Driving eligibility: Implications of studies on seizure recurrence risk

Characteristics of motor vehicle crashes and fatality risk among drivers with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Among motor vehicle crashes (MVCs), little is known about whether the characteristics and collision features involving drivers with epilepsy differ from those involving drivers without any history of epilepsy. We assessed MVC features and the effect of epilepsy diagnosis on the risk of severe crash-related injuries among drivers.

METHODS

A total of 33 174 MVC events among people with epilepsy (PWE) and 663 480 MVC events of age- and sex-matched non-PWE (1:20) were selected. Crash-related features that involved drivers with and without epilepsy were compared, including driver eligibility, medical history of comorbidities and medications, road and environmental conditions, and accident causes. Cox and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the risks of fatality and severe injury among drivers with and without epilepsy.

RESULTS

PWE involved in MVCs were more likely to have lower socioeconomic status, comorbidities, scooter drivers without a qualified driver's license, driving under the influence of alcohol, and be involved in single-vehicle accidents than non-PWE. Drivers with epilepsy also had a higher risk of fatality within 30 days of MVC, with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-1.57) and a higher risk of hospital admission within 3 days after MVC (aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.29-1.38) compared to that of non-PWE.

SIGNIFICANCE

The characteristics of MVCs of drivers with epilepsy were distinct from those of non-affected drivers. And higher fatality and injury rates were observed among drivers with epilepsy, which should be considered in further policymaking regarding safe driving of PWE.

Risk of Seizure Recurrence Due to Autoimmune Encephalitis With NMDAR, LGI1, CASPR2, and GABABR Antibodies: Implications for Return to Driving

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patients with ongoing seizures are usually not allowed to drive. The prognosis for seizure freedom is favorable in patients with autoimmune encephalitis (AIE) with antibodies against NMDA receptor (NMDAR), leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1 (LGI1), contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CASPR2), and the gamma-aminobutyric-acid B receptor (GABABR). We hypothesized that after a seizure-free period of 3 months, patients with AIE have a seizure recurrence risk of <20% during the subsequent 12 months. This would render them eligible for noncommercial driving according to driving regulations in several countries.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter cohort study analyzed follow-up data from patients aged 15 years or older with seizures resulting from NMDAR-, LGI1-, CASPR2-, or GABABR-AIE, who had been seizure-free for ≥3 months. We used Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates for the seizure recurrence risk at 12 months for each antibody group and tested for the effects of potential covariates with regression models.

RESULTS

We included 383 patients with NMDAR-, 440 with LGI1-, 114 with CASPR2-, and 44 with GABABR-AIE from 14 international centers. After being seizure-free for 3 months after an initial seizure period, we calculated the probability of remaining seizure-free for another 12 months (KM estimate) as 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.92) for NMDAR, 0.84 (CI 0.80-0.88) for LGI1, 0.82 (CI 0.75-0.90) for CASPR2, and 0.76 (CI 0.62-0.93) for GABABR.

DISCUSSION

Taking a <20% recurrence risk within 12 months as sufficient, patients with NMDAR-AIE and LGI1-AIE could be considered eligible for noncommercial driving after having been seizure-free for 3 months.

Should antiseizure medications be withdrawn after an extended period of seizure freedom in individuals with adult-onset epilepsy?

Unlike several epilepsies with onset in pediatric age, adult-onset epilepsies do not typically have a time course that is predictably self-remitting in the large majority of people. Still, about one-half of individuals with adult-onset epilepsy who have been seizure-free for an extended period (two years or longer) on antiseizure medications (ASMs) will remain in remission when their drug therapy is discontinued. Although a number of predictors of outcome have been identified (including specific adult-onset syndromes associated with a low probability of spontaneous remission), in most cases, the only way to establish whether the epilepsy has remitted in a given individual is to gradually withdraw ASMs. ASM withdrawal can be beneficial, particularly when the currently used treatment is not well tolerated, or could lead to adverse outcomes in the future (i.e., teratogenic effects should pregnancy occur in a female of childbearing potential). However, the risks associated with ASM withdrawal are significant. Relapse of seizures can have major adverse psychosocial consequences and also may carry a risk of morbidity and mortality. Most importantly, evidence suggests that in about 20% of individuals whose seizure relapsed following ASM withdrawal, re-institution of pharmacological therapy may not readily restore seizure control. Ultimately, management decisions should prioritize the preference of the well-informed person with epilepsy. Particularly, when adverse drug effects are a concern, options to be discussed should include not only withdrawal or continuation of the current treatment but also dose reduction or substitution with a different ASM.

Withdrawal of antiseizure medications - for whom, when, and how?

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy is a chronic disorder of the brain characterized by an enduring predisposition to generate epileptic seizures. Most patients can achieve complete seizure control (seizure freedom) with antiseizure medications (ASMs). In some of them, the withdrawal of ASMs can be considered. Guidance is required to identify patients in whom drug discontinuation can be safely attempted and to inform when and how ASM withdrawal can be done.

AREAS COVERED

In this perspective, the authors discuss the evidence on ASM withdrawal in epilepsy patients who are seizure-free and provide some suggestions on how to do it effectively in clinical practice, minimizing the risk of seizure recurrence.

EXPERT OPINION

The decision of discontinuing ASMs in epilepsy patients should rely on an accurate estimate of seizure recurrence risk. Whenever possible, such a risk should be assessed on an individual basis. The decision should also consider the psychosocial and personal consequences of seizure relapse. No robust evidence is available on the safest tapering regimen.

Driving restrictions in patients with seizures; a review of the regulations from the English-speaking nations

PURPOSE

We investigated the existing regulations about driving eligibility and restrictions for persons with seizures in all English-speaking countries in the world. We aimed to identify: 1) Is there a distinction between epilepsy and functional seizures (FS) in the regulations? 2) What is the required seizure-free period before a person with seizure regains their driving eligibility?

METHODS

First, we identified all the English-speaking countries in the world. Then, we referred to the website of the Department of Motor Vehicles or its equivalent in each nation or we searched the Google engine with the name of each specific nation and "driving" and "epilepsy".

RESULTS

There are 59 English-speaking countries in the world. For 37 nations, the data on regulations about driving eligibility for persons with seizures were lacking. Only the UK has made distinctions between epilepsy and FS. The required seizure-free period before a person with seizure regains their driving eligibility varied significantly between nations. Not all nations have made distinctions between private driving and commercial driving. Finally, only some nations have specific rules and regulations for different scenarios (e.g., provoked seizures vs epilepsy, or nocturnal seizures only, etc.) CONCLUSION: Many English-speaking nations in the world do not have explicit rules and regulations about driving eligibility and restrictions for persons with seizures. International scientific organizations should do more to provide appropriate and personalized guidelines for different scenarios of seizures, so the governments can adopt appropriate regulations.

Social Environmental Factors Related to Resuming Driving after Brain Injury: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Many patients resume driving after brain injury regardless of their ability to drive safely. Predictors for resuming driving in terms of actual resumption status and environmental factors are unclear. We evaluated the reasons for resuming driving after brain injury and examined whether social environmental factors are useful predictors of resuming driving. This retrospective cohort study was based on a multicenter questionnaire survey at least 18 months after discharge of brain injury patients with rehabilitation. A total of 206 brain injury patients (cerebrovascular disease and traumatic brain injury) were included in the study, which was conducted according to the International Classification of Functioning (ICF) items using log-binominal regression analysis, evaluating social environmental factors as associated factors of resuming driving after brain injury. Social environmental factors, inadequate public transport (risk ratio (RR), 1.38), and no alternative driver (RR, 1.53) were included as significant independent associated factors. We found that models using ICF categories were effective for investigating factors associated with resuming driving in patients after brain injury and significant association between resuming driving and social environmental factors. Therefore, social environmental factors should be considered when predicting driving resumption in patients after brain injury, which may lead to better counseling and environmental adjustment.

Tightening legal restrictions for drivers with epilepsy in Japan

Epilepsy is a highly prevalent condition around the world, and many countries impose restrictions on drivers with epilepsy. After toughening the law in Japan, the number of refused driving license applications for patients with epilepsy increased markedly. However, the number of collisions caused by drivers with epilepsy did not decrease.