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

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy

Epilepsy is a complex neurological condition with numerous etiologies and treatment options. In a subset of these patients, sudden unexpected death can occur, and to date, there are numerous explanations as to the pathophysiological mechanisms and how to mitigate these catastrophic outcomes. Approximately 2.3 million Americans have epilepsy, and nearly 150,000 people develop the condition each year. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) accounts for 2–18% of all epilepsy-related deaths and this is equivalent to one death in 1000 person-years of diagnosed epilepsy. It is more common in young adults aged 20–45. Seizures in the past year; the absence of terminal remission in the last five years; increased seizure frequency, particularly GTCS; and nocturnal seizures are the most potent modifiable risk factors for SUDEP. Patients not receiving any antiepileptic drug therapy are at higher risk of SUDEP. Patient education on medication compliance; care plans for seizure clusters (rescue medicines); epilepsy self-management programs; and lifestyle changes to avoid seizure-triggering factors, including avoiding excessive alcohol use and sleep deprivation, should be provided by health care providers. Continued research into SUDEP will hopefully lead to effective interventions to minimize occurrences. At present, aggressive control of epilepsy and enhanced education for individuals and the public are the most effective weapons for combating SUDEP. This narrative review focuses on updated information related to SUDEP epidemiology; pathophysiology; risk factor treatment options; and finally, a discussion of important clinical studies. We seek to encourage clinicians who care for patients with epilepsy to be aggressive in controlling seizure activity and diligent in their review of risk factors and education of patients and their families about SUDEP.

Reporting specifications regarding epilepsy practice guidelines based on the RIGHT reporting checklist: an analysis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical guidelines are designed to optimise patient care and provide efficient approaches for therapy. Epilepsy is a chronic brain disorder that continues to experience a considerable treatment gap due to non-standard recommendations. We assessed the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on epilepsy over the past 5 years to generate a reporting specification for this study.

SETTING

Seven databases were searched in May 2018 focusing on the period from 2013 to 2018. These included Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP). Reporting quality of epilepsy guidelines was assessed by two independent authors using the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) approach. Spearman's correlation was used to assess inter-rater reliability.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants with epilepsy or seizure, not limited by age, gender, course of disease or cause of epilepsy, were included.

INTERVENTIONS

There were no limitations with regard to intervention.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome was the ability of the RIGHT tool to measure reporting quality.

RESULTS

Twelve relevant guidelines were included in this study. The reporting quality was not high in any of the included guidelines. The highest reporting quality included a 'yes' proportion of 77.1%, whereas the worst included a corresponding proportion of 37.1%. Overall evaluation results showed that 16.7% of the included guidelines were of high quality, 75% were of medium quality and 8.3% were of low quality. The correlation between the two estimators was credible (ρ>0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Appraisal of these guidelines using the RIGHT tool revealed that the quality of reporting varied among guidelines. Items that exhibited low quality in most included guidelines were healthcare questions, rationale/explanation for recommendations, quality assurance, funding source(s) and role(s) of the funder, and limitations of the guideline. Thus, these aspects should receive greater attention in future guideline reporting.