Search

Epilepsy affects 1% of the US population. Healthcare disparities are well-studied among adults with epilepsy but less so among children. We examined whether children with epilepsy (1) have lower income than or (2) utilize the emergency department (ED) differently from children without epilepsy, and (3) if income moderates ED utilization. Data from the 2016-2019 National Survey of Children's Health were used to identify children with active "epilepsy or seizure disorder". Children with versus without epilepsy were compared. Income and ED visits were modeled with logistic and Poisson regressions. This analysis included 131,326 children; 835 were diagnosed with epilepsy. Estimated population prevalence of epilepsy was 0.6%. Children from higher-income-households were less likely to have epilepsy (aOR: 0.7). Children with epilepsy were more likely to visit EDs (aOR = 10.2), see healthcare professionals (aOR: 2.7), and receive care from specialists (aOR: 10.3). Income moderated the relationship between having epilepsy and ED visits. 7.7% of children with epilepsy did not receive needed healthcare. Some barriers were acquiring appointments (aOR: 3.9) and transportation (aOR: 4.7). In conclusion, children with epilepsy were more likely than children without epilepsy to live in lower-income-households, visit EDs, see healthcare professionals, and not receive needed healthcare. Barrier-specific policy interventions may improve medical access for children with epilepsy., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Epilepsy following non-accidental trauma (NAT) occurs in 18% of pediatric patients. About 33% of patients with epilepsy develop drug-resistant epilepsy. For these patients, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a palliative treatment option. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of VNS among pediatric NAT-related epilepsy patients compared to those with non-NAT-related epilepsy., Methods: We performed an 11-year retrospective analysis of VNS implantations for drug-resistant epilepsy at UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. Patients were split into two groups: NAT vs. non-NAT. The primary outcome was the attainment of ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction at 1-year post-VNS implantation. Fisher's exact tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare groups. Significance was assessed at the alpha = 0.05 level., Results: This analysis included data from 370 pediatric VNS patients, of whom 9 had NAT-related epilepsy. NAT patients had a significantly younger age of epilepsy onset than non-NAT patients (0.3 years vs. 3.3 years). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant baseline differences between groups, including patient sex and quantity of antiseizure medications pre-VNS. Overall, 71% of NAT patients experienced ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction compared to 48% of non-NAT patients (p = 0.269)., Conclusion: VNS may allow a higher proportion of pediatric patients with NAT-related epilepsy to achieve ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction compared to other epilepsy etiologies. While the results of this study were not statistically significant, the effect size was large. Our results underscore the need for larger, multi-center studies to validate the effectiveness of VNS for this patient population., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: Epilepsy impacts 470,000 children in the United States. For patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) and unresectable seizure foci, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a treatment option. Predicting response to VNS has been historically challenging. The objective of this study was to create a clinical VNS prediction tool for use in an outpatient setting., Methods: The authors performed an 11-year retrospective cohort analysis with 1-year follow-up. Patients < 21 years of age with DRE who underwent VNS (n = 365) were included. Logistic regressions were performed to assess clinical factors associated with VNS response (≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction after 1 year); 70% and 30% of the sample were used to train and validate the multivariable model, respectively. A prediction score was subsequently developed. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated., Results: Variables associated with VNS response were < 4-year epilepsy duration before VNS (p = 0.008) and focal motor seizures (p = 0.037). The variables included in the clinical prediction score were epilepsy duration before VNS, age at seizure onset, number of pre-VNS antiseizure medications, if VNS was the patient's first therapeutic epilepsy surgery, and predominant seizure semiology. The final AUCs were 0.7013 for the "fitted" sample and 0.6159 for the "validation" sample., Conclusions: The authors developed a clinical model to predict VNS response in a large sample of pediatric patients treated with VNS. Despite the large sample size, clinical variables alone were not able to accurately predict VNS response. This score may be useful after further validation, although its predictive ability underscores the need for more robust biomarkers to predict treatment response.

Objective: Drug-resistant epilepsy occurs in up to 40% of patients with epilepsy who may be considered for epilepsy surgery. For drug-resistant focal epilepsy, up to 50% of patients require invasive monitoring prior to surgery. Of the most common invasive monitoring strategies (subdural electrodes [SDEs] and stereo-electroencephalography [sEEG]), the most cost-effective strategy is unknown despite substantial differences in morbidity profiles., Methods: Using data collected from an internationally representative sample published in available systematic reviews and meta-analyses, this economic evaluation study employs a decision analysis model to simulate the risks and benefits of SDE and sEEG invasive monitoring strategies. In this model, patients faced differing risks of morbidity, mortality, resection, and seizure freedom depending on which invasive monitoring strategy they underwent. A range of cost values was obtained from a recently published single-center cost-utility analysis. The model considers a base case simulation of a characteristic patient with drug-resistant epilepsy using clinical parameters obtained from systematic reviews of invasive monitoring available in the literature. The main outcome measure was the probability of a positive outcome after invasive monitoring, which was defined as improvement in seizures without a complication. Cost-effectiveness was measured using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)., Results: Invasive monitoring with sEEG had an increased cost of $274 and increased probability of effectiveness of 0.02 compared with SDEs, yielding an ICER of $12,630 per positive outcome obtained. Sensitivity analyses varied parameters widely and revealed consistent model results across the range of clinical parameters reported in the literature. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that invasive monitoring strategy costs were the most influential parameter for model outcome., Conclusions: In this analysis, based on available observational data and estimates of complication costs, invasive monitoring with either SDEs or sEEG was nearly equivalent in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Objective: For epilepsy patients with drug-resistant, unresectable epilepsy, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an option for seizure control. Approximately 40-70% of patients will achieve ≥50% seizure reduction with VNS. New closed loop VNS models detect ictal tachycardia and responsively stimulate the vagus nerve. The effectiveness of closed loop VNS compared to traditional VNS for pediatric epilepsy is unknown., Methods: An 11-year retrospective electronic medical record review at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh was performed. Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent VNS implantation were included. Patients were divided into groups based on VNS model: traditional versus closed loop. Those who transitioned from traditional to closed loop VNS were excluded. Given potential for selection bias, propensity scores matching was utilized to compare traditional to closed loop VNS patients. Patients with focal versus generalized epilepsy were also separately analyzed. The primary outcome was "VNS response", defined as at least 50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline., Results: A total of 320 patients were included in this sample. The percentage of matched patients (total n = 220: n = 179 traditional VNS, n = 41 closed loop VNS) who responded to VNS after one year of therapy was 43% for traditional VNS and 39% for closed loop VNS (p = 0.64). After two years of therapy, a higher proportion of closed loop VNS patients than traditional VNS patients responded to VNS among all subgroups, though no differences were statistically significant (p>0.05). Notably, for those with generalized epilepsy, 73% of closed loop patients responded to VNS compared to only 46% of traditional patients (p = 0.10). After two years of VNS therapy, patients were taking approximately the same quantity of antiseizure medications as baseline (change of +0.074 +/- 0.90 ) with no difference between VNS models (p = 0.87)., Significance: Among pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, closed loop VNS trends towards a higher rate of VNS response after two years of treatment, especially among generalized epilepsy patients. Neither model of VNS allows patients to reduce antiseizure medication quantity after two years., (Copyright © 2021 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The objective of the study were to examine the safety and efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for reducing seizure frequency and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in children younger than six years and to examine long-term VNS efficacy for children who receive the device at ages 1-3 and at ages 4-6., Methods: We conducted a 10-year retrospective analysis of VNS implantations at UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. Relevant data were collected within 12 months of VNS implantation and at six months, one, two, and four years after VNS implantation., Results: This analysis included 99 patients ages 0-3 (n = 40) and 4-6 (n = 59) at first VNS implantation. Eighty-six patients followed up for ≥4 years. There were no significant differences between age at VNS implant (0-3 vs. 4-6) and seizure etiology or most seizure semiologies. Patients took an average of 3.01 ± 1.29 AEDs prior to VNS and 3.84 ± 1.68 AEDs at their latest follow-up. The overall response to VNS therapy (≥50% seizure reduction) at one year, two years, and four years after VNS implantation was 55%, 60%, and 52%, respectively. At two years, 59% of 0- to 3-year-old patients responded to VNS and 52% of 4- to 6-year-old patients responded to VNS. The overall major complication rate was 5.6%, consistent with VNS use for older age groups., Significance: This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of VNS for children with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) younger than six. One, two, and four years after VNS implantation, 55%, 60%, and 52% of these patients, respectively, achieved ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency. The safety of VNS is also comparable with older, better studied, age groups. Based on these data, VNS therapy should be considered for children younger than six., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Abel is a consultant for the Monteris Corporation, which is not related to the content of this study. We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those guidelines., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)