide no reliable evidence of a beneficial effect of these interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In view of the methodological limitations and the small number of studies, we have no reliable evidence to support the use of any treatment including hypnosis or paradoxical injunction therapy in the treatment of NES. Randomised studies of these and other interventions are needed.

Head-up tilting is a useful provocative test for psychogenic non-epileptic seizures

Differentiating psychogenic non-epileptic attack disorder (NEAD) from true epilepsy is difficult. This often results in a misdiagnosis and unnecessary and ineffective treatment. Prolonged EEG/video recording is the most sensitive tool for differentiating NEAD from epilepsy, but is costly and therefore limited in availability. Provocative tests, particularly the use of saline injection, can reduce the length of monitoring but give rise to ethical dilemmas. This study assesses the value of head-up tilt testing as a provocative test for NEAD. Twenty-one patients (17 female, mean age 34.6 +/- 11.5 years) with recurrent seizure-like episodes and a clinical diagnosis of NEAD were studied. Patients were tilted to 80( composite function )on an electric tilt table with footplate support for up to 45 minutes during continuous ECG, EEG and blood pressure monitoring. Seventeen patients (81%) experienced typical symptoms (non-epileptiform limb shaking in 15 patients, absence in one patient, myoclonic jerking in one patient) during head-up tilt without significant EEG abnormalities or haemodynamic changes. The mean time to onset of seizure-like activity was 13.2 +/- 11 minutes (range 0-31 minutes). No patients suffered injury or any other significant side-effect. Provocative testing using suggestion and head-up tilt is a sensitive tool for diagnosing NEAD and represents a safe, simple and inexpensive outpatient technique for investigating patients with suspected NEAD.