Search

The cost-effectiveness and benefit of many diagnostic tests used in the presurgical evaluation for persons with epilepsy is for the most part uncertain as is their influence on decision-making. The options we have at our disposal are ever increasing. Advanced imaging modalities aim to improve surgical candidacy by helping us better define the epileptogenic zone and optimize surgical planning. However, judicious use is important. Randomized controlled trials delineating which mode of investigation is superior are lacking. Presurgical tests do have incremental value by increasing surgical candidacy and refining surgical planning. The yield of additional imaging will increase with complex localization. However, every case must be tailored by hypothesis, cost, and accessibility. Future studies using a quantitative cost-benefit framework are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of advanced diagnostic tests (beyond magnetic resonance imaging) in the presurgical evaluation of those with epilepsy.

The increased focus on stakeholder engagement in determining the aims, design, conduct of research and dissemination of results is substantially changing the biomedical research paradigm. In this era of patient-centered care, incorporating participatory action research methodology into large-scale multi-center studies is essential. The adoption of community engagement facilitates meaningful contribution to the design and implementation of clinical studies. Consequently, encouraging citizen participation and involving key organizations may guide the effective development of future clinical research protocols. Here, we discuss our experience in engaging individuals, their caregivers, as well as scientific and consumer organizations in public outreach and knowledge transfer to assist in the development of effective strategies for recruitment and retention in a future post-traumatic epilepsy prevention randomized controlled trial within the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke Center Without Walls, Epilepsy Bioinformatics Study for Antiepileptogenic Therapy (EpiBioS4Rx). The study includes a Public Engagement Core with a diverse consortium of stakeholder partners. Based on the Core's ongoing experience, it is recommended that multicenter studies integrate a participatory action research based approach to harness the benefits of a collective inquiry. The blueprint created by the EpiBioS4Rx Public Engagement Core is a resource that could be applied in other areas of biomedical research.

Objective: Epilepsy is primarily treated with antiseizure medications (ASMs). The recommendations for first ASM in newly diagnosed epilepsy are inconsistently followed, and we sought to examine whether nonrecommended first ASM was associated with acute care utilization. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years old) with newly diagnosed epilepsy (identified using validated epilepsy/convulsion International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification codes) in 2015–2019, sampled from Marketscan's Commercial and Medicare Databases. Exposure of interest was receipt of a non‐guideline‐recommended ASM, and the primary outcome was acute care utilization (an emergency department visit or hospitalization after the first ASM claim). Descriptive statistics characterized covariates, and multivariable negative binominal regression models were built adjusting for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, comorbid neurologic disease (e.g., stroke), and ASM polypharmacy. Results: Approximately 14 681 people with new epilepsy were prescribed an ASM within 1 year. The three most prescribed medications were levetiracetam (54%, n = 7912), gabapentin (10%, n = 1462), and topiramate (7%, n = 1022). Approximately 4% (n = 648) were prescribed an ASM that should be avoided, and ~74% of people with new epilepsy had an acute care visit during the follow‐up period. Mean number of acute care visits during follow‐up was 3.34 for "recommended" ASMs and 4.42 for ASMs that "should be avoided." Prescription of a recommended/neutral ASM as compared to an ASM that should be avoided was associated with reduced likelihood of acute care utilization (incidence rate ratio [IRR] =.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] =.77–.94). The recommended/neutral category of ASMs was not statistically significantly associated with seizure‐ or epilepsy‐specific acute care utilization (IRR =.93, 95% CI =.79–1.09). Significance: Adults with new epilepsy are frequent users of acute care. There remain a proportion of persons with epilepsy prescribed ASMs that guidelines suggest avoiding, and these ASMs are associated with increased likelihood of emergency department visit or hospitalization. These findings reinforce the importance of optimizing the choice of first ASM in epilepsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Seizures have been reported as an adverse event of the COVID‐19 vaccine. However, there is no solid evidence of increased seizure occurrence compared to the general population. This study was undertaken to investigate seizure occurrence among COVID‐19 vaccine recipients compared to unvaccinated controls. Methods: A systematic search was made of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to April 9, 2024. Studies reporting seizure occurrence following COVID‐19 vaccination were included. This study is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses framework and was conducted using random‐ and common‐effect models. The risk of bias in the studies was evaluated by the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The outcome of interest was new onset seizure incidence proportion compared among (1) COVID‐19 vaccine recipients, (2) unvaccinated cohorts, and (3) various types of COVID‐19 vaccines. Results: Forty studies were included, of which seven entered the meta‐analysis. Results of the pooled analysis of the new onset seizure incidence (21‐ or 28‐day period after vaccination) in 13 016 024 vaccine recipients and 13 013 262 unvaccinated individuals by pooling the cohort studies did not show any statistically significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR] =.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] =.19–1.20, p =.12, I2 = 95%, τ2 =.7145). Pooling four studies accounting for 19 769 004 mRNA versus 47 494 631 viral vector vaccine doses demonstrated no significant difference in terms of new onset seizure incidence between the groups (OR = 1.18, 95% CI =.78–1.78, p =.44, I2 = 0%, τ2 =.004). Significance: This systematic review and meta‐analysis shows no statistically significant difference in the risk of new onset seizure incidence between COVID‐19 vaccinated individuals and unvaccinated individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Numerous studies have examined epilepsy surgery outcomes, yet the variability in the level of detail reported hampers our ability to apply these findings broadly across patient groups. Established reporting standards in other clinical research fields enhance the quality and generalizability of results, ensuring that the insights gained from studying these surgeries can benefit future patients effectively. This study aims to assess current reporting standards for epilepsy surgery research and identify potential gaps and areas for enhancement. Methods: The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) repository was accessed from inception to April 27, 2023, yielding 561 available reporting standards. Reporting standards were manually reviewed in duplicate independently for applicability to epilepsy and/or neurosurgery research. The reporting standards had to cover the following aspects in human studies: (1) reporting standards for epilepsy/epilepsy surgery and (2) reporting standards for neurosurgery. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. The top five neurosurgery, neurology, and medicine journals were also identified through Google Scholar's citation index and examined to determine the relevant reporting standards they recommended and whether those were registered with EQUATOR. Results: Of the 561 EQUATOR reporting standards, 181 were pertinent to epilepsy surgery. One was related to epilepsy, six were specific to surgical research, and nine were related to neurological/neurosurgical research. The remaining 165 reporting standards were applicable to research across various disciplines and included but were not limited to CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trails), STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses). None of these required reporting factors associated with epilepsy surgery outcomes, such as duration of epilepsy or magnetic resonance imaging findings. Significance: Reporting standards specific to epilepsy surgery are lacking, reflecting a gap in standards that may affect the quality of publications. Improving this gap with a set of specific reporting standards would ensure that epilepsy surgery studies are more transparent and rigorous in their design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has affected the care of all patients around the world. The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) COVID‐19 and Telemedicine Task Forces examined, through surveys to people with epilepsy (PWE), caregivers, and health care professionals, how the pandemic has affected the well‐being, care, and services for PWE. The ILAE included a link on their website whereby PWE and/or their caregivers could fill out a survey (in 11 languages) about the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic, including access to health services and impact on mental health, including the 6‐item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. An anonymous link was also provided whereby health care providers could report cases of new‐onset seizures or an exacerbation of seizures in the context of COVID‐19. Finally, a separate questionnaire aimed at exploring the utilization of telehealth by health care professionals since the pandemic began was available on the ILAE website and also disseminated to its members. Seventeen case reports were received; data were limited and therefore no firm conclusions could be drawn. Of 590 respondents to the well‐being survey (422 PWE, 166 caregivers), 22.8% PWE and 27.5% caregivers reported an increase in seizure frequency, with difficulty in accessing medication and health care professionals reported as barriers to care. Of all respondents, 57.1% PWE and 21.5% caregivers had severe psychological distress (k score >13), which was significantly higher among PWE than caregivers (p<0.01). An increase in telemedicine use during the COVID‐19 pandemic was reported by health care professionals, with 40% of consultations conducted by this method. Although 74.9% of health care providers thought that this impacted positively, barriers to care were also identified. As we move forward, there is a need to ensure ongoing support and care for PWE to prevent a parallel pandemic of unmet health care needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: As deep brain stimulation revolutionized the treatment of movement disorders in the late 80s, neuromodulation in the treatment of epilepsy will undoubtedly undergo transformative changes in the years to come with the exponential growth of technological development moving into mainstream practice; the appearance of companies such as Facebook, Google, Neuralink within the realm of brain–computer interfaces points to this trend. Areas covered: This perspective piece will talk about the history of brain stimulation in epilepsy, current-approved treatments, technical developments and the future of neurostimulation. Expert opinion: Further understanding of the brain alongside machine learning and innovative technology will be the future of neuromodulation for the treatment of epilepsy. All of these innovations and advances should pave the way toward overcoming the vexing underutilization of surgery in the therapeutic armamentarium against medically refractory seizures, given the implicit advantage of a neuromodulatory rather than neurodestructive approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Hospital readmissions result in increased health care costs and are associated with worse outcomes after neurosurgical intervention. Understanding factors associated with readmissions will inform future studies aimed at improving quality of care in those with epilepsy. Methods: Patients of all ages with epilepsy who underwent a neurosurgical intervention were identified in the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database, a nationally representative dataset containing data from roughly 17 million US hospital discharges. Diagnosis of epilepsy was based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD‐9‐CM)–based case definitions. Neurosurgical interventions for epilepsy: resective/disconnective surgery, responsive neurostimulation/deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, radiosurgery, and intracranial electroencephalography were identified using ICD‐9‐CM procedure codes. Primary outcome was all‐cause 30‐day readmission following discharge from the index hospitalization. Results: There were a total of 2284 index surgical admissions. Overall, 10.83% (n = 251) of patients following an index epilepsy surgery admission were readmitted within 30 days. Factors independently associated with 30‐day readmission for all epilepsy surgery admissions were: Medicare insurance (P <.01), discharge disposition that was not home (P <.01), higher Elixhauser comorbidity indexes (P <.01), longer length of stay (P <.01), and adverse events of surgical and medical care during index stay (P =.04). In the multivariate model, Medicare insurance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.81 [1.29‐2.53], P <.01) and length of stay (HR 1.02 [1.01‐1.04], P <.01) remained significant independent predictors for 30‐day readmission. The most common primary reason for readmissions was epilepsy/convulsions accounting for 22.85%. Significance: Our results suggest that careful management of postoperative seizures and discharge planning after epilepsy surgery may be important to optimize outcomes and reduce the risk of readmission, particularly for patients on Medicare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the pre-surgical management of patients with acute traumatic subdural hematoma prioritizes rapid transport to the operating room, there is conflicting evidence regarding the importance of time interval from injury to surgery with regards to outcomes. We sought to determine the association of surgical timing with outcomes for subdural hematoma. A retrospective review was performed of 522 consecutive patients admitted to a single center from 2006–2012 who underwent emergent craniectomy for acute subdural hematoma. After excluding patients with unknown time of injury, penetrating trauma, concurrent cerebrovascular injury, epidural hematoma, or intraparenchymal hemorrhage greater than 30 mL, there remained 45 patients identified for analysis. Using a multiple regression model, we examined the effect of surgical timing, in addition to other variables on in-hospital mortality (primary outcome), as well as the need for tracheostomy or gastrostomy (secondary outcome). We found that increasing injury severity score (odds ratio [OR] 1.146; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.035–1.270; p = 0.009) and age (OR1.066; 95%CI 1.006–1.129; p = 0.031) were associated with in-hospital mortality in multivariate analysis. In this model, increasing time to surgery was not associated with mortality, and in fact had a significant effect in decreasing mortality (OR 0.984; 95%CI 0.971–0.997; p = 0.018). Premorbid aspirin use was associated with a paradoxical decrease in mortality (OR 0.019; 95%CI 0.001–0.392; p = 0.010). In this patient sample, shorter time interval from injury to surgery was not associated with better outcomes. While there are potential confounding factors, these findings support the evaluation of rigorous preoperative resuscitation as a priority in future study.