Predictors of and attitudes toward counseling about SUDEP and other epilepsy risk factors among Austrian, German, and Swiss neurologists and neuropediatricians

Patient and provider attitudes regarding sudden unexpected death in epilepsy disclosure at a low-resource, minority community health center

BACKGROUND

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is a complication of epilepsy responsible for approximately 1 death per 1000 patients. The literature has demonstrated minimal SUDEP disclosure between providers and patients, although patients have consistently reported desire to know about their risk. However, the majority of these studies has been conducted in Caucasian populations which did not seek to include lower socio-economic class individuals. Thus, the purpose of this study is to determine patient and provider attitudes regarding SUDEP disclosure at a community health center serving minority, predominantly Hispanic, patients.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study utilized surveys distributed to patients with epilepsy (n = 20), patients with diabetes (n = 20), those with no chronic disease (n = 20) and providers (n = 13). Online surveys were distributed to 13 providers whereas phone surveys were conducted for patients with epilepsy. In-person surveys were distributed to patients with diabetes and no chronic disease to serve as comparison groups. Surveys were available in both Spanish and English. Patient surveys consisted of demographic information and questions evaluating their current knowledge and preferences regarding disclosure of a potentially fatal disorder.

RESULTS

Twenty patients with epilepsy, 20 patients with diabetes, 20 patients without chronic diseases, and 9 providers responded to the online or in-person surveys. Of the patients with epilepsy, 90 % (n = 18/20) were Hispanic which was not significantly different from the comparison groups. 45 % (n = 9/20) believed they had a higher rate of death due to epilepsy with only 3 patients having heard of SUDEP prior to the survey, and only 1 learning this from a physician. All patients wanted to know everything there was to know regarding their condition, including a higher risk of unexpected death. Most patients (85%, n = 17/20) believe everyone with epilepsy should be informed of SUDEP and this information should come from their provider (90 %, n = 18/20). Results were similar for both comparison groups, except patients with diabetes unanimously desired to know about a theoretical risk of death at the time of diagnosis. Of the providers, 66.7% (n = 6/9) never discuss SUDEP, with the remaining 33.3% (n = 3/9) discussing SUDEP rarely. The primary reason for not discussing SUDEP was not knowing enough about it (66.7%, n = 5/9).

CONCLUSION

Almost all patients with epilepsy had no knowledge of SUDEP, yet desired to know this information within the first two visits. Providers in the primary care setting rarely discuss SUDEP, most often due to lack of knowledge. These results are very similar to those found in mainly white, higher socioeconomic populations and indicate that race should not be a barrier to SUDEP disclosure.

Epilepsy professionals' views on sudden unexpected death in epilepsy counselling: A tale of two countries

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a leading cause of epilepsy mortality. All international guidance strongly advocates for clinicians working with people with epilepsy (PWE) to discuss SUDEP. Clinician views working with PWE in the UK and Norway on SUDEP counselling are compared.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online mixed methodology survey of 17 Likert and free-text response questions using validated themes was circulated via International League against Epilepsy/Epilepsy Specialist Nurses Association in the UK and International League against Epilepsy/Epilepsinet in Norway using a non-discriminatory exponential snowballing technique leading to non-probability sampling. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests. Significance was accepted at p < 0.05. Thematic analysis was conducted on free-text responses.

RESULTS

Of 309 (UK 197, Norway 112) responses, UK clinicians were more likely to have experienced an SUDEP (p < 0.001), put greater importance on SUDEP communication (p < 0.001), discuss SUDEP with all PWE particularly new patients (p < 0.001), have access and refer to bereavement support (p < 0.001) and were less likely to never discuss SUDEP (p < 0.001). Significant differences existed between both countries' neurologists and nurses in SUDEP counselling with UK clinicians generally being more supportive. UK responders were more likely to be able to identify bereavement support (p < 0.001). Thematic analysis highlighted four shared themes and two specific to Norwegians.

DISCUSSION

Despite all international guidelines stating the need/importance to discuss SUDEP with all PWE there remain hesitation, avoidance and subjectivity in clinicians having SUDEP-related conversations, more so in Norway than the UK. Training and education are required to improve communication, engagement and decision making.

Knowledge, attitudes and practices of psychiatrists in India regarding sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) and seizure-related harm

Sudden unexpected death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is one of the leading causes of death in people with epilepsy (PWE). Awareness and taking adequate preventive measures are pivotal to reducing SUDEP. Nearly 80% of PWE live in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) such as India where for many, epilepsy management is by psychiatrists. To evaluate the knowledge, attitude and practices of Indian psychiatrists on SUDEP and seizure risk. A cross-sectional online survey of 12 Likert response questions using validated themes, was circulated among Indian Psychiatric Society members. Non-discriminatory exponential snowballing technique leading to convenience non-probability sampling was used. The inquiry involved SUDEP-related topics including the need for and importance of counselling. Descriptive statistics and the chi-square test were used for analysis. The psychiatrists responding (n = 134) were likely to be males (72.4 %), urban (94 %) and affiliated to academic institutions (76.1 %). Nearly all saw PWE monthly with over half (54 %) seeing more than 10. Nearly two-third (64.17 %) did not counsel PWE regarding SUDEP, due to fear of raising concerns in caregivers/family (33.3 %), patients (38.9 %) or lack of time (35.6 %), though 37 % had lost patients due to SUDEP. Over two-third (66.7 %) agreed risk counselling was important. Barriers included fear of raising concerns, limited time, and training. A strong need for national SUDEP guidelines (89 %) and suitable training (75.4 %) was expressed. Though epilepsy care is provided by a considerable number of psychiatrists, there is a poor understanding of SUDEP. Enhancing the awareness and understanding of SUDEP is likely to enhance epilepsy care.

Critical incidents, nocturnal supervision, and caregiver knowledge on SUDEP in patients with Dravet syndrome: A prospective multicenter study in Germany

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to investigate the monitoring, interventions, and occurrence of critical, potentially life-threatening incidents in patients with Dravet syndrome (DS) and caregivers' knowledge about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP).

METHODS

This multicenter, cross-sectional study of patients with DS and their caregivers in Germany consisted of a questionnaire and prospective diary querying the disease characteristics and demographic data of patients and caregivers.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 108 questionnaires and 82 diaries. Patients with DS were 49.1% male (n = 53), with a mean age of 13.5 (SD ± 10.0 years) and primary caregivers were 92.6% (n = 100) female, with a mean age of 44.7 (SD ± 10.6 years). Monitoring devices were used regularly by 75.9% (n = 82) of caregivers, and most monitored daily/nightly. Frequently used devices were pulse oximeters (64.6%), baby monitors (64.6%), thermometers (24.1%), and Epi-Care (26.8%). Younger caregiver and patient age and history of status epilepticus were associated with increased use of monitoring, and 81% of monitor users reported having avoided a critical incident with nocturnal monitoring. The need for resuscitation due to cardiac or respiratory arrest was reported by 22 caregivers (20.4%), and most cases (72.7%) were associated with a seizure. Caregivers reported frequently performing interventions at night, including oropharyngeal suction, oxygenation, personal hygiene, and change of body position. Most caregivers were well informed about SUDEP (n = 102; 94%) and monitored for a lateral or supine body position; however, only 39.8% reported receiving resuscitation training, whereas 52.8% (n = 57) knew what to do in case the child's breathing or heart activity failed.

SIGNIFICANCE

Critical incidents and the need for resuscitation are reported frequently by caregivers and may be related to high mortality and SUDEP rates in DS. Resuscitation training is welcomed by caregivers and should be continuously provided. Oxygen monitoring devices are frequently used and considered useful by caregivers.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy disclosure causes anxiety in patients with epilepsy: a Chinese questionnaire survey

Background and objective

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) has been regarded as a leading cause of premature death in patients with epilepsy (PWE). Although patients, relatives and caregivers have the right to be informed of SUDEP, neurologists prefer not to release the facts for fear of associated anxiety. In the study, a Chinese questionnaire survey was carried out to elucidate effect of SUDEP disclosure on anxiety in PWE and variables determining the anxiety of patients and provided suggestions for SUDEP disclosure.

Methods

A survey study in China was conducted. We recruited 305 PWE from 3 tertiary epilepsy centers who attended outpatient clinic from December 2021 to February 2022. Two hundred and thirty-two PWE completed the screening evaluation, survey and Hamilton anxiety rating scale (HAMA) twice with 171 PWE completing third HAMA at follow-up. HAMA scores at baseline, T1, T2 were compared using analysis of variance and dependent samples t-test. The variables related to anxiety were screened out by univariate analysis and used for multivariate logistic regression.

Result

We found 127 (54.7%) among the 232 participants experienced anxiety after SUDEP disclosure. HAMA scores at T1 were significantly higher than at baseline and T2, while there was no statistical difference between baseline and T2. Medical insurance, seizure severity, and whether the PWE supported SUDEP being disclosed to their relatives and caregivers only were associated with the occurrence of anxiety.

Conclusion

SUDEP disclosures may cause short-term acute anxiety, but have no long-term effects in PWE. Acute anxiety caused by SUDEP disclosure may be more common in PWE with NCMI and severe seizures. Meanwhile, compared with indirect SUDEP disclosure to their relatives and caregivers, direct SUDEP disclosure to PWE reduces the risk of anxiety. Recommendations are provided to avoid anxiety caused by SUDEP disclosure.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: What Saudi people with epilepsy want to know-A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a significant cause of mortality in people with epilepsy (PWE), with an incidence of 1 per 1000 members of the population. In Saudi Arabia, no data are available that inform local clinical practitioners about the attitudes of PWE regarding SUDEP. The aim of this study was to investigate the perspectives of Saudi PWE toward SUDEP and to assess their knowledge of SUDEP.

METHODS

A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted at the neurology clinics of King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Riyadh and Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh.

RESULTS

Of the 377 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 325 completed the questionnaire. The mean age of the respondents was 32.9 ± 12.6 years. Of the study subjects, 50.5% were male. Only 41 patients (12.6%) had heard about SUDEP. Most patients (94.5%) wanted to know about SUDEP, of whom 313 (96.3%) wanted to receive this information from a neurologist. A total of 148 patients (45.5%) thought that the appropriate time to receive information about SUDEP was after the second visit, whereas only 75 (23.1%) wanted to learn about SUDEP during the first visit. However, 69 patients (21.2%) thought that the appropriate time to be informed about SUDEP was when seizure control had become more difficult. Almost half (172, 52.9%) of the patients thought that SUDEP could be prevented.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our findings suggest that most Saudi PWE do not know about SUDEP and want to be counseled about their risk of SUDEP by their physicians. Therefore, education of Saudi PWE about SUDEP must be improved.

Prospective, longitudinal, multicenter study on the provision of information regarding sudden unexpected death in epilepsy to adults with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Despite increased awareness of the serious epilepsy complication sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), a substantial population of people with epilepsy (PWE) remain poorly informed. Physicians indicate concern that SUDEP information may adversely affect patients' health and quality of life. We examined SUDEP awareness and the immediate and long-term effects of providing SUDEP information to PWE.

METHODS

Baseline knowledge and behaviors among PWE and behavioral adjustments following the provision of SUDEP information were evaluated in a prospective, multicenter survey using the following validated scales: Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy for depression symptoms, the EuroQoL five-dimension scale for health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a visual analog scale for overall health, the revised Epilepsy Stigma Scale for perceived stigma, and the Seizure Worry Scale for seizure-related worries. The prospective study collected data through semiquantitative interviews before (baseline), immediately after, and 3 months after the provision of SUDEP information.

RESULTS

In total, 236 participants (mean age = 39.3 years, range = 18-77 years, 51.7% women) were enrolled, and 205 (86.9%) completed long-term, 3-month follow-up. One patient died from SUDEP before follow-up. No worsening symptoms from baseline to 3-month follow-up were observed on any scale. At baseline, 27.5% of participants were aware of SUDEP. More than 85% of participants were satisfied with receiving SUDEP information. Three quarters of participants were not concerned by the information, and >80% of participants recommended the provision of SUDEP information to all PWE. Although most patients reported no behavioral adjustments, 24.8% reported strong behavioral adjustments at 3-month follow-up.

SIGNIFICANCE

The provision of SUDEP information has no adverse effects on overall health, HRQoL, depressive symptoms, stigma, or seizure worry among PWE, who appreciate receiving information. SUDEP information provision might improve compliance among PWE and reduce but not eliminate the increased mortality risk.

An evidence-based approach to provide essential and desirable components to develop surveys on Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) for doctors: A focused review

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is a major concern for people with epilepsy, their families, their care givers, and medical professionals. There is inconsistency in the SUDEP counselling doctors provide, compared to what is recommended in clinical guidelines. Numerous national and international surveys have highlighted how epilepsy professionals, usually doctors, deliver SUDEP risk counselling, particularly, when they deliver it and to whom. These surveys help understand the unmet need, develop suitable strategies, and raise awareness among clinicians with the eventual goal to reduce SUDEPs. However, there is no standardised survey or essential set of questions identified that can be used to evaluate SUDEP counselling practice globally. This focused review analyses the content of all published SUDEP counselling surveys for medical professionals (n=16) to date covering over 4000 doctors across over 30 countries and five continents. It identifies 36 question themes across three topics. The questions are then reviewed by an expert focus group of SUDEP communication experts including three doctors, an expert statistician and SUDEP Action, an UK based charity specialising in epilepsy deaths with a pre-set criterion. The review and focus group provide ten essential questions that should be included in all future surveys inquiring on SUDEP counselling. They could be used to evaluate current practice and compare findings over time, between services, across countries and between professional groups. They are provided as a template to download and use. The review also explores if there is a continued need in future for similar surveys to justify this activity.

SUDEP Risk Counseling: What We Don't Do in the Shadows

Counseling About Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP): A Global Survey of Neurologists’ Opinions

Asadi-Pooya AA, Trinka E, Brigo F, Hingray C, Karakis I, Lattanzi S, Valente KD, Contreras G, Turuspekova ST, Kishk NA, Aljandeel G, Farazdaghi M, Lopez YC, Kissani N, Triki C, Krämer G, Surges R, Mesraoua B, Yu HY, Daza-Restrepo A, Alsaadi T, Al-Asmi A, Kutlubaev MA, Pretorius C, Jusupova A, Khachatryan SG, Ranganathan LN, Ashkanani A, Tomson T, Gigineishvili D. Epilepsy Behav. 2022;128:108570. PMID: 35093831. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2022.108570

Objective:

To investigate the opinions and attitudes of neurologists on the counseling about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) worldwide.

Methods:

Practicing neurologists from around the world were invited to participate in an online survey. On February 18th, 2021, we emailed an invitation including a questionnaire (using Google-forms) to the lead neurologists from 50 countries. The survey anonymously collected the demographic data of the participants and answers to the questions about their opinions and attitudes toward counseling about SUDEP.

Results:

In total, 1123 neurologists from 27 countries participated; 41.5% of the respondents reported they discuss the risk of SUDEP with patients and their care-givers only rarely. Specific subgroups of patients who should especially be told about this condition were considered to be those with poor antiseizure medication (ASM) adherence, frequent tonic-clonic seizures, or with drug-resistant epilepsy. The propensity to tell all patients with epilepsy (PWE) about SUDEP was higher among those with epilepsy fellowship. Having an epilepsy fellowship and working in an academic setting were factors associated with a comfortable discussion about SUDEP. There were significant differences between the world regions.

Conclusion:

Neurologists often do not discuss SUDEP with patients and their care-givers. While the results of this study may not be representative of practitioners in each country, it seems that there is a severe dissociation between the clinical significance of SUDEP and the amount of attention that is devoted to this matter in daily practice by many neurologists around the world.

On epilepsy perception: Unravelling gaps and issues

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological diseases, but it can sometimes be under-reported or have a time delay in diagnosis. This data is not surprising if we consider that a person often seeks medical attention only after presenting a generalized tonic-clonic seizure. Epilepsy diagnostic delay is caused by several factors: under-reporting by patients, under-diagnosed epileptic manifestations by inexperienced clinicians, and lack of time in the emergency setting. The consequences of this delay are increased accidents, a high rate of premature mortality, and economic expanses for the healthcare system. Moreover, people with epilepsy have a higher probability of comorbidities than the general population, such as mood disorders or cognitive problems. Along with recurrent seizures, these comorbid diseases promote isolation and stigmatization of people with epilepsy, who suffer from discrimination at school, in the workplace, and even in social relationships. Public awareness of epilepsy and its comorbidities is necessary to prevent diagnostic delays and overcome social and professional iniquities for people with epilepsy.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP): Definition, epidemiology, and significance of education

People with epilepsy (PWE) may die suddenly and unexpectedly and without a clear under-lying pathological etiology; this is called SUDEP (sudden unexpected death in epilepsy). The pooled estimated incidence rate for SUDEP is 23 times the incidence rate of sudden death in the general population with the same age. Empowering healthcare professionals, PWE, and their care-givers with the appropriate knowledge about SUDEP is very important to enable efficient preventive measures in PWE. In the current narrative review, following a brief discussion on the definition, epidemiology, and risk factors for SUDEP, the authors discuss the importance of appropriately educating healthcare professionals, PWE, and their caregivers about SUDEP.

How the characteristics of pediatric neurologists in Latin America influence the communication of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy to patients and caregivers

Objective

This study aimed to describe the characteristics of pediatric neurologists (PNs) in Latin America (LA) who attend to children and adolescents with epilepsy and convey to them the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP).

Methods

Personal data and details of discussion of SUDEP with families, including relevance of SUDEP disclosure, frequency of such communication, perceived benefits and risks of disclosure, extent of training received on such disclosure, and professional experience with SUDEP, were collected through an online survey of PNs from LA. Their personal experience in carrying out this conversation was obtained through responses to an open question, further used to identify the main barriers.

Results

Of the 442 surveys received, 367 (83%) were analyzed. Most participants (73.8%) responded that the communication of SUDEP risk was relevant or very relevant; however, only 17.9% reported communicating it always or very frequently. Factors that increased the frequency of SUDEP communication included patients with higher levels of complexity (OR = 2.18, P = .003) and the physician's personal experience with SUDEP (OR = 2.305, P < .001). Direct questions from the family and avoiding scaring them about a rare outcome were the main motivations behind discussing and not discussing SUDEP, respectively. In the open question, respondents identified worries about the patient's ability to understand the information and cultural gaps as barriers. “Informing with the intention of improving adherence to treatment” and “establishing an empathic relationship” were significantly related. Further, the concept of “do not scare” was significantly related to “personal difficulties in discussing SUDEP.”

Significance

Although most PNs agree that communication about SUDEP is relevant, only a minority actually engages in it. Participants identified a lack of appropriate training in such communication as a barrier. A better understanding of communication expectations, education of health professionals, and communication techniques have a strong relevance in diminishing the gap between guidelines and practice.

Counseling about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP): A global survey of neurologists' opinions

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the opinions and attitudes of neurologists on the counseling about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) worldwide.

METHODS

Practicing neurologists from around the world were invited to participate in an online survey. On February 18th, 2021, we emailed an invitation including a questionnaire (using Google-forms) to the lead neurologists from 50 countries. The survey anonymously collected the demographic data of the participants and answers to the questions about their opinions and attitudes toward counseling about SUDEP.

RESULTS

In total, 1123 neurologists from 27 countries participated; 41.5% of the respondents reported they discuss the risk of SUDEP with patients and their care-givers only rarely. Specific subgroups of patients who should especially be told about this condition were considered to be those with poor antiseizure medication (ASM) adherence, frequent tonic-clonic seizures, or with drug-resistant epilepsy. The propensity to tell all patients with epilepsy (PWE) about SUDEP was higher among those with epilepsy fellowship. Having an epilepsy fellowship and working in an academic setting were factors associated with a comfortable discussion about SUDEP. There were significant differences between the world regions.

CONCLUSION

Neurologists often do not discuss SUDEP with patients and their care-givers. While the results of this study may not be representative of practitioners in each country, it seems that there is a severe dissociation between the clinical significance of SUDEP and the amount of attention that is devoted to this matter in daily practice by many neurologists around the world.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: A pilot study on neurologists' knowledge and experience in the Eastern Mediterranean region

Background- Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is an important concern in patients with epilepsy who are otherwise healthy. Current knowledge of SUDEP and attitudes of neurologists in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) towards discussing SUDEP with their patients remain unknown. Objective- We aimed at assessing knowledge, attitudes and factors affecting SUDEP discussion practices of neurologists practicing in the EMR. Methodology- An electronic and paper-based survey was sent to 350 neurologists practicing in the EMR. They were questioned about the frequency, timing, and factors affecting their willingness to initiate SUDEP discussion. We also included questions about perceived patient reactions towards SUDEP discussions and neurologists' preferred way to provide SUDEP information to their patients. Results- We received 132 responses from the 350 surveys sent out (response rate 37.7%). Our results showed that only 1.5% of the neurologists discussed SUDEP with "most" of their patients and their caregivers while 55.3% "rarely" or "never" discussed it. Factors such as additional epilepsy training and more years of clinical experience did not significantly affect the frequency of SUDEP discussion (p = 0.329, p = 0.728). A significant negative association between the number of patients seen per year and the frequency of SUDEP discussion was seen (P= 0.046). Based on their selection of known risk factors, 81% of neurologists were considered as having insufficient knowledge of SUDEP. The top three perceived reactions by the neurologists on SUDEP discussion were distress (74.2%), anxiety (70.5%) and depression (65.9%). Most neurologists initiated SUDEP discussion by themselves and preferred brochures/pamphlets, websites and training sessions to provide SUDEP information. Conclusion- Neurologists in the EMR rarely discuss SUDEP, and have limited knowledge about its risk factors. Upon discussing SUDEP, they overwhelmingly receive negative reactions but not always. Based on our findings, we believe an unintended knowledge gap exists on part of the neurologists. This, coupled with a lack of trained epilepsy nurses and patient education material in regional languages can also be attributed to poor SUDEP discussion practices in the EMR.

Recommendations for risk management and better living with epilepsy. Phenomenological study of the experience of patients, relatives, and bereaved families

OBJECTIVE

To understand the lived experience of people with epilepsy (PWE) and their relatives, the risks associated with epilepsy, the information received from healthcare professionals, and the reaction to this information.

METHODS

Qualitative phenomenological study conducted between 2016 and 2018. Individual semi-directive in-depth interviews were performed based on a triangulation of sources in three study groups: PWE, relatives of PWE, and bereaved families. Interviews were analyzed continuously, using a semiopragmatic method until data saturation.

RESULTS

Interviews with PWE (N = 16), relatives of PWE (N = 8), and bereaved families (N = 10) led to several observations: (i) The stigmatizing representations of epilepsy and its constraints lead to a feeling of abnormality which determines the behavior of patients and their relatives; (ii) The global uncertainty surrounding epilepsy is an obstacle to the delivery of clear and personalized information by professionals, and, consequently, to empowerment; (iii) The communication skills of the physician have an impact on the lived experiences of patients and relatives; (iv) Better knowledge on direct mortal epilepsy-related risk could influence the perception of danger to oneself, and help find a balance between overprotection and trivialization. The experience of the patients and relatives led them to formulate concrete recommendations: (i) for the general public: to run information campaigns in order to limit stigmatization; (ii) for caregivers: to provide personalized and detailed information without minimizing the risks, in order to enable patients to "live by setting these risks"; (iii) for patients: to have a trusted person who is informed and trained in seizure management, to join patient associations.

CONCLUSION

Our study points out that stigma, uncertainty, and lack of clarity of information are all barriers to patient empowerment. In order to provide prompt and personalized information on how to live with epilepsy while managing the risks, physicians need to develop person-centered communication skills. Future research is also required for the development of tools to facilitate this communication.

Patients' knowledge about epilepsy-related risks, morbidity, and mortality: A multicenter cohort study from Germany

INTRODUCTION

Patient education is a central component of quality care. Enhancing patient knowledge can improve patients' quality of life and facilitate successful self-management. We sought to identify patients' knowledge levels and knowledge gaps regarding epilepsy-related risks, morbidity, and mortality.

METHODS

Adult patients with epilepsy presenting to the university hospitals in Frankfurt, Greifswald, and Marburg between February 2018 and May 2020 were asked to participate in this questionnaire-based study.

RESULTS

A total of 238 patients (52% women), with a mean age of 39.2 years (range: 18-77 years), participated in this study. Spontaneously, the majority of patients (51.3%) named driving a car, and other traffic-related accidents as possible causes of morbidity and mortality, and 23.9% of patients reported various causes of premature death, such as suffocation, drowning, and respiratory or cardiac arrest due to seizures. Falls due to epilepsy (19.7%) and injuries in general (17.6%) were named as further causes of morbidity and mortality. The vast majority were aware that alcohol (87.4%), sleep deprivation (86.6%), and risky activities in daily life (80.3%) increased the risk of seizure occurrence or increased morbidity and mortality. Regarding overall mortality, 52.1% thought that people with epilepsy were at greater risk of premature death, whereas 46.2% denied this fact to be true. Only 29.4% were aware of status epilepticus, and 27.3% were aware of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Driving ability, working ability, and seizure risk were named as major or moderate concerns among patients, but the risk of premature mortality was not a major concern. One-quarter of all patients (26.9%) indicated that they were not counseled about any risk factors or causes of morbidity or mortality by their physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of knowledge concerning premature mortality, SUDEP, and status epilepticus exists among adult patients with epilepsy. A substantial number of patients indicated that these issues were not discussed adequately by their physicians.

DUSP1 regulates hippocampal damage in epilepsy rats via ERK1/2 pathway

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of DUSP1 on the hippocampal injury of young rats with epilepsy (EP) through mediating ERK1/2 signaling pathway.

METHODS

Young SD rats were selected and divided into Control, EP, EP + LV-GFP, EP + LV-DUSP1, EP + LV-siDUSP1, and EP + LV-siDUSP1 + U0126 groups. Morris Water Maze Test was used to detect the spatial learning and memory. Nissl staining and TUNEL staining were conducted and the inflammatory factors and oxidative stress-related indicators were also measured. Western blotting was utilized to detect the expression of DUSP1 and ERK1/2 pathway. EP cell model was constructed in vitro to verify the in vivo results.

RESULTS

Compared with Control group, young rats in EP group had decreased spatial learning and memory abilities and increased apoptotic rate and decreased number of Nissl positive cells. Besides, the up-regulated levels in inflammatory factors (IL-1β, IL-6), MDA content, and p-ERK1/2/ERK1/2 protein expression, as well as the down-regulated levels in DUSP1 protein expression and SOD content were also observed in EP rats. The EP rats treated with LV-DUSP1 showed obvious improvements regarding the above indicators, while those treated with LV-siDUSP1 had aggravated injury. But the effect of LV-siDUSP1 can be reversed by the treatment with ERK1/2 pathway inhibitor U0126. Further in vitro investigation verified the in vivo results.

CONCLUSION

DUSP1 may ameliorate the oxidative stress and inflammatory injury, as well as improve spatial learning and memory abilities via inhibiting ERK1/2 pathway, eventually playing protective roles in hippocampal injury of young rats with EP.

[SUDEP in brief - knowledge and practice recommendations on sudden unexpected death in epilepsy]

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the sudden and unexpected death of an epilepsy patient, which occurs under benign circumstances without evidence of typical causes of death. SUDEP concerns all epilepsy patients. The individual risk depends on the characteristics of the epilepsy and seizures as well as on living conditions. Focal to bilateral and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (TCS), nocturnal seizures and lack of nocturnal supervision increase the risk. Most SUDEP cases are due to a fatal cascade of apnea, hypoxemia and asystole in the aftermath of a TCS. Two thirds of SUDEP cases in unsupervised epilepsy patients with TCS could probably be prevented. Wearables can detect TCS and alert caregivers. SUDEP information is desired by most patients and relatives, has a favorable impact on treatment adherence and behavior and has no negative effects on mood and quality of life.Recommendations of the committee on patient safety of the German Society of Epileptology: the ultimate treatment goal is seizure freedom. If this cannot be achieved, control of TCS should be sought. All epilepsy patients and their relatives should be informed about SUDEP and risk factors. Patients and relatives should be informed about measures to counteract the elevated risk and imminent SUDEP. The counselling should be performed during a face-to-face discussion, at the time of first diagnosis or during follow-up visits. The counselling should be documented. Wearables for TCS detection can be recommended. If TCS persist, therapeutic efforts should be continued. The bereaved should be contacted after a SUDEP.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: Experience of neurologists in Saudi Arabia

IMPORTANCE

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) may account for up to 17% of all deaths in epilepsy. However, it is unknown if neurologists discuss this risk with patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the understanding and practices of SUDEP by neurologists in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

An electronic web-based survey was sent to 125 neurologists using the mailing list of the Saudi Neurology Society. The survey questions included respondents' demographics, frequency of SUDEP discussion, reasons for discussing/not discussing SUDEP, and perceived patient reactions. Respondents' knowledge of the SUDEP risk factors was examined using 12 items from the currently available literature. Logistic regression analyses were applied to examine the factors that influence the frequency of SUDEP discussions and perceived patient reactions.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were neurologists who had completed postgraduate training, devoted >5% of their time to clinical care, and had at least one patient with epilepsy in their independent neurology clinic.

RESULTS

A total of 60 respondents met the eligibility criteria and completed the surveys. Of them, 25% discussed SUDEP most of the time, 65% sometimes or rarely, and 10% never discussed it. Of those who discussed SUDEP with their patients, 63.3% did it if the patient was at high risk. Poor compliance with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was the most common patient factor highlighted (81.7%). The perceived patients' reactions were variable, with positive reactions (motivation to comply and appreciation) being the most frequent. The majority of respondents (78.3%) had incomplete understanding of the published SUDEP risk factors, with SUDEP knowledge scores ≤2.5 (≤50% of the possible total score). The most identified risk factors were frequent generalized tonic-clonic seizures (83.3%), long duration of epilepsy (53.3%), lack of use or sub-therapeutic levels of AEDs (50%), and AED polytherapy (50%). No association was found between how often SUDEP was discussed and other factors, including training in epilepsy, ≥10 years in practice, seeing ≥100 patients, and having SUDEP cases in the past two years. It was found that patients positively reacted to discussion on SUDEP if neurologists had a good understanding of the SUDEP risk factors (χ² = 5.773, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Neurologists in Saudi Arabia do not often discuss SUDEP with patients that have epilepsy. Moreover, when they do, they stress a more individualized approach despite having only a limited understanding of the SUDEP risk factors. Our findings suggest that more guidance should be provided to practitioners on how best to counsel their patients about SUDEP.

Probable Sudden Unexpected Death in Dogs With Epilepsy (pSUDED)

Sudden unexpected death in human epileptic patients (SUDEP) is defined as death related to recurrent unprovoked seizures, death occurring unexpectedly, and suddenly in a patient with reasonable state of health, without an obvious medical cause of death, trauma, asphyxia, or intractable status epilepticus, and in post mortem examination no obvious reason for death can be found. “Probable SUDEP” (pSUDEP) is defined as SUDEP not confirmed pathologically. The adapted abbreviation for dogs is used in the following: “pSUDED” (probable sudden unexpected death in dogs with epilepsy). The aim of the present monocentric retrospective study using an online questionnaire was to evaluate the occurrence of pSUDED. Data of canine patients presented with seizures between 01/1998 and 05/2018 were retrospectively analyzed and classified according to their etiology (n = 1,503). Owners were contacted by telephone to participate in answering a validated questionnaire. A total of 509 owners were reached, and 373 owners completed the questionnaire. In addition to signalement (e.g., breed), special attention was paid to the frequency and presentation of seizures and seizures in the context of death. Fifty-one percent (191/373) of the dogs were dead at the endpoint of the study. A large proportion of the dogs was euthanized (149/191) because of seizure severity or health problems unrelated to seizures. Idiopathic epilepsy (IE) was diagnosed in 19/34 dogs which died unexpectedly. Of these seven animals had to be excluded for further investigation of pSUDED because of status epilepticus or aspiration pneumonia as a result of the seizures. In 12 dogs with IE the last seizure event occurred between 6 h and ~3 months before death. pSUDED was suspected in these dogs and an occurrence rate of 4.5–10% was calculated. pSUDED appears in a similar occurrence rate as human SUDEP and should be considered as a possible complication in epileptic dogs. The results of this study suggest that dogs with IE but especially those with brachycephalic syndrome and cluster seizures have an increased risk to die of pSUDED. Owners of dogs with seizures should be educated about the risk of sudden death in dogs with epilepsy.

Why child neurologists talk about SUDEP: Results from two cross-sectional surveys

Objective

To characterize SUDEP discussion practices of child neurologists approximately 6 and 12 months after publication of the American Academy of Neurology SUDEP Clinical Practice Guideline and explore factors associated with discussion practice.

Methods

Child Neurology Society members (~2450) were electronically surveyed in November 2017 and May 2018 regarding their practice of discussing SUDEP with patients with epilepsy or their caregivers. Multivariable proportional odds ordinal logistic regression evaluated factors associated with discussing SUDEP with a greater proportion of epilepsy patients/caregivers. Reasons for changing practice were described.

Results

Among the 369 child neurologist respondents, 36% reported discussing SUDEP with at least half of their epilepsy patients/caregivers including 12% who discuss with all or almost all (>90%) of their epilepsy patients/families. Those who discussed SUDEP with an increased proportion of their patients were more likely to agree that they knew enough to talk about SUDEP, agree that healthcare providers have an ethical obligation to discuss SUDEP, and disagree that there is not enough time to talk about SUDEP. Those who agreed SUDEP could provoke excessive anxiety or worry were less likely to discuss SUDEP with an increased proportion of their patients. Reading the SUDEP Clinical Practice Guideline was a frequently cited reason among respondents who reported a recent change in discussion practice.

Significance

Most child neurologists do not follow the current SUDEP Clinical Practice Guideline regarding SUDEP discussion. Feeling sufficiently knowledgeable and ethically obligated to discuss SUDEP were associated with increased discussion practice, suggesting an educational intervention may be effective at increasing SUDEP discussion rates.

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.

Awareness of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy among parents of children with epilepsy in a tertiary center

OBJECTIVE

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the second leading neurological cause of potential years of lifelost after stroke. Despite growing numbers of studies on social aspects of epilepsy, there is a paucity of research on the awareness of SUDEP among the parents of children with epilepsy (CWE), especially in Turkey. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the knowledge of parents of the CWE regarding SUDEP in the tertiary setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 146 parents (108 female) aged 19 to 55 years (median age:34) of CWE were included at Marmara University, School of Medicine, Department of Pediatric Neurology outpatient clinic between May 2018 and September 2018. A total of 30 multiple-choice questions and a written survey were administered, which consisted of three sections. In the first section, the sociodemographics of parents and CWE were questioned. In the second section, the severity of epilepsy was evaluated. In the third section, the knowledge level and awareness of parents of CWE were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 146 parents, only 16.6% previously heard about SUDEP, while 45% of them heard from their relatives. The presence of prior knowledge of SUDEP was associated with the presence of prolonged postictal confusion and longer duration of epilepsy (p < 0.05). Ninety-seven (66%) parents desired to be informed about SUDEP, while 76 (54.7%) of them agreed that this information should be given at the time of diagnosis. The degree of anxiety in parents regarding death of epilepsy-related causes was significantly related with prolonged postictal confusion (p < 0.001) and using three or more antiepileptic drugs (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that knowledge about SUDEP among parents with CWE found inadequate in Turkey. There should be much effort to inform parents and caregivers in epilepsy clinics on SUDEP, which may help to reduce the associated risk factors.

Dramatic outcomes in epilepsy: depression, suicide, injuries, and mortality

In this narrative review, we will discuss some of the significant risks and dramatic consequences that are associated with epilepsy: depression, suicide, seizure-related injuries, and mortality, both in adults and in children. Considering the high prevalence of depression among people with epilepsy (PWE), routine and periodic screening of all PWE for early detection and appropriate management of depression is recommended. PWE should be screened for suicidal ideation regularly and when needed, patients should be referred for a psychiatric evaluation and treatment. When starting an antiepileptic drug (AED) or switching from one to another AED, patients should be advised to report to their treating physician any change in their mood and existence of suicidal ideation. The risk of injuries for the general epilepsy population is increased only moderately. The risk is higher in selected populations attending epilepsy clinics and referral centers. This being said, there are PWE that may suffer frequent, severe, and sometimes even life-threatening seizure-related injuries. The most obvious way to reduce risk is to strive for improved seizure control. Finally, PWE have a 2-3 times higher mortality rate than the general population. Deaths in PWE may relate to the underlying cause of epilepsy, to seizures (including sudden unexpected death in epilepsy [SUDEP] and seizure related injuries) and to status epilepticus, as well as to other conditions that do not appear directly related to epilepsy. Improving seizure control and patient education may be the most important measures to reduce epilepsy related mortality in general and SUDEP in particular.

Prevention of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: current status and future perspectives

Introduction: Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) affects about 1 in 1000 people with epilepsy, and even more in medically refractory epilepsy. As most people are between 20 and 40 years when dying suddenly, SUDEP leads to a considerable loss of potential life years. The most important risk factors are nocturnal and tonic-clonic seizures, underscoring that supervision and effective seizure control are key elements for SUDEP prevention. The question of whether specific antiepileptic drugs are linked to SUDEP is still controversially discussed. Knowledge and education about SUDEP among health-care professionals, patients, and relatives are of outstanding importance for preventive measures to be taken, but still poor and widely neglected.Areas covered: This article reviews epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, assessment of individual SUDEP risk and available measures for SUDEP prevention. Literature search was done using Medline and Pubmed in October 2019.Expert opinion: Significant advances in the understanding of SUDEP were made in the last decade which allow testing of novel strategies to prevent SUDEP. Promising current strategies target neuronal mechanisms of brain stem dysfunction, cardiac susceptibility for fatal arrhythmias, and reliable detection of tonic-clonic seizures using mobile health technologies.Abbreviations: AED, antiepileptic drug; CBZ, carbamazepine; cLQTS, congenital long QT syndrome; EMU, epilepsy monitoring unit; FBTCS, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures; GTCS, generalized tonic-clonic seizures; ICA, ictal central apnea; LTG, lamotrigine; PCCA, postconvulsive central apnea; PGES, postictal generalized EEG suppression; SRI, serotonin reuptake inhibitor; SUDEP, sudden unexpected death in epilepsy; TCS, tonic-clonic seizures.

Incorporating Ethically Relevant Empirical Data From Systematic Review of Reasons: A Case Study of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy

In this report we use a case study of risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) to illustrate the contribution of systematic literature reviews of disease-specific ethical issues (DSEI). In particular, we show how ethically-relevant empirical data from such reviews can be used in the examination of the reasons for and against a particular normative approach to our DSEI. That is, we have attempted to offer a normative recommendation in response to the question of whether or not the risk of SUDEP should be disclosed to all patients. This case study functions as a form of empirical bioethics by providing a means of assessing empirical claims underlying reasons. As a result of this process, we are then able to provide clear and transparent, if not definitive, justification for a normative recommendation in response to a question of interest.

Prone, lateral, or supine positioning at seizure onset determines the postictal body position: A multicenter video-EEG monitoring cohort study

PURPOSE

Most patients who die from sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) are found in the prone position. We evaluated whether changes in body position occur during generalized convulsive seizures (GCSs).

METHOD

GCSs in patients undergoing video-EEG-monitoring between 2007 and 2017 at epilepsy centers in Frankfurt and Marburg were analyzed in relation to changes in body position.

RESULTS

A total of 494 GCSs were analyzed among 327 patients. At seizure onset, positions included supine (48.2 %), right lateral (19.0 %), left lateral (15.6 %), sitting or standing (14.0 %), and prone (3.2 %). Between seizure onset and the start of generalization, 57.5 % of participants altered body positions. During four seizures, patients adopted a prone position, while, in five seizures, patients moved from a prone position. Patients who experienced GCS onset while in a nonprone position had a 2.1 % risk of entering the prone position by the end of their seizure. In contrast, 56.2 % of those in an initial prone position remained so at the end of the GCS, with an odds ratio for maintaining that position of 60.2 (95 % confidence interval: 29.1-124.3; p < 0.001). The likelihood of ending up in the prone position post-GCS did not vary among patients with different nonprone starting positions (p = 0.147).

CONCLUSIONS

Seizures in prone position occur during sleep and the highest risk for postictal prone positioning appears to be being in the prone position at GCS onset. Epilepsy patients should therefore be advised to go to sleep in a supine or lateral position to reduce their SUDEP risk.

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

Two recent UK reports have highlighted data of concern in relation to potentially preventable epilepsy deaths. Public Health England, an executive agency of the Government Department of Health, using National Health Service data from 2001 to 2014 reported a rise in direct age-standardised mortality for epilepsy-associated deaths, in contrast to a reduction in all-cause deaths over the same period. Premature death was seen in people aged below 50 years, especially in men, and where epilepsy was a contributory cause rather than an association. The Scottish Epilepsy Deaths Study, analysing deaths between 2009 and 2016, similarly found death in those with epilepsy was significantly higher than the matched population below the age of 54, especially between the ages of 16 and 24 (6 times higher). Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy accounted for 38% of epilepsy-related deaths under the age of 45. Both studies found a strong relationship between risk of death and deprivation; we discuss the implications of these and other data for planning service delivery and improving epilepsy care. This paper is for the Special Issue: Prevent 21: SUDEP Summit - Time to Listen.

A systematic review on the burden of illness in individuals with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC)

Objective

This review will summarize current knowledge on the burden of illness (BOI) in tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), a multisystem genetic disorder manifesting with hamartomas throughout the body, including mainly the kidneys, brain, skin, eyes, heart, and lungs.

Methods

We performed a systematic analysis of the available literature on BOI in TSC according to the PRISMA guidelines. All studies irrespective of participant age that reported on individual and societal measures of disease burden (e.g. health care resource use, costs, quality of life) were included.

Results

We identified 33 studies reporting BOI in TSC patients. Most studies (21) reported health care resource use, while 14 studies reported quality of life and 10 studies mentioned costs associated with TSC. Only eight research papers reported caregiver BOI. Substantial BOI occurs from most manifestations of the disorder, particularly from pharmacoresistant epilepsy, neuropsychiatric, renal and skin manifestations. While less frequent, pulmonary complications also lead to a high individual BOI. The range for the mean annual direct costs varied widely between 424 and 98,008 International Dollar purchasing power parities (PPP-$). Brain surgery, end-stage renal disease with dialysis, and pulmonary complications all incur particularly high costs. There is a dearth of information regarding indirect costs in TSC. Mortality overall is increased compared to general population; and most TSC related deaths occur as a result of complications from seizures as well as renal complications. Long term studies report mortality between 4.8 and 8.3% for a follow-up of 8 to 17.4 years.

Conclusions

TSC patients and their caregivers have a high burden of illness, and TSC patients incur high costs in health care systems. At the same time, the provision of inadequate treatment that does not adhere to published guidelines is common and centralized TSC care is received by no more than half of individuals who need it, especially adults. Further studies focusing on the cost effectiveness and BOI outcomes of coordinated TSC care as well as of new treatment options such as mTOR inhibitors are necessary.

Morbidity and mortality of nonepileptic seizures (NES): A controlled national study

Nonepileptic seizures (NES, psychogenic NES-PNES) are associated with significant morbidities. We evaluated the morbidities and mortality in a national group of children, adolescent, and adult patients before and after a first diagnosis of PNES.

METHODS

From the Danish National Patient Registry (1998-2013), we identified 1057 people of all ages with a diagnosis of NES and matched them with 2113 control individuals by age, gender, and geography. Comorbidities were calculated three years before and after diagnoses.

RESULTS

Patients with PNES showed increased comorbidities 3 years before and after diagnosis in almost all the diagnostic domains. The strongest associations were identified with other neurological diseases (after diagnosis, Hazard Ratio (HR): 38.63; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 21.58-69.13; P < 0.001), abnormal clinical and laboratory findings (HR: 46.59; 95 CI: 27.30-79.52; P < 0.001), other health-related factors (HR: 12.83; 95%CI: 8.45-19.46; P < 0.001), and psychiatric comorbidities (HR: 15.45; 95% CI: 9.81-24.33). Epilepsy was identified in 8% of the patients with PNES. We found especially frequent comorbidity involving overweight, depression, anxiety, dissociative somatoform condition, other convulsions, lipothymias, reports of pain and other symptoms in several organ systems, and several reports of minimal traumas to the head, trunk, and extremities. Mortality was higher in patients with NES than in controls (HR: 3.21; 95% CI: 1.92-5.34; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Morbidity is more frequent in several domains, including neurological, psychiatric, and other diseases, before and after a diagnosis of NES. Mortality is significantly higher in patients with PNES as compared to controls.

Noncompliance of patients with driving restrictions due to uncontrolled epilepsy

Epilepsies are a common and chronic neurological disorder characterized by sustained risk of recurrent seizures. Because of paroxysmal and often unpredictable occurrence of seizures, patients with uncontrolled epilepsy are subject to disease-specific restrictions in daily life, such as their career choice or specific work limitations. According to German law and many other European and international guidelines, driving is strictly prohibited in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy so as to increase active and passive safety in public road traffic. Nevertheless, a significant percentage of patients probably do not comply with these legal restrictions and drive on a regular basis. For this study, we analyzed a representative German cohort with 302 patients (mean age: 45.0 years ± 16.4; 48% male) with established epilepsy to identify the number of patients driving without permission. Overall, 58.6% (n = 177) of patients had a driving license, 71.1% (n = 69/97) of patients were in seizure remission, and 52.7% (n = 108/205) of patients had uncontrolled epilepsy. Among patients in seizure remission, 54.6% (n = 53/97) reported regular driving while, among patients with uncontrolled epilepsy, 15.1% (n = 31/205) reported driving on a regular basis. No patient in the cohort stated driving without a valid license. Permanent employment, freelance work, the absence of a relevant disability, and living alone were identified as significant risk factors, which underlines the already existing evidence for the importance of a possible restricted access to the labor market as motive for disregarding legal driving restrictions. In our opinion, specialized and generally available social counseling with a special focus on vocational and career guidance is urgently needed to improve compliance with epilepsy-caused driving restrictions and the underlying reasons for violating these rules. In addition, more effort has to be spent on improving diagnostics and treatment of epilepsy to reduce the number of patients with uncontrolled seizures. Comprehensive introduction of self-driving vehicles may also help to improve mobility of patients with refractory epilepsy.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy in children: a focused review of incidence and risk factors

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) in children, although rare, needs critical attention given the tragic nature and devastating consequences for families and caregivers. True incidence is unknown and risk factors are not completely understood, more so in children compared with adults. A focused narrative review of available studies on paediatric SUDEP was undertaken to comprehend its risk factors and to develop strategies to recognise and where possible modify SUDEP risk and ultimately reduce incidence. We reviewed 16 population-based studies from various settings. We found overlapping risk factors from different studies. The prime risk factor is uncontrolled seizures. This review supports the view that children entering adolescence with optimal seizure control could be a key aspect in reducing adult mortality related to SUDEP. Ideally, clinicians would want to be able to predict prospective, individualised SUDEP risk, which is challenging due to a myriad of risk factors and an inherent non-homogeneous paediatric epilepsy population. Nevertheless, an adequate evidence base exists as evidenced by this review to support information giving and communication to support young people with epilepsy and their families in being active partners in recognising and reducing their SUDEP risk. More work particularly in the form of prospective studies and registries are needed to further clarify true incidence which may have been previously underestimated and to update risk factors.

Decreasing the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: structured communication of risk factors for premature mortality in people with epilepsy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Good practice guidelines highlight the importance of making people with epilepsy aware of the risk of premature mortality in epilepsy particularly due to sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). The SUDEP and Seizure Safety Checklist ('Checklist') is a structured risk communication tool used in UK clinics. It is not known if sharing structured information on risk factors allows individuals to reduce SUDEP and premature mortality risks. The aim of this study was to ascertain if the introduction of the Checklist in epilepsy clinics led to individual risk reduction.

METHODS

The Checklist was administered to 130 consecutive people with epilepsy attending a specialized epilepsy neurology clinic and 129 attending an epilepsy intellectual disability (ID) clinic within a 4-month period. At baseline, no attendees at the neurology clinic had received formal risk advice, whereas all those attending the ID clinic had received formal risk advice on multiple occasions for 6 years. The Checklist was readministered 1 year later to each group and scores were compared with baseline and between groups.

RESULTS

Of 12 risk factors considered, there was an overall reduction in mean risk score for the general (P = 0.0049) but not for the ID (P = 0.322) population. Subanalysis of the 25% of people at most risk in both populations showed that both sets had a significant reduction in risk scores (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Structured discussion results in behavioural change that reduces individual risk factors. This impact seems to be higher in those who are at current higher risk. It is important that clinicians share risk information with individuals as a matter of public health and health promotion.

Has the Time Come to Stratify and Score SUDEP Risk to Inform People With Epilepsy of Their Changes in Safety?

Recent publication of the American Academy of Neurology SUDEP guidance highlighted the importance to American clinicians of making people with epilepsy aware of SUDEP risk. It is the first guideline to do this in the United States. It follows precedent set out in the UK by National Institute of Clinical Excellence in 2004. While a significant achievement, the lack of clarity of how to deliver this guidance in an enduring and person-centered manner, raises concerns on how its long-term effectiveness in risk mitigation. Shared decision-making with an emphasis on delivering person-centered communication to foster self-management strategies is increasingly recognized as the ideal model of patient–clinician communication in chronic diseases such as epilepsy. The tension between delivering evidence-based risk information, yet, tailoring it to the individual is complex. It needs to incorporate the potential for change not only in seizure factors but also other health and social factors. Safety advice needs to be dynamic and situation sensitive as opposed to a “one off” discussion. As a significant minority of people with epilepsy have drug-resistant seizures, the importance of keeping the advice contextual at different intervals of the person’s life cannot be overstated as many of them are managed in primary care. We present some exploratory work, which identifies the need to improve communication at a primary care level and to review risks regularly. Regular reviews using a structured risk factor checklist as a screening tool could identify, sooner, people who’s health issues are worsening and justify referrals to specialists.

Knowledge of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) among 372 patients attending a German tertiary epilepsy center

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that the sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) risk can be reduced by good seizure control, nocturnal supervision, and by early cardiopulmonary resuscitation if cardiorespiratory arrest occurs in the aftermaths of generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). These measures, however, may critically depend on the knowledge of patients and relatives on SUDEP. Here, we assessed the basic knowledge on SUDEP of people with epilepsy at a tertiary epilepsy center in Germany.

METHODS

Adult patients with epilepsy and relatives or caregivers of patients with epilepsy aged 16years or older attending our outpatient clinic from January to March 2014 were given the opportunity to participate in a (assisted or unassisted) written survey. In the anonymized questionnaire, people were asked if they had already heard about SUDEP, by what means and if they wish to learn (more) about SUDEP. Furthermore, age, sex, epilepsy duration, highest degree of education, number of GTCS during the last year, and estimation of subjective impairment by their disease were assessed. Statistics were done using mixed linear or logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 372 patients' questionnaires were included in this survey. More than 87% of the participants had never heard of SUDEP before. Whereas about 50% of the participants wanted to learn more about SUDEP, about 40% did not. Only the age at survey was significantly associated with both being informed and the desire of learning more about SUDEP: Younger patients had more often heard (p=0.022) and wanted to know more about SUDEP (p=0.020). Thirty-nine patients were considered at high risk for SUDEP. Of these, only 6 patients (15%) knew about SUDEP prior to this survey, but 18 patients (46%) wanted to learn more about this fatal complication.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that the level of information on SUDEP among people with epilepsy is poor in Germany regardless of sex, school education, or epilepsy severity. Additionally, a considerable proportion of people with epilepsy seems to prefer not getting detailed information on SUDEP. More efforts are required to understand the potential barriers of the education of patients and relatives on sudden death with the ultimate goal of decreasing the risk of SUDEP.

The Burden of Severely Drug-Refractory Epilepsy: A Comparative Longitudinal Evaluation of Mortality, Morbidity, Resource Use, and Cost Using German Health Insurance Data

Purpose

To evaluate long-term outcome of three years and treatment patterns of patients suffering from severely drug-refractory epilepsy (SDRE).

Methods

This analysis was population-based and retrospective, with data collected from four million individuals insured by statutory German health insurance. ICD-10 codes for epilepsy (G40*) and intake of anticonvulsants were used to identify prevalent cases, which were then compared with a matched cohort drawn from the population at large. Insurance data were available from 2008 to 2013. Any patient who had been prescribed with at least four different antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in an 18-month period was defined as an SDRE case.

Results

A total of 769 patients with SDRE were identified. Of these, 19% were children and adolescents; the overall mean age was 42.3 years, 45.4% were female and 54.6% male. An average of 2.7 AEDs per patient was prescribed during the first follow-up year. The AEDs most commonly prescribed were: levetiracetam (53.5%), lamotrigine (41.4%), valproate (41.3%), lacosamide (20.4%), and topiramate (17.8%). During 3-year follow-up, there was an annual rate of hospitalization in the range 42.7 to 55%, which was significantly higher than the 11.6–12.8% (p < 0.001) for the matched controls. Admissions to hospital because of epilepsy ranged between 1.7 and 1.9 per year, with an average duration for each epilepsy-caused hospitalization of 10–11.1 days. The number of comorbidities for SDRE patients was significantly increased compared with the matched controls: depression (28% against 10%), vascular disorders (22% against 5%), and injury rates were also higher (head 16% against 3%, trunk and limbs 16% against 8%). The 3-year mortality rate for SDRE patients was 14% against 2.1% in the matched cohort.

Conclusion

SDRE patients are treated with AED polytherapy for all of the 3-year follow-up period. They are hospitalized more frequently than the general population and show increased morbidity levels and a sevenfold increase in mortality rate over 3 years. Further examination is required of ways in which new approaches to treatment could lead to better outcomes in severely affected patients.

Unravelling the mysteries of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the most frequent cause of premature death in epileptic patients. Most SUDEP events occur at night and frequently go unnoticed; the exact pathophysiological mechanisms of this phenomenon therefore remain undetermined. Nevertheless, most cases of SUDEP are attributed to an infrequent yet extremely severe complication of epileptic seizures.

DEVELOPMENT

We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed. Our review article summarises scientific evidence on the classification, pathophysiological mechanisms, risk factors, biomarkers, and prevention of SUDEP. Likewise, we propose new lines of research and critically analyse findings that are relevant to clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Current knowledge suggests that SUDEP is a heterogeneous phenomenon caused by multiple factors. In most cases, however, SUDEP is thought to be due to postictal cardiorespiratory failure triggered by generalised tonic-clonic seizures and ultimately leading to cardiac arrest. The underlying pathophysiological mechanism involves multiple factors, ranging from genetic predisposition to environmental factors. Risk of SUDEP is higher in young adults with uncontrolled generalised tonic-clonic seizures. However, patients apparently at lower risk may also experience SUDEP. Current research focuses on identifying genetic and neuroimaging biomarkers that may help determine which patients are at high risk for SUDEP. Antiepileptic treatment is the only preventive measure proven effective to date. Night-time monitoring together with early resuscitation may reduce the risk of SUDEP.

SUDEP: What do adult patients want to know?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this descriptive qualitative study was to understand the range of adult patients' views on whether and how to discuss the issue of SUDEP with patients with epilepsy and to clarify the optimal timing and formulation of this information.

METHOD

The principles of fundamental qualitative description informed all design decisions. Twenty-three patients aged 18-65years participated in the study. Nineteen participants completed a single one-on-one telephone interview, whereas four participants shared their experiences in a focus group. Directed content analysis was used to code, categorize, and synthesize the interview data.

RESULTS

Of the 42 patients invited to participate, 23 participated in the study. There was consensus among all study participants that all individuals diagnosed with epilepsy should be informed about SUDEP. Many participants believed that the best time to be told about SUDEP was at diagnosis. The majority of participants suggested that the discussion about SUDEP should take place face to face, in a verbal discussion, followed by written information to take home. Several participants suggested that the information about SUDEP should not be shared separately but rather incorporated into the general information they received about epilepsy. Nearly all the participants felt that the information about SUDEP should come from the neurologist.

CONCLUSION

Participants of this study wanted neurologists to inform patients about the risk of SUDEP, with the optimal timing and setting of SUDEP counseling determined on a case-by-case basis.

Neurologist adherence to clinical practice guidelines and costs in patients with newly diagnosed and chronic epilepsy in Germany

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate physician adherence to the German Neurological Society guidelines of 2008 regarding initial monotherapy and to determine the cost-of-illness in epilepsy.

METHODS

This was an observational cohort study using health data routinely collected at 55 outpatient neurology practices throughout Germany (NeuroTransData network). Data on socioeconomic status, course of epilepsy, anticonvulsive treatment, and direct and indirect costs were recorded using practice software-based questionnaires.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred eighty-four patients with epilepsy (785 male (49.6%); mean age: 51.3±18.1years) were enrolled, of whom 507 were newly diagnosed. Initial monotherapy was started according to authorization status in 85.9%, with nonenzyme-inducing drugs in 94.3% of all AEDs. Drugs of first choice by guideline recommendations were used in 66.5%. Total annual direct costs in the first year amounted to €2194 (SD: €4273; range: €55-43,896) per patient, with hospitalization (59% of total direct costs) and anticonvulsants (30%) as the main cost factors. Annual total direct costs decreased by 29% to €1572 in the second year, mainly because of a 59% decrease in hospitalization costs. The use of first choice AEDs did not influence costs. Chronic epilepsy was present in 1077 patients, and total annual direct costs amounted to €1847 per patient, with anticonvulsants (51.0%) and hospitalization (41.0%) as the main cost factors. Potential cost-driving factors in these patients were active epilepsy and focal epilepsy syndrome.

CONCLUSION

This study shows excellent physician adherence to guidelines regarding initial monotherapy in adults with epilepsy. Newly diagnosed patients show higher total direct and hospital costs in the first year upon diagnosis, but these are not influenced by adherence to treatment guidelines.

Summary of the 2016 Partners Against Mortality in Epilepsy (PAME) Conference

Authors: Kevin D Graber, MD, Jeffrey Buchhalter, MD, PhD, Elson So, MD, Rainer Surges, MD, Detlev Boison, PhD, Franck Kalume, PhD, Cyndi Wright, Brian Gehlbach, MD, Jeff Noebels, MD, PhD, Vicky Whittemore, PhD, Elizabeth J. Donner, MD, MSc, Tom Stanton, MPP, Henry Smithson, MD, Jane Hanna, Masud Seyal, MD, PhD, Philippe Ryvlin, MD, PhD The third biannual Partners Against Mortality in Epilepsy (PAME) conference was held in Alexandria, VA from June 23-26, 2016. This was an intimate meeting of clinical and basic scientists, clinicians, people affected by Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy Patients (SUDEP) in a loved one, people living with epilepsy and patient advocate organizations. Plenary sessions have been summarized by moderators, including: 1) Mortality in people with epilepsy: epidemiology and surveillance. 2) Mortality in children. 3) What do we know about the factors that predispose certain people to die from a seizure? 4) What are the events that occur during and after a seizure that cause a death in SUDEP? 5) What are the options for prevention now and in the future? 6) Advocacy perspectives: how can we speed up awareness and prevention? 7) Updates and discussion on select programs in mortality research. Breakout sessions allowed for a more focused audience. Those summarized here are: Frequent non-SUDEP causes of mortality in people with epilepsy; Mechanisms of SUDEP; Lessons learned in grief and how to better support families; Future directions for research to impact prevention; and How do we improve SUDEP risk disclosure? While significant progress has been made with review of human mortality in epilepsy and study of animal models, this meeting emphasized the need for: better understandings of the epidemiology of SUDEP, advances in the understandings of mechanisms, continued search for biomarkers and preventative measures, patient education, increased awareness, continued advocacy for patient and family support and research funding.

Pediatric Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy: What Have we Learned from Animal and Human Studies, and Can we Prevent it?

Several factors, such as epilepsy syndrome, poor compliance, and increased seizure frequency increase the risks of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Animal models have revealed that the mechanisms of SUDEP involve initially a primary event, often a seizure of sufficient type and severity, that occurs in a brain, which is vulnerable to SUDEP due to either genetic or antecedent factors. This primary event initiates a cascade of secondary events starting, as some models indicate, with cortical spreading depolarization that propagates to the brainstem where it results in autonomic dysfunction. Intrinsic abnormalities in brainstem serotonin, adenosine, sodium-postassium ATPase, and respiratory-control systems are also important. The tertiary event, which results from the above dysfunction, consists of either lethal central apnea, pulmonary edema, or arrhythmia. Currently, it is necessary to (1) continue researching SUDEP mechanisms, (2) work on reducing SUDEP risk factors, and (3) address the major need to counsel families about SUDEP.