Search

Purpose: People with intellectual disabilities (ID) suffer multimorbidity, polypharmacy and excess mortality at a younger age than general population. Those with ID and epilepsy are at higher risk of worse clinical outcomes than their peers without epilepsy. In the ID population the health profile of those aged ≥40 years can be compared to those aged over 65 in the general population. To date there is limited data available to identify clinical characteristics and risk factors in older adults (≥40 years) with ID and epilepsy.Methods: The Epilepsy in ID National Audit (Epi-IDNA) identified 904 patients with ID and epilepsy from 10 sites in England and Wales. This subsequent analysis of the Epi-IDNA cohort compared the 405 adults over 40 years with 499 adults ≥18 years aged under 40 years. Comparison was made between clinical characteristics and established risk factors using the Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) and Seizure Safety Checklist.Results: The older adults' cohort had significantly higher levels of co-morbid physical health conditions, mental health conditions, anti-seizure medications (median 5), and antipsychotics compared to the younger cohort. The older group were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with a co-morbid neurodevelopmental disorder, and to have an epilepsy care plan.Conclusion: This is the largest study to date focused on adults with ID and epilepsy over 40 years. The ≥40 years cohort compared to the younger group has higher levels of clinical risk factors associated with multi-morbidity, potential iatrogenic harm and premature mortality with worse clinical oversight mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: People with Intellectual Disability (ID) and epilepsy are more likely to experience psychiatric conditions, challenging behaviour (CB), treatment resistance and adverse effects of anti-seizure medications (ASM) than those without. This population receives care from various professionals, depending on local care pathways. This study evaluates the training status, confidence, reported assessment and management practices of different professional groups involved in caring for people with ID, epilepsy and CB.Methods: A cross sectional survey using a questionnaire developed by expert consensus which measured self-reported training status, confidence, and approaches to assessment and management of CB in people with ID and epilepsy was distributed to practitioners involved in epilepsy and/or ID.Results: Of the 83 respondents, the majority had either a psychiatry/ID (n = 39), or Neurology/epileptology background (n = 31). Psychiatry/ID and Neurology/epileptology had similar confidence in assessing CB in ID-epilepsy cases, but Psychiatry/ID exhibited higher self-rated confidence in the management of these cases. While assessing and managing CB, Psychiatry/ID appeared more likely to consider mental health aspects, while Neurology/epileptology typically focused on ASM.Conclusion: Psychiatry/ID and Neurology/epileptology professionals had varying training levels in epilepsy, ID and CB, had differing confidence levels in managing this patient population, and considered different factors when approaching assessment and management. As such, training opportunities in ID should be offered to neurology professionals, and vice versa. Based on the findings, a best practice checklist is presented, which aims to provide clinicians with a structured framework to consider causal explanations for CB in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]