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]

Seizure aggravation following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines is a major cause behind vaccine hesitancy among persons with epilepsy (PwE), resulting in lower immunization rates. We systematically reviewed seizure‐activity‐related events in PwE following COVID‐19 vaccination. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, until January 31, 2023, and included articles reporting seizure activity‐related events in PwE receiving COVID‐19 vaccination. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses were followed. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022312475). Outcomes included pooled incidence proportions of (a) increased seizure frequency, (b) status epilepticus (SE), and (c) change in seizure type. Of the 2207 studies, 16 entered the meta‐analysis. The pooled incidence proportion of increased seizure frequency (16 studies‐3245 PwE) was 5% (95% CI: 3%−7%, I2 = 52%). Regarding increased seizure frequency, no significant difference was observed between mRNA and viral vector (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.49−2.52, I2 = 0%), and between mRNA and inactivated virus (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 0.27−9.37; I2 = 0%). The pooled incidence proportion of SE (15 studies‐2387 PwE) was 0.08% (95% CI: 0.02%−0.33%, I2 = 0%). Ultimately, the pooled incidence proportion of change in seizure type (7 studies‐1172 PwE) was 1% (95% CI: 1%−2%, I2 = 0%). The meta‐analysis revealed post‐COVID‐19‐vaccination increased seizure frequency in 5% of PwE, with no difference between mRNA and viral vector or inactivated virus vaccines. Furthermore, we found 0.08% and 1% incidence proportions for postvaccination SE and change in seizure type, respectively. While noteworthy, these values are far less than reports for COVID‐19 infection, emphasizing vaccination importance in preventing COVID‐19 consequences in PwE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]