Search

BackgroundDifferent states in the United States had different nonpharmaceutical public health interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effects of those interventions on hospital use have not been systematically evaluated. The investigation could provide data-driven evidence to potentially improve the implementation of public health interventions in the future. ObjectiveWe aim to study two representative areas in the United States and one area in China (New York State, Ohio State, and Hubei Province), and investigate the effects of their public health interventions by time periods according to key interventions. MethodsThis observational study evaluated the numbers of infected, hospitalized, and death cases in New York and Ohio from March 16 through September 14, 2020, and Hubei from January 26 to March 31, 2020. We developed novel Bayesian generalized compartmental models. The clinical stages of COVID-19 were stratified in the models, and the effects of public health interventions were modeled through piecewise exponential functions. Time-dependent transmission rates and effective reproduction numbers were estimated. The associations of interventions and the numbers of required hospital and intensive care unit beds were studied. ResultsThe interventions of social distancing, home confinement, and wearing masks significantly decreased (in a Bayesian sense) the case incidence and reduced the demand for beds in all areas. Ohio’s transmission rates declined before the state’s “stay at home” order, which provided evidence that early intervention is important. Wearing masks was significantly associated with reducing the transmission rates after reopening, when comparing New York and Ohio. The centralized quarantine intervention in Hubei played a significant role in further preventing and controlling the disease in that area. The estimated rates that cured patients become susceptible in all areas were small (

ObjectiveThe aim was to compare the outcomes of subdural electrode (SDE) implantations versus stereotactic electroencephalography (SEEG), the 2 predominant methods of intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) performed in difficult-to-localize drug-resistant focal epilepsy.MethodsThe Surgical Therapies Commission of the International League Against Epilepsy created an international registry of iEEG patients implanted between 2005 and 2019 with ≥1 year of follow-up. We used propensity score matching to control exposure selection bias and generate comparable cohorts. Study endpoints were: (1) likelihood of resection after iEEG; (2) seizure freedom at last follow-up; and (3) complications (composite of postoperative infection, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or permanent neurological deficit).ResultsTen study sites from 7 countries and 3 continents contributed 2,012 patients, including 1,468 (73%) eligible for analysis (526 SDE and 942 SEEG), of whom 988 (67%) underwent subsequent resection. Propensity score matching improved covariate balance between exposure groups for all analyses. Propensity-matched patients who underwent SDE had higher odds of subsequent resective surgery (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05, 1.84) and higher odds of complications (OR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.34, 3.74; unadjusted: 9.6% after SDE vs 3.3% after SEEG). Odds of seizure freedom in propensity-matched resected patients were 1.66 times higher (95% CI 1.21, 2.26) for SEEG compared with SDE (unadjusted: 55% seizure free after SEEG-guided resections vs 41% after SDE).InterpretationIn comparison to SEEG, SDE evaluations are more likely to lead to brain surgery in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy but have more surgical complications and lower probability of seizure freedom. This comparative-effectiveness study provides the highest feasible evidence level to guide decisions on iEEG. ANN NEUROL 2021;90:927-939.

Rare genetic variants can cause epilepsy, and genetic testing has been widely adopted for severe, paediatric-onset epilepsies. The phenotypic consequences of common genetic risk burden for epilepsies and their potential future clinical applications have not yet been determined. Using polygenic risk scores (PRS) from a European-ancestry genome-wide association study in generalized and focal epilepsy, we quantified common genetic burden in patients with generalized epilepsy (GE-PRS) or focal epilepsy (FE-PRS) from two independent non-Finnish European cohorts (Epi25 Consortium, n = 5705; Cleveland Clinic Epilepsy Center, n = 620; both compared to 20 435 controls). One Finnish-ancestry population isolate (Finnish-ancestry Epi25, n = 449; compared to 1559 controls), two European-ancestry biobanks (UK Biobank, n = 383 656; Vanderbilt biorepository, n = 49 494), and one Japanese-ancestry biobank (BioBank Japan, n = 168 680) were used for additional replications. Across 8386 patients with epilepsy and 622 212 population controls, we found and replicated significantly higher GE-PRS in patients with generalized epilepsy of European-ancestry compared to patients with focal epilepsy (Epi25: P = 1.64×10-15; Cleveland: P = 2.85×10-4; Finnish-ancestry Epi25: P = 1.80×10-4) or population controls (Epi25: P = 2.35×10-70; Cleveland: P = 1.43×10-7; Finnish-ancestry Epi25: P = 3.11×10-4; UK Biobank and Vanderbilt biorepository meta-analysis: P = 7.99×10-4). FE-PRS were significantly higher in patients with focal epilepsy compared to controls in the non-Finnish, non-biobank cohorts (Epi25: P = 5.74×10-19; Cleveland: P = 1.69×10-6). European ancestry-derived PRS did not predict generalized epilepsy or focal epilepsy in Japanese-ancestry individuals. Finally, we observed a significant 4.6-fold and a 4.5-fold enrichment of patients with generalized epilepsy compared to controls in the top 0.5% highest GE-PRS of the two non-Finnish European cohorts (Epi25: P = 2.60×10-15; Cleveland: P = 1.39×10-2). We conclude that common variant risk associated with epilepsy is significantly enriched in multiple cohorts of patients with epilepsy compared to controls-in particular for generalized epilepsy. As sample sizes and PRS accuracy continue to increase with further common variant discovery, PRS could complement established clinical biomarkers and augment genetic testing for patient classification, comorbidity research, and potentially targeted treatment.

The American Epilepsy Society Meeting in New Orleans attracted more than 5900 attendees. There was a lively exchange of new science, innovation, education, clinical practice, and many other items related to epilepsy. Educational symposia were a major part of the meeting and explored varying topics of interest for all types of epilepsy professionals. This article reviews highlights of the meeting presented in major symposia. Topics ranged from how to treat varying aspects of epilepsy as a consultant in the hospital to finding the scientific underpinning of the interaction between sleep and epilepsy. Pros and cons of novel antiseizure medications, dietary, and stimulation treatments were discussed. Epilepsy may impair memory and we need to learn what is the pathophysiologic relationship. Febrile status epilepticus may have severe consequences for a later life with seizures. Epilepsy professionals should be very well aware of the ethical implications of devasting seizures and their associated disability. These are just a few select topics of the many that we need to study further to archive the final goal to improve the lives of patients with epilepsy.

The majority of people with epilepsy achieves long-term seizure-freedom and may consider withdrawal of their anti-seizure medications (ASMs). Withdrawal of ASMs can yield substantial benefits but may be associated with potential risks. This review critically examines the existing literature on ASM withdrawal, emphasizing evidence-based recommendations, where available. Our focus encompasses deprescribing strategies for individuals who have attained seizure freedom through medical treatment, those who have undergone successful epilepsy surgery, and individuals initiated on ASMs following acute symptomatic seizures. We explore state-of-the-art prognostic models in these scenarios that could guide the decision-making process. The review underscores the importance of a collaborative shared-decision approach between patients, caregivers, and physicians. We describe the subjective and objective factors influencing these decisions and illustrate how trade-offs may be effectively managed in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This workshop addressed challenges of clinical research in neurosurgery. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have high internal validity, but often insufficiently generalize to real-world practice. Observational studies are inclusive but often lack sufficient rigor. The workshop considered possible solutions, such as (1) statistical methods for demonstrating causality using observational data; (2) characteristics required of a registry supporting effectiveness research; (3) trial designs combining advantages of observational studies and RCTs; and (4) equipoise, an identified challenge for RCTs. In the future, advances in information technology potentially could lead to creation of a massive database where clinical data from all neurosurgeons are integrated and analyzed, ending the separation of clinical research and practice and leading to a new "science of practice."

Objective: This study was undertaken to conduct external validation of previously published epilepsy surgery prediction tools using a large independent multicenter dataset and to assess whether these tools can stratify patients for being operated on and for becoming free of disabling seizures (International League Against Epilepsy stage 1 and 2). Methods: We analyzed a dataset of 1562 patients, not used for tool development. We applied two scales: Epilepsy Surgery Grading Scale (ESGS) and Seizure Freedom Score (SFS); and two versions of Epilepsy Surgery Nomogram (ESN): the original version and the modified version, which included electroencephalographic data. For the ESNs, we used calibration curves and concordance indexes. We stratified the patients into three tiers for assessing the chances of attaining freedom from disabling seizures after surgery: high (ESGS = 1, SFS = 3–4, ESNs > 70%), moderate (ESGS = 2, SFS = 2, ESNs = 40%–70%), and low (ESGS = 2, SFS = 0–1, ESNs < 40%). We compared the three tiers as stratified by these tools, concerning the proportion of patients who were operated on, and for the proportion of patients who became free of disabling seizures. Results: The concordance indexes for the various versions of the nomograms were between.56 and.69. Both scales (ESGS, SFS) and nomograms accurately stratified the patients for becoming free of disabling seizures, with significant differences among the three tiers (p <.05). In addition, ESGS and the modified ESN accurately stratified the patients for having been offered surgery, with significant difference among the three tiers (p <.05). Significance: ESGS and the modified ESN (at thresholds of 40% and 70%) stratify patients undergoing presurgical evaluation into three tiers, with high, moderate, and low chance for favorable outcome, with significant differences between the groups concerning having surgery and becoming free of disabling seizures. Stratifying patients for epilepsy surgery has the potential to help select the optimal candidates in underprivileged areas and better allocate resources in developed countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveEpilepsy surgery is the most effective treatment for select patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. In this article, we aim to provide an accurate understanding of the current epidemiologic characteristics of this intervention, as this knowledge is critical for guiding educational, academic, and resource priorities.MethodsWe profile the practice of epilepsy surgery between 1991 and 2011 in nine major epilepsy surgery centers in the United States, Germany, and Australia. Clinical, imaging, surgical, and histopathologic data were derived from the surgical databases at various centers.ResultsAlthough five of the centers performed their highest number of surgeries for mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS) in 1991, and three had their highest number of MTS surgeries in 2001, only one center achieved its peak number of MTS surgeries in 2011. The most productive year for MTS surgeries varied then by center; overall, the nine centers surveyed performed 48% (95% confidence interval [CI] -27.3% to -67.4%) fewer such surgeries in 2011 compared to either 1991 or 2001, whichever was higher. There was a parallel increase in the performance of surgery for nonlesional epilepsy. Further analysis of 5/9 centers showed a yearly increase of 0.6 ± 0.07% in the performance of invasive electroencephalography (EEG) without subsequent resections. Overall, although MTS was the main surgical substrate in 1991 and 2001 (proportion of total surgeries in study centers ranging from 33.3% to 70.2%); it occupied only 33.6% of all resections in 2011 in the context of an overall stable total surgical volume.SignificanceThese findings highlight the major aspects of the evolution of epilepsy surgery across the past two decades in a sample of well-established epilepsy surgery centers, and the critical current challenges of this treatment option in addressing complex epilepsy cases requiring detailed evaluations. Possible causes and implications of these findings are discussed.