Labor market participation following onset of seizures and early epilepsy: Findings from a UK cohort

Disability burden of epilepsy in Türkiye: How does it differ from other newly industrialized countries?

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy accounts for a substantial part of the global burden of disability. This study aimed to investigate the employment history of people with epilepsy in Türkiye, evaluate the role of education level in employment and epilepsy burden, and compare epilepsy employment data in different societies according to sociodemographic index data.

METHODS

This prospective study included 420 people 16-76 years of age who were diagnosed with epilepsy according to the criteria of the International League Against Epilepsy. Socioeconomic, clinical, and employment data were collected using a questionnaire in face-to-face interviews.

RESULTS

The study sample was 52 % women, the mean age was 34.2 ± 12.7 years (range: 16-76 years), and the mean disease duration was 17.2 ± 12.6 years. Only 26.7 % (n = 112) of the participants were actively working, 38.8 % had never worked, and 64.5 % had changed jobs at least twice (mean 2.45 job changes). The unemployment rate among the study sample was 7 times higher than in the general population. Female gender, low self and parental education levels, high seizure frequency, and the use of multiple anti-seizure medications were significantly associated with lower employment.

CONCLUSION

We determined that the employment rates and education levels of people with epilepsy in Türkiye are low, the unemployment rate is high, and the burden of epilepsy is higher when compared with other low-middle income and newly industrialized countries and national population data. Education and employment opportunities for people with epilepsy in Türkiye should be improved to reduce the burden of epilepsy-related disability and thereby increase quality of life, welfare, and psychosocial well-being in this group.

Rehabilitation in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy: A controlled, 1-year follow-up study on a specialized inpatient rehabilitation program

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of a specialized inpatient rehabilitation program in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy (NDE), who had been referred within 1 year after diagnosis.

METHODS

We performed an open, prospective, controlled study comparing a 1-year follow-up assessment of patients with NDE after completing a rehabilitation program at an epilepsy center (rehabilitation group) with a control group of patients with similar epilepsy duration, but without rehabilitation in the first year after diagnosis. Primary outcome measures comprised emotional adaptation to epilepsy, depression and anxiety; and secondary outcome measures were overall quality of life (QoL), overall health, perceived restrictions because of epilepsy, level of information about epilepsy, and employment status.

RESULTS

Comparison of the admission data of 74 rehabilitation group patients (mean age and SD 47.7 ± 13.0 years) with the pre-rehabilitation assessment of 56 control patients (45.5 ± 12.1 years) revealed no significant differences concerning sociodemographic and health data. Comparison of the follow-up assessment of the rehabilitation group and the pre-rehabilitation assessment of the control group showed significantly better values for the rehabilitation group on emotional adaptation to epilepsy (p = .003), overall QoL (p = .006) and overall health (p = .011), perceived restrictions because of epilepsy, and subjective level of information about epilepsy (both p's < .001). There were no statistically significant differences concerning depression and anxiety or employment status (all p's > .50). One year after rehabilitation, patients in the rehabilitation group were more often seizure-free and less often on sickness absence than control group patients (both p's < .001).

SIGNIFICANCE

Since reduced QoL shortly after diagnosis of NDE is associated with seizure recurrence, an early identification of patients with a greater need for support seems important. This epilepsy-related rehabilitation program showed lasting effects on several aspects of adaptation to epilepsy and QoL.

Efficacy of a specialized inpatient rehabilitation program in patients with early versus chronic epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of a specialized inpatient rehabilitation program in patients with early in comparison with chronic epilepsy.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, open pre/post study using a parallel group design. Patients with early epilepsy (EE, treatment with anti-seizure medication [ASM] ≤ 1 year) or with chronic epilepsy (CE, ASM treatment > 5 years) completed questionnaires at the time of their admission to the rehabilitation program and at discharge. Outcome measures comprised scales from the PESOS questionnaire (PErformance, SOciodemographic aspects, Subjective estimation; e.g., emotional adaptation to epilepsy) as well as screening instruments for depression (Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy, NDDI-E) and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, GAD-7). Linear mixed models (LMMs) were used to determine the effects of the program in the total group and to compare the effects between patients with EE and CE.

RESULTS

The analyses included 79 patients with EE and 157 patients with CE. Baseline comparisons revealed differences in disease-related and sociodemographic variables (e.g., patients with EE were older, those with CE had a higher seizure frequency and a higher rate of unemployment; all p < .01). LMMs showed significant improvements in emotional adaptation to epilepsy, depression, anxiety, overall quality of life and overall health as well as in perceived overall restrictions because of epilepsy and the subjective level of information about epilepsy (all p < .001). Despite the different duration of epilepsy, baseline levels as well as improvements did not differ between patients with EE and CE (all p > .05) except for the perceived level of information, which was significantly lower in patients with EE at admission and improved to a higher extent in this group (both p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Both patients with EE and patients with CE who are referred to a specialized comprehensive rehabilitation program benefit from the participation in this program with respect to emotional adaptation to epilepsy, aspects of quality of life, and level of information about epilepsy.

Investigation on the Influencing Factors Related to Quality of Life of Adult Epilepsy Patients in Wenzhou, China, Based on Structural Equation Model

Objective. The aim of the study is to investigate the influencing factors of quality of life in adult patients with epilepsy in Wenzhou in China. Methods. A total of 190 patients who visited our hospital from July 2019 to February 2021 were included in the study. Demographic data and disease status were collected. Moreover, QOLIE-31, PSQI, ESS, HAMD-17, and GAD-7 were used in the questionnaire survey. Structural equation model fitting was used to analyze the influencing factors of quality of life in adult patients with epilepsy. Results. The scores of the dimension of onset worry in men were greater than those of women (P = 0.049), and the scores of the dimension of life satisfaction were lower than women (P = 0.047). The scores of cognitive function decreased with age (P = 0.047). The scores of quality of life of unemployed and drinking patients significantly decreased $\left(P<\mathit{0.05}\right)$ . The score of quality of life positively correlated with good economic status and family relations $\left(P<\mathit{0.05}\right)$ . The score of emotional health increased first and then decreased with the course of the disease. With the decrease in seizure frequency and the extension of months without a seizure, the score of quality of life gradually increased. Furthermore, the structural equation model showed that health status was directly correlated to the quality of life of patients with epilepsy. Conclusion. Male, unemployment, drinking, older age, and disease are negatively related to the quality of life in patients with epilepsy. However, good economic status, good family relations, and good colleague relationships are positively related to the quality of life.

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam (Keppra^®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran^®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal^®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim^®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy.

DESIGN

Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel.

SETTING

Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Focal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions.

FUTURE WORK

SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Prospective multisite cohort study of patient-reported outcomes in adults with new-onset seizures

Objective

New‐onset seizures affect up to 10% of people over their lifetime, however, their health economic impact has not been well‐studied. This prospective multicenter study will collect patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) from adults with new‐onset seizures seen in six Seizure Clinics across Melbourne, Australia and The University of Colorado, USA.

Methods

Approximately 450 eligible patients will be enrolled in the study at or following their initial attendance to Seizure Clinics at the study hospitals. Inclusion criteria for the study group are those with new‐onset acute symptomatic seizures, new‐onset unprovoked seizures, and new‐onset epilepsy. Inclusion criteria for the three comparator groups are those with noncardiac syncope, those with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures, as well as published PROMs data from the Australian general population. Exclusion criteria are those aged less than 18 years, those with a preexisting epilepsy diagnosis, and those with intellectual disabilities or other impairments which would preclude them from comprehending and completing the questionnaires. Patients will complete eight online questionnaires regarding the effect that their seizures (or seizure mimics) have had on various aspects of their life. These questionnaires will be readministered at 6 and 12 months. Patients with new‐diagnosis epilepsy will also be asked to share the reasons why they have accepted or declined antiseizure medications.

Analysis

Primary outcome measures will be quality of life, work productivity, informal care needs, and mood, at baseline compared to 6 and 12 months later for those with new‐onset seizures and comparing these outcomes to those in the three comparator groups. Secondary outcomes include mapping of QoLIE‐31 to the EQ‐5D‐5L in epilepsy, modelling indirect costs of new‐onset seizures, and exploring why patients may or may not wish to take antiseizure medications.

Significance

These data will form an evidence‐base for future studies that examine the effectiveness of various healthcare interventions for new‐onset seizure patients.

Ethics and dissemination

This study is approved by the Alfred Health Human Research Ethics Committee (SERP: 52 538, Alfred HREC: 307/19), the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/59148/Austin‐2019), and the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) (COMIRB #20‐3028).

ANZCTR trial registration number

ACTRN12621000908831.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64).

FINDINGS

990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs.

INTERPRETATION

These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy.

METHODS

We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64).

FINDINGS

520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years.

INTERPRETATION

Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Examining the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the well-being and virtual care of patients with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) as a novel coronavirus resulted in a global pandemic that necessitated the implementation of social distancing measures. These public health measures may have affected the provision of care for patients with epilepsy. Social isolation may have also adversely affected well-being and quality of life due to informal and formal support networks becoming less accessible. The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the lived experiences of patients with epilepsy and to see how their quality of life and healthcare has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

From April 27 to May 15, 2020 we performed remote interviews with 18 participants who had virtual appointments with their healthcare providers and were enrolled in the Calgary Comprehensive Epilepsy Program registry. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, after which transcripts were analyzed and coded into relevant themes using NVivo 12.

RESULTS

Three broad themes emerged throughout the interviews:1) impact of pandemic on informal and formal support systems; 2) impact of pandemic on healthcare provision; and 3) concerns about the impact of the pandemic on personal situations and society in the future. Participants reported anxiety and stress about decreased social engagement and activity cessations. Although face-to-face appointments were preferred, virtual care was well-received. Common concerns about the future included securing employment and burnout from balancing family responsibilities. Some patients also feared they would be stigmatized as society adapted to the situation.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study highlights the need for additional research in anticipation of the implementation of remote medicine in the management and treatment of epilepsy. It also highlights the tenacity of those living with epilepsy during difficult periods despite social and familial pressures. Raising awareness during this time about the lives and experiences of epilepsy patients can help challenge misconceptions and stigma in the workplace and wider society.

Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide versus standard treatments for epilepsy: a comparison of standard and new antiepileptic drugs (SANAD-II)

INTRODUCTION

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Over the past 20 years, a number of new drugs have been approved for National Health Service (NHS) use on the basis of information from short-term trials that demonstrate efficacy. These trials do not provide information about the longer term outcomes, which inform treatment policy. This trial will assess the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the newer treatment levetiracetam and zonisamide.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a phase IV, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing new and standard treatments for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Arm A of the trial randomised 990 patients with focal epilepsy to standard AED lamotrigine or new AED levetiracetam or zonisamide. Arm B randomised 520 patients with generalised epilepsy to standard AED sodium valproate or new AED levetiracetam. Patients are recruited from UK NHS outpatient epilepsy, general neurology and paediatric clinics. Included patients are aged 5 years or older with two or more spontaneous seizures requiring AED monotherapy, who are not previously treated with AEDs. Patients are followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is time to 12-month remission from seizures. Secondary outcomes include time to treatment failure (including due to inadequate seizure control or unacceptable adverse reactions); time to first seizure; time to 24-month remission; adverse reactions and quality of life. All primary analyses will be on an intention to treat basis. Separate analyses will be undertaken for each arm. Health economic analysis will be conducted from the perspective of the NHS to assess the cost-effectiveness of each AED.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has been approved by the North West-Liverpool East REC (Ref. 12/NW/0361). The trial team will disseminate the results through scientific meetings, peer-reviewed publications and patient and public involvement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

EudraCT 2012-001884-64; ISRCTN30294119.

First seizure presentations in adults: beyond assessment and treatment

Almost 10% of people will experience at least one seizure over a lifetime. Although common, first seizures are serious events and warrant careful assessment and management. First seizures may be provoked by acute or remote symptomatic factors including life-threatening metabolic derangements, drug toxicity or structural brain lesions. An unprovoked first seizure may herald the onset of epilepsy and may be accompanied by medical and psychiatric illnesses. Accidents, injuries and death associated with first seizures are likely under-reported. The cognitive and emotional impact of first seizures is often neglected. Evaluation of a patient presenting with a first seizure requires careful history-taking and early specialist assessment, however optimal management strategies have not been extensively investigated. Further, advances in technology and the role of eHealth interventions such as telemedicine may be of value in the care of patients who have experienced a first seizure. This article reviews the impact and implications of first seizures beyond the scope provided in current guidelines which tend to focus on assessment and management. It examines the effect of first seizures on the well-being of patients; assesses morbidity and premature mortality in first seizures and discusses current and future directions to optimise safety and health of people with first seizures, with a focus on adult patients. Recognition of these issues is essential to provide adequate care for people with first seizures.

Sociodemographic, Clinical Variables, and Quality of Life in Patients with Epilepsy in Mekelle City, Northern Ethiopia

Background

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder characterized by unprovoked recurrent seizure episodes. The disease has detrimental effects on social, cognitive, psychological, and physical components of life consequently quality of life of the patients. The level of the effect of the disease on quality life is influenced by different factors including the use of antiepileptic medications.

Objectives

The study was aimed at assessing quality of life in patients with epilepsy and the variables affecting it in Mekelle city, northern Ethiopia.

Methods

175 patients with epilepsy aging 18 years old and above attending neurologic clinics of the two governmental hospitals available in Mekelle city were interviewed using standard and validated Tigrigna version of Quality of Life in Epilepsy Scale-31 (QOLIE-31). One-way ANOVA and independent t-test and analysis of covariance were used for data analysis.

Result

The mean age of the patients was 29.36 (standard deviation (SD) 12.77) years old, and 61% of them were males while 52% of the respondents were on phenobarbitone monotherapy. The mean total QOLIE-31 score was 77.97 (SD 20.78) with the highest subscale score for medication effects and the lowest for overall quality of life (QOL) functioning with a score of 86.2 (SD 22.12) and 70.97 (SD 26.43), respectively. The patients with high seizure frequency in the past month before the current visit had a significantly low quality of life 76.81 (SD 21.11). Conversely, patients with tertiary education and above had shown a significantly high quality of life 89.52 (SD 11.85).

Conclusion

The overall QOL of the patients was good. Seizure frequency and level of education were found significant predictors of QOL showing the necessity of seizure control and patient education for improving quality of life in patients with epilepsy.

Socioeconomic Status and Pediatric Neurologic Disorders: Current Evidence

Socioeconomic status (SES) is an important risk factor for many neurological disorders and a determinant of health outcomes and quality of life, especially for individuals with neurologic disorders and developmental disabilities. This article focuses on the relationship between SES and pediatric epilepsy, cerebral palsy, autism spectrum disorder, and intellectual disability. Disparities in the prevalence and long-term impact of SES on functioning in persons with disabilities are observed worldwide. Clinicians can use the information presented in the article to target early identification and interventions for improving outcomes in populations most at risk for these disorders and for poor health, social, and economic outcomes.

Predictive value of S100-B and copeptin for outcomes following seizure: the BISTRO International Cohort Study

Objective

To evaluate the performance of S100-B protein and copeptin, in addition to clinical variables, in predicting outcomes of patients attending the emergency department (ED) following a seizure.

Methods

We prospectively included adult patients presented with an acute seizure, in four EDs in France and the United Kingdom. Participants were followed up for 28 days. The primary endpoint was a composite of seizure recurrence, all-cause mortality, hospitalization or rehospitalisation, or return visit in the ED within seven days.

Results

Among the 389 participants included in the analysis, 156 (40%) experienced the primary endpoint within seven days and 195 (54%) at 28 days. Mean levels of both S100-B (0.11 μg/l [95% CI 0.07–0.20] vs 0.09 μg/l [0.07–0.14]) and copeptin (23 pmol/l [9–104] vs 17 pmol/l [8–43]) were higher in participants meeting the primary endpoint. However, both biomarkers were poorly predictive of the primary outcome with a respective area under the receiving operator characteristic curve of 0.57 [0.51–0.64] and 0.59 [0.54–0.64]. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified higher age (odds ratio [OR] 1.3 per decade [1.1–1.5]), provoked seizure (OR 4.93 [2.5–9.8]), complex partial seizure (OR 4.09 [1.8–9.1]) and first seizure (OR 1.83 [1.1–3.0]) as independent predictors of the primary outcome. A second regression analysis including the biomarkers showed no additional predictive benefit (S100-B OR 3.89 [0.80–18.9] copeptin OR 1 [1.00–1.00]).

Conclusion

The plasma biomarkers S100-B and copeptin did not improve prediction of poor outcome following seizure. Higher age, a first seizure, a provoked seizure and a partial complex seizure are independently associated with adverse outcomes.

First Seizure While Driving (FSWD) — An Underestimated Phenomenon?

Background:

Seizures while driving are a well known occurrence in established epilepsy and have significant impact on driving privileges. There is no data available on patients who experience their first (diagnosed) seizure while driving (FSWD).

Method:

Out of 311 patients presenting to the Halifax First Seizure Clinic between 2008 and 2011, 158 patients met the criteria of a first seizure (FS) or drug-naïve, newly diagnosed epilepsy (NDE). A retrospective chart review was conducted. FSWD was evaluated for 1) prevalence, 2) clinical presentation, 3) coping strategies, and 4) length of time driving before seizure occurrence.

Results:

The prevalence of FSWD was 8.2%. All 13 patients experienced impaired consciousness. Eleven patients had generalized tonic-clonic seizures, one starting with a déjà-vu evolving to visual aura and a complex partial seizure; three directly from visual auras. Two patients had complex partial seizures, one starting with an autonomic seizure. In response to their seizure, patients reported they were i) able to actively stop the car (n=4, three had visual auras), ii) not able to stop the car resulting in accident (n=7), or iii) passenger was able to pull the car over (n=2). One accident was fatal to the other party. Twelve out of 13 patients had been driving for less than one hour.

Discussion:

FSWD is frequent and possibly underrecognized. FSWD often lead to accidents, which occur less if preceded by simple partial seizures. Pathophysiological mechanisms remain uncertain; it is still speculative if complex visuo-motor tasks required while driving play a role in this scenario.

Exploring loss and replacement of loss for understanding the impacts of epilepsy onset: a qualitative investigation

Previous research identifies loss as a key concept for our understanding of the impact of chronic illness. In this in-depth qualitative study, we explored the utility of the concept of loss and loss replacement as a means of gaining a fuller understanding of the implications of a diagnosis of epilepsy for overall quality of life (QOL). Potential participants were identified from the database of a large UK-based randomized controlled trial of antiepileptic drug treatment for new-onset epilepsy and selected using purposive sampling methods. In-depth interviews were conducted with 67 people; interview material was analyzed thematically. Our findings confirm 'loss' as a key concept in understanding epilepsy impact. Participants cited profound physical and social losses, and the links between these and psychological loss were clearly articulated. Informants described two main processes via which the linked losses they experienced occurred: personal withdrawal processes and externally enforced processes. Seizure control was integral to restoring psychological well-being and a sense of normality but was only one of a number of influences moderating the degree of loss experienced following seizure onset. Our work emphasizes that people with epilepsy (PWE) require active support for their continued engagement or reengagement in roles and activities identified as central to their psychological well-being and overall QOL. Achieving this requires a multiagency approach to drive forward key strategies for reduction of the negative impacts of epilepsy and to engender a sense of normality in the context of a condition often experienced as placing the individual outside the socially determined parameters of the 'normal'.

Counseling and social work for persons with epilepsy: observational study on demand and issues in Hessen, Germany

The goal of the social management of epilepsy is to decrease the physical, psychological, and social consequences for persons with epilepsy (PWEs). The objective of this observational study was to determine the needs and issues of PWEs in the utilization of epilepsy counseling services between 2008 and 2012 in the German state of Hessen. Sociodemographic data, employment status, counseling issues, and characteristics were collected at first and follow-up visits. An average of 492 (272 males, 55.3%) PWEs presented at counseling services per year. These were mainly children or adolescents below the age of 20years (22.4%) and PWEs in working age between 20 and 65years (73.6%). The majority of PWEs seeking counseling were employed (44.4%, annual average: 219 PWEs, SD: 39). However, a substantial part (114/219, 52.1%) of these employed PWEs reported problems or difficulties at their workplace associated with the diagnosis of epilepsy. We could identify four major issues addressed by the PWEs as 1) diagnosis of epilepsy, 2) employment, 3) family-related matters, and 4) social or medical aids linked with public authorities. This study demonstrated the continuous demand for epilepsy counseling with at least one out of twenty (5.8%) PWEs in need of counseling per year. Further studies are warranted to answer questions on outcome and long-term course. Epilepsy counseling should be available to all PWEs on a national level and may be helpful in preventing long-term unemployment and early retirement while maintaining quality of care for PWEs.

Impact of late post-traumatic seizures on physical health and functioning for individuals with brain injury within the community

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

To better characterize, describe and highlight issues that individuals with TBI and active LPTS may face in their daily lives.

DESIGN

Prospective multi-centre mixed method qualitative and quantitative interview.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five individuals, 5-13 years post-injury, who had reported having LPTS and TBI.

MEASURES

Disability Rating Scale (DRS); Supervision Rating Scale (SRS); Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E); Perceived Stress Scale (PSS); Craig Handicap Assessment Reporting Technique-Short Form (CHART-SF) sub-scales: Physical Independence, Cognitive Independence, Mobility, Occupation, Social Integration; and Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors (CHIEF); and qualitative interview questions pertaining to management of the seizure disorder and its effect on the individual's health, function, community integration and participation.

RESULTS

Data are presented regarding seizure activity and management; return to driving post-seizure; coping and participation; and standardized outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with TBI and LPTS are at a double-barrelled disadvantage regarding ongoing physical, cognitive, psychosocial and reintegration issues following brain injury and epilepsy. Clearer clinical guidelines and treatment strategies need to be developed to help ameliorate these ongoing issues. Additional research is needed to identify what the rehabilitation community can do to continue to facilitate people living safely and independently.

Psychosocial difficulties in people with epilepsy: a systematic review of literature from 2005 until 2010

The aims of this paper are to identify factors that influence the psychosocial difficulties (PSDs) that persons with epilepsy experience in their everyday life, to describe their onset and the way they evolve over time, and to analyze the determinants of changes over time and other related variables. Electronic databases were searched for studies published in English between January 2005 and May 2010, and information from thirteen studies was extracted. The most frequent PSDs found in people with epilepsy were depressive symptoms, memory functions, quality of life, anxiety, stigma, locus of control, cognitive functions in general, and emotional functions in general. It can be stated that patients' life areas are affected by cognitive, emotional, and psychological problems. However, the majority of studies focus on isolated PSDs or on the effects of a specific determinant in the course of epilepsy, leaving some gaps that could encourage further research.

Accounting for comorbidity in assessing the burden of epilepsy among US adults: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R)

Although epilepsy is associated with substantial role impairment, it is also highly comorbid with other physical and mental disorders, making unclear the extent to which impairments associated with epilepsy are actually due to comorbidities. This issue was explored in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), a nationally representative household survey of 5692 US adults. Medically recognized epilepsy was ascertained with self-report, comorbid physical disorders with a chronic conditions checklist, and comorbid DSM-IV mental disorders with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Lifetime epilepsy prevalence was estimated at 1.8%. Epilepsy was comorbid with numerous neurological and general medical conditions and with a sporadic cluster of mental comorbidities (panic, PTSD, conduct disorder and substance use disorders). Although comorbid disorders explain part of the significant gross associations of epilepsy with impairment, epilepsy remains significantly associated with work disability, cognitive impairment and days of role impairment after controlling comorbidities. The net association of epilepsy with days of role impairment after controlling for comorbidities is equivalent to an annualized 89.4 million excess role impairment days among US adults with epilepsy, arguing that role impairment is a major component of the societal costs of epilepsy per se rather than merely due to disorders comorbid with epilepsy. This estimated burden is likely conservative as some parts of the effects of epilepsy are presumably mediated by secondary comorbid disorders.

How Do Macro-Level Contexts and Policies Affect the Employment Chances of Chronically Ill and Disabled People? Part I: The Impact of Recession and Deindustrialization

Low employment rates of chronically ill and disabled people are of serious concern. Being out of work increases the risk of poverty and social exclusion, which may further damage the health of these groups, exacerbating health inequalities. Macro-level policies have a potentially tremendous impact on their employment chances, and these influences urgently need to be understood as the current economic crisis intensifies. In Part I of this two-part study, the authors examine employment trends for people who report a chronic illness or disability, by gender and educational level, in Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom in the context of economic booms and busts and deindustrialization. People with the double burden of chronic illness and low education have become increasingly marginalized from the labor market. Deindustrialization may have played a part in this process. In addition, periods of high unemployment have sparked a downward trend in employment for already marginalized groups who did not feel the benefits when the economy improved. Norway and Sweden have been better able to protect the employment of these groups than the United Kingdom and Canada. These contextual differences suggest that other macro-level factors, such as active and passive labor market polices, may be important, as examined in Part II.

Socio-occupational and employment profile of patients with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Epilepsy has a significant impact on quality of life. Many studies have observed higher unemployment rates among patients with epilepsy. However, unemployment rates vary according to the clinical conditions, country, and group studied.

METHODS

Between October 2007 and February 2008, we performed a cross-sectional multicenter epidemiological study to evaluate the socio-occupational and employment profiles of 872 adult patients with epilepsy followed in outpatient epilepsy clinics in Spain.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight percent of the patients were employed at the time of the survey, 10.9% of the patients were unemployed, and 12.5% were occupationally incapacitated.

CONCLUSION

Patients with epilepsy had employment rates similar to those of the general population, and slightly higher levels of unemployment. The main factors associated with unemployment and incapacity were the presence of refractory epilepsy, the occurrence of a seizure in the last 12 months, level of education, and polytherapy.

Patients' perceptions of living with epilepsy: a phenomenographic study

AIM

The study aimed to describe how patients with epilepsy perceive living with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy signifies a medical diagnosis as well as a social label. Persons living with epilepsy have more psychosocial problems compared with the general population, and stigma is often experienced. Few studies address patients' life situations as a whole, and there are no studies on how patients perceive living with epilepsy.

DESIGN

This was a qualitative interview study where 19 outpatients were purposively chosen and interviewed.

METHOD

A phenomenographic approach was used for interviewing and for analysing the interviews.

RESULTS

Living with epilepsy was perceived in two different ways depending on the person's feelings towards the condition. A positive feeling signified 'Living with epilepsy means living a normal life - gaining and maintaining control' with the descriptive categories: 'Accepting the person with epilepsy', 'Taking responsibility' and 'Appreciating the good things'. A negative feeling signified 'Living with epilepsy means living with focus on the condition - conflict and avoidance or resigning to fate' with the descriptive categories: 'Struggling with feelings of stigma, prejudices and loss of control' and 'Giving up hope of recovery, accepting loss of control'.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that patients' perceptions of living with epilepsy are closely related to their feelings towards the condition. There is a need for further exploration of the relationship between perceptions of epilepsy as a phenomenon, perceptions of living with epilepsy and feelings related to the condition. Relevance to clinical practice.  The findings demonstrated how important feelings and perceptions are to how patients with epilepsy regard themselves. This knowledge is essential for nurses when helping patients to better understand underlying reasons for their reactions to various situations. Forming interventions to help patients with epilepsy to find coping strategies that enhance self-esteem and self-value is another area of relevance.

Relationship of clinical and quality of life trajectories following the onset of seizures: findings from the UK MESS Study

PURPOSE

We defined a series of clinical trajectories represented among adult patients with new-onset seizures across a 4-year follow-up period; and linked these clinical trajectories to the quality of life (QOL) profiles and trajectories of those experiencing them. We examined both between- and within-group differences.

METHODS

Analyses were based on 253 individuals completing QOL questionnaires at baseline and 2 and 4 years subsequently. Based on patient self-report, we defined five "clinical trajectory" groups: individuals experiencing a single seizure only; individuals entering early remission; individuals experiencing late remission; individuals initially becoming seizure-free but subsequently relapsing; individuals with seizures persisting throughout follow-up. QOL profiles at each time point were compared using a validated QOL battery, NEWQOL.

KEY FINDINGS

Even at baseline, there were significant between-group differences, with patients experiencing a single seizure only reporting the best QOL profile and those with seizures subsequently persisting across all time points reporting the worst. By 2 years, the QOL profiles of individuals experiencing early remission were similar to those of single seizure patients, as were those for late remission and relapse patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

A consistent pattern was seen, with "single seizure" individuals doing best and individuals with persistent seizures doing worst. Of particular concern is that even at baseline, individuals whose seizures persisted were doing poorly for QOL, suggesting the possibility that underlying neurobiologic mechanisms were operating. In contrast, our findings support previous reports of only short-lived and small QOL decrements for individuals experiencing a single or few seizures.