Can technology help reduce risk of harm in patients with epilepsy?

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.

Recommendations for development of acute seizure action plans (ASAPs) from an expert panel

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Disease-related treatment action plans for acute exacerbations providing information that may be helpful for self-management for patients and caregivers are commonly used for chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes. However, among patients with epilepsy, a review of the literature suggested that the majority did not have an action plan in place for acute seizure treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently, there is a lack of unified guidance on seizure action plans (SAPs) in the literature. In the authors' opinion, available formats have limitations for practical use and may not be easily customizable to individual patients, and they are not often designed to provide simple-to-follow steps for rapid immediate steps to determine and initiate appropriate treatment of seizure emergencies. Our group reviewed current examples of SAPs and provided guidance on the development of acute seizure action plans (ASAPs) designed to facilitate rapid, appropriate acute care in the community and to be as useful as possible for a wide range of care partners, including those with limited experience.

SUMMARY

This paper provides agreed upon expert opinion recommendations and considerations for goals, development process, types of content, and format for an ASAP.

Alcohol-Specific Mortality in People With Epilepsy: Cohort Studies in Two Independent Population-Based Datasets

Objectives: The risk of dying by alcohol-specific causes in people with epilepsy has seldom been reported from population-based studies. We aimed to estimate the relative risk of alcohol-specific mortality in people with epilepsy, and the extent to which problematic alcohol use was previously identified in the patients' medical records.

Method: We delineated cohort studies in two population-based datasets, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) in England (January 01, 2001–December 31, 2014) and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank in Wales (January 01, 2001–December 31, 2014), linked to hospitalization and mortality records. People with epilepsy were matched to up to 20 persons without epilepsy on gender, age (±2 years) and registered general practice. We identified alcohol-specific death from Office for National Statistics (ONS) records using specified ICD-10 codes. We further identified prescriptions, interventions and hospitalisations related to alcohol use.

Results: In the CPRD GOLD, we identified 9,871 individuals in the incident epilepsy cohort and 185,800 in the comparison cohort and, in the SAIL Databank, these numbers were 5,569 and 110,021, respectively. We identified a five-fold increased risk of alcohol-specific mortality in people with epilepsy vs. those without the condition in our pooled estimate across the two datasets (deprivation-adjusted HR 4.85, 95%CI 3.46–6.79).

Conclusions: People with epilepsy are at increased risk of dying by an alcohol-specific cause than those without the disorder. It is plausible that serious alcohol misuse could either contribute to the development of epilepsy or it could commence subsequent to epilepsy being diagnosed. Regardless of the direction of the association, it is important that the risk of dying as a consequence of alcohol misuse is accurately quantified in people affected by epilepsy. Systematically-applied, sensitive assessment of alcohol consumption by healthcare professionals, at opportunistic, clinical contacts, with rapid access to quality treatment services, should be mandatory and play a key role in reduction of health harms and mortality.

An accelerated shift in the use of remote systems in epilepsy due to the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to describe epileptologists' opinion on the increased use of remote systems implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic across clinics, education, and scientific meetings activities.

METHODS

Between April and May 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, electronic survey on remote systems use before and during the COVID-19 pandemic through the European reference center for rare and complex epilepsies (EpiCARE) network, the International and the French Leagues Against Epilepsy, and the International and the French Child Neurology Associations. After descriptive statistical analysis, we compared the results of France, China, and Italy.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-two respondents from 35 countries completed the survey. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 63.4% had experienced remote systems for clinical care. During the pandemic, the use of remote clinics, either institutional or personal, significantly increased (p < 10^-4). Eighty-three percent used remote systems with video, either institutional (75%) or personal (25%). During the pandemic, 84.6% of respondents involved in academic activities transformed their courses to online teaching. From February to July 2020, few scientific meetings relevant to epileptologists and routinely attended was adapted to virtual meeting (median: 1 [25th-75th percentile: 0-2]). Responders were quite satisfied with remote systems in all three activity domains. Interestingly, before the COVID-19 pandemic, remote systems were significantly more frequently used in China for clinical activity compared with France or Italy. This difference became less marked during the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically altered how academic epileptologists carry out their core missions of clinical care, medical education, and scientific discovery and dissemination. Close attention to the impact of these changes is merited.

Can We Prevent Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP)?

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) remains an important cause of epilepsy-related mortality, especially in patients with refractory epilepsy. The exact cause is not known, but postictal cardiac, respiratory, and brainstem dysfunctions are implicated. SUDEP prevention remains a big challenge. Except for low-quality evidence of preventive effect of nocturnal supervision for SUDEP, no other evidence-based preventive modality is available. Other potential preventive strategies for SUDEP include reducing the occurrence of generalized tonic-clonic seizures using seizure detection devices, detecting cardiorespiratory distress through respiratory and heart rate monitoring devices, preventing airway obstruction (safety pillows), and reducing central hypoventilation using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and adenosine and opiate antagonists. However, none of the above-mentioned modalities has been proven to prevent SUDEP. The present review intends to provide insight into the available SUDEP prevention modalities.

Bridging the gap of risk communication and management using the SUDEP and Seizure Safety Checklist

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a tragic condition and, despite varied risk levels among the population with epilepsy, is the cause of significant premature mortality. In the last 20 years, though awareness of SUDEP has increased among epilepsy professionals, little has changed with regard to the death rates per se, in rates of informing people with epilepsy (PWE) of their person-centered SUDEP risks, or in the awareness levels of nonepilepsy clinicians, such as, primary care practitioners and hospital doctors. The challenges to make aware and inform PWE have been multifold, in particular, 'when', 'what', and 'how' to tell about SUDEP. Current guidance recognizes that to improve SUDEP rates, it is important to engage proactively with PWE. There is a need to bring shared responsibility between clinicians and PWE to help mitigate the risk of SUDEP. To enable this, a meaningful evidence-based person-centered conversation is essential. The SUDEP and Seizure Safety Checklist ("Checklist") was created to facilitate this. This paper showcases the background, concept, development, implementation, feasibility and validity studies undertaken, challenges, barriers, and limitations of the eight-year Checklist project, which has moved from a single clinic to an international presence. It outlines the need to further reform SUDEP risk communication recognizing the differences between a basic risk message at time of diagnosis as advocated by current good practice guidance and the need for a more person-centered discussion on a regular basis for which the Checklist can be a key catalyst. This article is part of the Special Issue "Prevent 21: SUDEP Summit - Time to Listen".

Improving epilepsy management with EpSMon: A Templar to highlight the multifaceted challenges of incorporating digital technologies into routine clinical practice

The digital epilepsy self-monitor (EpSMon) app was developed to address the challenge of improving risk education and management in the UK. The tool, which has emerged out of quality improvement methodology, demonstrates efficacy and has been met with peer-reviewed support and international awards. The focus of this paper is about the development and integration into care of a digital self-assessment epilepsy risk empowerment tool into the UK health system. This paper provides detail into the specific challenges of incorporating a digital epilepsy intervention into routine clinical practice. Despite a strong narrative and evidence, the engagement of commissioners, clinicians, and people with epilepsy is slow. A breakdown of the strategies used, the current governance landscape, and emerging opportunities to develop an informed implementation strategy is provided to support others who seek to create impact with digital solutions for people with epilepsy. This paper is for the Special Issue: Prevent 21: SUDEP Summit - Time to Listen".

SUDEP and seizure safety communication: Assessing if people hear and act

BACKGROUND

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a leading cause of death among people with chronic epilepsy. People with intellectual disability (ID) are overrepresented in this population. The SUDEP and Seizure Safety Checklist ("Checklist") is a tool to discuss risk factors influencing seizures and the risk of SUDEP. It includes questions about the availability of nocturnal monitoring. In Cornwall UK, people with epilepsy and ID and their relatives and carers are routinely advised to consider nocturnal surveillance to reduce harm from potential nocturnal seizures. We assessed the retention of advice provided on nocturnal monitoring and if there were differences between those in residential care and those living with their families.

METHODS

A postal questionnaire was sent to carers of all people with epilepsy and ID in Cornwall followed by the adult specialist ID epilepsy service. All those who were contacted had received the same advice on SUDEP and nocturnal monitoring at least once in the past year. Each person was categorized into living in a residential setting or with their family group. Intergroup differences were compared using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Carers for 170 people were contacted and 121 responded (71%). The family group had statistically more nocturnal seizures than the residential group. While there was no difference in the awareness of SUDEP, the groups differed in their recollection of the person-centered discussion of risk with carers in residential setting being less aware. Where nocturnal monitoring advice was given, it was followed, and previously unknown seizures were identified in 75%.

CONCLUSIONS

Carers in residential settings are less likely to recall specific person-centered discussion of risks to the individual they support as compared with those living with families although general awareness of SUDEP and implementing advice such as nocturnal monitoring is present equally in both groups. In improving detection of nocturnal seizures, audio monitoring may be a useful strategy to reduce risk of harm for people with ID.

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.

Identifying and mitigating Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) risk factors

INTRODUCTION

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is a significant cause of death for people with chronic epilepsy. Good practice guidance in the UK and the USA expect SUDEP to be discussed with the individual. The event rarity, methodological variance and lack of robust research into the pathological mechanisms, associated risk factors, and management strategies have created a challenge on how and what to discuss. There are some significant associations which allows for risk assessment and mitigation. Areas covered: The current understanding of static and modifiable risk factors for SUDEP and how to manage these more effectively are reviewed. Longitudinal risk may be assessed using standardised risk assessment tools which help in communicating risk. Technological advancement allows measurement of physiological parameters associated with seizures and risk of SUDEP using small wearable devices. Further evidence is needed to demonstrate such technologies are efficacious and safe. Expert commentary: Risk reduction should be an important part of epilepsy management and we suggest a Gold Standard of Care which healthcare professionals and services should aim for when approaching SUDEP risk management. A Minimum Standard of Care is also proposed that is practical to implement, that all people with epilepsy should expect to receive.

Safe and sound? A systematic literature review of seizure detection methods for personal use

PURPOSE

The study aims to review systematically the quality of evidence supporting seizure detection devices. The unpredictable nature of seizures is distressing and disabling for sufferers and carers. If a seizure can be reliably detected then the patient or carer could be alerted. It could help prevent injury and death.

METHODS

A literature search was completed. Forty three of 120 studies found using relevant search terms were suitable for systematic review which was done applying pre-agreed criteria using PRISMA guidelines. The papers identified and reviewed were those that could have potential for everyday use of patients in a domestic setting. Studies involving long term use of scalp electrodes to record EEG were excluded on the grounds of unacceptable restriction of daily activities.

RESULTS

Most of the devices focused on changes in movement and/or physiological signs and were dependent on an algorithm to determine cut off points. No device was able to detect all seizures and there was an issue with both false positives and missed seizures. Many of the studies involved relatively small numbers of cases or report on only a few seizures. Reports of seizure alert dogs are also considered.

CONCLUSION

Seizure detection devices are at a relatively early stage of development and as yet there are no large scale studies or studies that compare the effectiveness of one device against others. The issue of false positive detection rates is important as they are disruptive for both the patient and the carer. Nevertheless, the development of seizure detection devices offers great potential in the management of epilepsy.

Keeping patients with epilepsy safe: a surmountable challenge?

This quality improvement project was inspired as an answer to a problem that intellectual disability teams have been struggling to manage whilst caring for people with epilepsy (PWE). The issue was that despite guidance to discuss the possibility of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) be discussed with a newly diagnosed PWE this is rarely done. Additionally when, how, and what to discuss about SUDEP and reduce its risk is arbitrary, non-person centred, and with no structured evidence.

Prior to initiating changes a discussion of SUDEP was recorded in just 10% of PWE. We introduced a check-list to help identify risk factors for SUDEP. We then modified the check-list, and then used it via telehealth, a way of contacting patients and their carers over the phone using the check-list approach. Following interventions, discussions of SUDEP are now recorded in 80% of PWE. Feedback from patients, carers and primary and secondary care professionals has been positive.

We are now developing an app so that patients and carers can monitor their own risk factors, thus empowering them and increasing their knowledge and awareness of SUDEP.