Prevalence and Trajectories of Post-COVID-19 Neurological Manifestations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the prevalence of thirteen neurological manifestations in people affected by COVID-19 during the acute phase and at 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up time points. METHODS: The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022325505). MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Library were used as information sources. Eligible studies included original articles of cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and case series with ≥5 subjects that reported the prevalence and type of neurological manifestations, with a minimum follow-up of 3 months after the acute phase of COVID-19 disease. Two independent reviewers screened studies from January 1, 2020, to June 16, 2022. The following manifestations were assessed: neuromuscular disorders, encephalopathy/altered mental status/delirium, movement disorders, dysautonomia, cerebrovascular disorders, cognitive impairment/dementia, sleep disorders, seizures, syncope/transient loss of consciousness, fatigue, gait disturbances, anosmia/hyposmia, and headache. The pooled prevalence and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the six pre-specified times. RESULTS: 126 of 6,565 screened studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, accounting for 1,542,300 subjects with COVID-19 disease. Of these, four studies only reported data on neurological conditions other than the 13 selected. The neurological disorders with the highest pooled prevalence estimates (per 100 subjects) during the acute phase of COVID-19 were anosmia/hyposmia, fatigue, headache, encephalopathy, cognitive impairment, and cerebrovascular disease. At 3-month follow-up, the pooled prevalence of fatigue, cognitive impairment, and sleep disorders was still 20% and higher. At six- and 9-month follow-up, there was a tendency for fatigue, cognitive impairment, sleep disorders, anosmia/hyposmia, and headache to further increase in prevalence. At 12-month follow-up, prevalence estimates decreased but remained high for some disorders, such as fatigue and anosmia/hyposmia. Other neurological disorders had a more fluctuating occurrence. DISCUSSION: Neurological manifestations were prevalent during the acute phase of COVID-19 and over the 1-year follow-up period, with the highest overall prevalence estimates for fatigue, cognitive impairment, sleep disorders, anosmia/hyposmia, and headache. There was a downward trend over time, suggesting that neurological manifestations in the early post-COVID-19 phase may be long-lasting but not permanent. However, especially for the 12-month follow-up time point, more robust data are needed to confirm this trend.

Prevalence of epilepsy in childhood: An epidemiological study in Sardinia.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency and characteristics of pediatric epilepsy in the geographic isolate of Sardinia island and to calculate the prevalence of active epilepsy. METHODS: The study was retrospective, observational and involved a systematic review of medical records and computerized archives containing all clinical and EEG recordings of patients with epilepsy referred to the regional structures that could have followed patients with epilepsy in South Sardinia, during the period 2003-2021. RESULTS: The study population included 112,912 children and adolescents (age ≤ 18 years). 618 children and adolescents (women 42.4 %) were identified. Family history of epilepsy was reported in 153 (26.1 %). Etiology was genetic in 64.5 % and structural in 26.7 % subjects. Focal seizures were reported in 51.6 % of subjects, followed by 34.7 % with generalized seizures and 10.6 % of patients experienced both type of seizures. A total of 301 subjects with active epilepsy in 2019 were identified resulting in a prevalence of 2.67 per 1000 (95 % CI 2.37-2.97). Prevalence in the age class 5-14 years was 4.21 per 1000 (95 % CI 3.72-4.76). CONCLUSION: Compared to the previous studies in distinct geographic isolates, the present study showed a significantly low prevalence rate of active epilepsy; a high percentage of focal seizures and genetic etiology.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: A critical view of the literature.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a sudden, unexpected, witnessed or unwitnessed, non-traumatic and non-drowning death, occurring in benign circumstances, in an individual with epilepsy, with or without evidence for a seizure and excluding documented status epilepticus in which postmortem examination does not reveal other causes of death. Lower diagnostic levels are assigned when cases met most or all of these criteria, but data suggested more than one possible cause of death. The incidence of SUDEP ranged from 0.09 to 2.4 per 1000 person-years. Differences can be attributed to the age of the study populations (with peaks in the 20-40-year age group) and the severity of the disease. Young age, disease severity (in particular, a history of generalized TCS), having symptomatic epilepsy, and the response to antiseizure medications (ASMs) are possible independent predictors of SUDEP. The pathophysiological mechanisms are not fully known due to the limited data available and because SUDEP is not always witnessed and has been electrophysiologically monitored only in a few cases with simultaneous assessment of respiratory, cardiac, and brain activity. The pathophysiological basis of SUDEP may vary according to different circumstances that make that particular seizure, in that specific moment and in that patient, a fatal event. The main hypothesized mechanisms, which could contribute to a cascade of events, are cardiac dysfunction (included potential effects of ASMs, genetically determined channelopathies, acquired heart diseases), respiratory dysfunction (included postictal arousal deficit for the respiratory mechanism, acquired respiratory diseases), neuromodulator dysfunction, postictal EEG depression and genetic factors.

The epidemiology of epilepsy in older adults: A narrative review by the ILAE Task Force on Epilepsy in the Elderly.

In an aging world, it is important to know the burden of epilepsy affecting populations of older persons. We performed a selective review of epidemiological studies that we considered to be most informative, trying to include data from all parts of the world. We emphasized primary reports rather than review articles. We reviewed studies reporting the incidence and prevalence of epilepsy that focused on an older population as well as studies that included a wider age range if older persons were tabulated as a subgroup. There is strong evidence that persons older than approximately 60 years incur an increasing risk of both acute symptomatic seizures and epilepsy. In wealthier countries, the incidence of epilepsy increases sharply after age 60 or 65 years. This phenomenon was not always observed among reports from populations with lower socioeconomic status. This discrepancy may reflect differences in etiologies, methods of ascertainment, or distribution of ages; this is an area for more research. We identified other areas for which there are inadequate data. Incidence data are scarcer than prevalence data and are missing for large areas of the world. Prevalence is lower than would be expected from cumulative incidence, possibly because of remissions, excess mortality, or misdiagnosis of acute symptomatic seizures as epilepsy. Segmentation by age, frailty, and comorbidities is desirable, because "epilepsy in the elderly" is otherwise too broad a concept. Data are needed on rates of status epilepticus and drug-resistant epilepsy using the newer definitions. Many more data are needed from low-income populations and from developing countries. Greater awareness of the high rates of seizures among older adults should lead to more focused diagnostic efforts for individuals. Accurate data on epilepsy among older adults should drive proper allocation of treatments for individuals and resources for societies.

Management of epilepsy in older adults: A critical review by the ILAE Task Force on Epilepsy in the elderly.

Older adults represent a highly heterogeneous population, with multiple diverse subgroups. Therefore, an individualized approach to treatment is essential to meet the needs of each unique subgroup. Most comparative studies focusing on treatment of epilepsy in older adults have found that levetiracetam has the best chance of long-term seizure freedom. However, there is a lack of studies investigating other newer generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). Although a number of randomized clinical trials have been performed on older adults with epilepsy, the number of participants studied was generally small, and they only investigated short-term efficacy and tolerability. Quality of life as an outcome is often missing but is necessary to understand the effectiveness and possible side effects of treatment. Prognosis needs to move beyond the focus on seizure control to long-term patient-centered outcomes. Dosing studies with newer generation ASMs are needed to understand which treatments are the best in the older adults with different comorbidities. In particular, more high-level evidence is required for older adults with Alzheimer's disease with epilepsy and status epilepticus. Future treatment studies should use greater homogeneity in the inclusion criteria to allow for clearer findings that can be comparable with other studies to build the existing treatment evidence base.

Rapid versus slow withdrawal of antiepileptic monotherapy in two-year seizure-free adults patients with epilepsy (RASLOW) study: A pragmatic multicentre, prospective, randomized, controlled study.

PURPOSE: To establish whether a slow or a rapid withdrawal of antiepileptic monotherapy influences relapse rate in seizure-free adults with epilepsy and calculates compliance and differences in the severity of relapses, based on the occurrence of status epilepticus, seizure-related injuries, and death. METHODS: This is a multicentre, prospective, randomized, open label, non-inferiority trial in people aged 16 + years who were seizure-free for more than 2 years. Patients were randomized to slow withdrawal (160 days) or rapid withdrawal (60 days) and were followed for 12 months. The primary outcome was the probability of a first seizure relapse within the 12-months follow-up. The secondary outcomes included the cumulative probability of relapse at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. A non-inferiority analysis was performed with non-inferiority margin of - 0.15 for the difference between the probabilities of seizure recurrence in slow versus rapid withdrawal. RESULTS: The sample comprised 48 patients, 25 randomized to slow withdrawal and 23 to rapid withdrawal. Median follow-up was 11.9 months. In the intention-to-treat population, 3 patients in the slow-withdrawal group and 1 in the rapid withdrawal group experienced seizure relapses. The corresponding probabilities of seizure recurrence were 0.12 for slow withdrawal and 0.04 for rapid withdrawal, giving a difference of 0.08 (95% CI - 0.12; 0.27), which is entirely above the non-inferiority margin. No patients developed status epilepticus and seizure-related injuries or died. Risks were similar in the Per-Protocol population. CONCLUSIONS: Seizure-relapse rate after drug discontinuation is lower than in other reports, without complications and unrelated to the duration of tapering.

Survey on the worldwide availability and affordability of antiseizure medications: Report of the ILAE Task Force on Access to Treatment.

Health systems worldwide are challenged in the provision of basic medical services and access to treatments for chronic conditions. Epilepsy, the most common severe chronic neurological disorder, does not receive sufficient attention despite being officially declared a public health priority by the World Health Organization. More than 80% of people with epilepsy live in middle- and low-income countries (MICs and LICs, respectively), where most of the population lacks reliable access to antiseizure medications (ASMs), contributing significantly to the large epilepsy treatment gap in these regions. The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Access to Treatment administered a global survey to report on the current access to ASMs worldwide. The survey was developed and distributed online through the ILAE and International Bureau of Epilepsy (IBE) secretariats to the chapter representatives. The survey was completed by one representative per country. Response rate was 73.2% (101 countries of the 138 represented in ILAE and/or IBE organizations). Availability and access of ASMs, including distribution problems and costs, reimbursement procedures, general barriers to access to care, and presence of projects targeted toward improving care access, were studied, and descriptive statistics on available responses were performed. Among the 15 first-generation ASMs surveyed, carbamazepine was reported as the most widely available globally. At least one first-generation ASM is widely available in most countries, but their number differs dramatically across income levels. Second- and third-generation ASMs are even more limited in MICs and LICs. Additionally, average retail prices for ASMs were not significantly different across countries despite the differences in per capita income from high-income countries to LICs. This survey provides a worrisome picture of availability and accessibility of ASMs across the world, with wide disparities according to socioeconomic status. Recommendations for direct action on improving access to care will be discussed.

Incidence, prevalence and disability associated with neurological disorders in Italy between 1990 and 2019: an analysis based on the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

BACKGROUND: Neurological conditions are highly prevalent and disabling, in particular in the elderly. The Italian population has witnessed sharp ageing and we can thus expect a rising trend in the incidence, prevalence and disability of these conditions. METHODS: We relied on the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study to extract Italian data on incidence, prevalence and years lived with a disability (YLDs) referred to a broad set of neurological disorders including, brain and nervous system cancers, stroke, encephalitis, meningitis, tetanus, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury. We assessed changes between 1990 and 2019 in counts and age-standardized rates. RESULTS: The most prevalent conditions were tension-type headache, migraine, and dementias, whereas the most disabling were migraine, dementias and traumatic brain injury. YLDs associated with neurological conditions increased by 22.5%, but decreased by 2.3% in age-standardized rates. The overall increase in prevalence and YLDs counts was stronger for non-communicable diseases with onset in old age compared to young to adult-age onset ones. The same trends were in the opposite direction when age-standardized rates were taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in YLDs associated with neurological conditions is mostly due to population ageing and growth: nevertheless, lived disability and, as a consequence, impact on health systems has increased. Actions are needed to improve outcome and mitigate disability associated with neurological conditions, spanning among diagnosis, treatment, care pathways and workplace interventions.

Acute and post-acute neurological manifestations of COVID-19: present findings, critical appraisal, and future directions.

Acute and post-acute neurological symptoms, signs and diagnoses have been documented in an increasing number of patients infected by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this review, we aimed to summarize the current literature addressing neurological events following SARS-CoV-2 infection, discuss limitations in the existing literature and suggest future directions that would strengthen our understanding of the neurological sequelae of COVID-19. The presence of neurological manifestations (symptoms, signs or diagnoses) both at the onset or during SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a more severe disease, as demonstrated by a longer hospital stay, higher in-hospital death rate or the continued presence of sequelae at discharge. Although biological mechanisms have been postulated for these findings, evidence-based data are still lacking to clearly define the incidence, range of characteristics and outcomes of these manifestations, particularly in non-hospitalized patients. In addition, data from low- and middle-income countries are scarce, leading to uncertainties in the measure of neurological findings of COVID-19, with reference to geography, ethnicity, socio-cultural settings, and health care arrangements. As a consequence, at present a specific phenotype that would specify a post-COVID (or long-COVID) neurological syndrome has not yet been identified.

Comorbidities in patients with epilepsy: Frequency, mechanisms and effects on long-term outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To assess frequency, types, and mechanisms of comorbidities in people with epilepsy and verify their association with disease features and outcome. METHODS: This cohort study was performed in 13 Italian epilepsy centers with nationwide distribution and accurate records. Eligible patients were children and adults diagnosed before December 31, 2005, and followed for a minimum of 10 years. Two pairs of raters independently reviewed patients' records and classified each comorbidity. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer made the final decision. Comorbidities were classified according to type (organ/system) and underlying mechanism (causal, shared risk factors, chance association). Comorbidity types and mechanisms were described in the entire sample and according to epilepsy prognostic patterns (sustained remission, relapsing-remitting course, no remission). RESULTS: Of 1006 included patients, 266 (26.4%) had at least one comorbidity. The most common were developmental/perinatal (7.5% of cases), psychiatric (6.2%), cardiovascular (5.3%), and endocrine/metabolic (3.8%). Among 408 reported comorbidities, the underlying mechanisms were, in decreasing order, chance association (42.2%), shared risk factors (31.1%), and causal (26.7%). Psychiatric diseases were present in 13.3% of patients with no remission, 5.9% of patients with relapsing-remitting course, and 4.8% of patients with sustained remission (p = .016). The corresponding numbers for endocrine/metabolic diseases were respectively, 9.6%, 3.4%, and 2.9% (p = .013); for respiratory diseases were 3.6%, .3%, and .3% (p = .001), and for urogenital diseases were 3.6%, .7%, and 1.6% (p = .048). The association of endocrine/metabolic, psychiatric, and respiratory comorbidities with epilepsy prognosis was confirmed by multivariable analysis adjusted for the main demographic and clinical variables, with patients with these comorbidities showing a lower probability of achieving remission. SIGNIFICANCE: Comorbidities in epilepsy are not uncommon and reflect differing underlying mechanisms. Psychiatric, endocrine/metabolic, and respiratory disorders are associated with a worse long-term epileptological outcome.

Immediate antiepileptic drug treatment, versus placebo, deferred, or no treatment for first unprovoked seizure.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane review previously published in 2016. There is considerable disagreement about the risk of recurrence following a first unprovoked epileptic seizure. A decision about whether to start antiepileptic drug treatment following a first seizure should be informed by information on the size of any reduction in risk of future seizures, the impact on long-term seizure remission, and the risk of adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To review the probability of seizure recurrence, seizure remission, mortality, and adverse effects of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment given immediately after the first seizure compared to controls (placebo, deferred treatment, or no treatment) in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to May 24, 2019) on 28 May 2019. There were no language restrictions. The Cochrane Register of Studies includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that could be blinded or unblinded. People of any age with a first unprovoked seizure of any type. Included studies compared participants receiving immediate antiepileptic treatment versus those receiving deferred treatment, those assigned to placebo, and those untreated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion in the review and extracted data. The certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was classified in four categories according to the GRADE approach. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Time-to-event outcomes were expressed as Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% CI. Only one trial used a double-blind design, and the two largest studies were unblinded. Most of the recurrences were generalised tonic-clonic seizures, a major type of seizures that is easily recognised, which should reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias. MAIN RESULTS: After exclusion of irrelevant papers, six studies (eleven reports) were selected for inclusion. Individual participant data were available from the two largest studies for meta-analysis. Selection bias and attrition bias could not be excluded within the four smaller studies, but the two largest studies reported attrition rates and adequate methods of randomisation and allocation concealment. Only one small trial used a double-blind design and the other trials were unblinded; however, most of the recurrences were generalised tonic-clonic seizures, a type of seizure that is easily recognisable. Compared to controls, participants randomised to immediate treatment had a lower probability of relapse at one year (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.58; 6 studies, 1634 participants; high-certainty evidence), at five years (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89; 2 studies, 1212 participants; high-certainty evidence) and a higher probability of an immediate five-year remission (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.54; 2 studies, 1212 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, there was no difference between immediate treatment and control in terms of five-year remission at any time (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.21; 2 studies, 1212 participants; high-certainty evidence). Antiepileptic drugs did not affect overall mortality after a first seizure (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.95; 2 studies, 1212 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to deferred treatment, treatment of the first seizure was associated with a significantly higher risk of adverse events (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.79; 2 studies, 1212 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate to low for the association of higher risk of adverse events when treatment of the first seizure was compared to no treatment or placebo, (RR 14.50, 95% CI 1.93 to 108.76; 1 study; 118 participants) and (RR 4.91, 95% CI 1.10 to 21.93; 1 study, 228 participants) respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of the first unprovoked seizure reduces the risk of a subsequent seizure but does not affect the proportion of patients in remission in the long term. Antiepileptic drugs are associated with adverse events, and there is no evidence that they reduce mortality. In light of this review, the decision to start antiepileptic drug treatment following a first unprovoked seizure should be individualised and based on patient preference, clinical, legal, and sociocultural factors.

Discontinuation of antiseizure medications in seizure-free patients with long-term follow-up: Patients' profile, seizure recurrence, and risk factors.

OBJECTIVE: To compare withdrawal of antiseizure medications (ASM) to continued treatment in newly diagnosed individuals achieving seizure freedom, and assess the risk of relapse and factors associated with relapse. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up. Patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy were identified from the medical records of 13 Italian epilepsy centers and followed up until the most recent visit or death. Seizure-free patients discontinuing treatment were compared to patients who maintained treatment for baseline characteristics. Treatment was stopped upon clinical judgment. The probability of relapse was calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Demographic, clinical, and instrumental variables associated with relapse were assessed with Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: One thousand and six patients aged 1 month to 72 years at diagnosis were enrolled and followed up for 17,892 person-years (median follow-up, 9.9 years). Three hundred and twenty patients (31.8%) underwent one or more treatment discontinuations. Factors associated with ASM withdrawal were younger age at remission and normal psychiatric examination. The probability of relapse after the first withdrawal was 16% at six months, 24% at 12 months, and 36%, 45%, and 53% at three, five, and ten years, respectively. The probability of remission after the first relapse was 59% at one month, 67%, 72, and 76% at three, six, and 12 months, respectively. Variables associated with relapse were age 14+ years, structural etiology, abnormal neuroimaging, ASM initiation after a single seizure, and symptomatic/cryptogenic epilepsy. CONCLUSIONS: About one half of seizure-free patients stopping ASM relapse in 10 years. However, the possibility of remission after relapse is high, particularly in children and patients with idiopathic/cryptogenic epilepsy. Treatment deprescription might be encouraged at least in these patients.

The management of epilepsy in clinical practice: Do the timing and severity of the disease influence the priorities of patients and the caring physicians? Data from the EPINEEDS study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the priorities of patients with epilepsy and their caring physicians with reference to the timing and severity of the disease. METHODS: This is a national survey in which patients with epilepsy followed in 21 Italian epilepsy centers, and their caring physicians were asked to fill anonymous questionnaires to collect data on different aspects of the disease and their needs and priorities in its management. The collected information included demographics, clinical profile and diagnosis, treatment and outcome of epilepsy. The questions were designed to understand the expectations of the patients and their caring physicians and verify the degree of concordance between patient and doctor. The study population was divided in six prognostic categories: (1) Newly diagnosed epilepsy; (2) Absence of seizures for at least 2 years; (3) Absence of seizures for at least 1 year or occasional seizures; (4) Nondrug-resistant recurrent seizures; (5) drug-resistant seizures; (6) surgical candidate. RESULTS: Of the 787 patients enrolled, 432 were women and 355 men aged 15 to 88 years (median 41 years). Disease duration ranged from 6 months to 75 years. The sample included 53 patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy, 283 without seizures for at least 2 years, 162 seizure-free for at least 1 year or with occasional seizures, 123 with nondrug-resistant recurrent seizures, 128 with drug-resistant seizures, and 38 surgical candidates. Significant differences were found between patients and physicians in terms of priorities and needs with reference to the management of the disease. While physicians tend to prioritize the information on the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy depending on timing and severity, patients focus on the search of the cause, the side effects of drugs, and the effects of any new treatment on the control of seizures regardless of the prognostic category. In addition, physicians tend to undervalue the communication of specific information, like the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) or the existence of lay associations, which might be of special interest for selected categories of patients. SIGNIFICANCE: Differences between patients with epilepsy and their caring physicians in terms of needs and priorities and suboptimal communication call for the implementation of programs aimed at addressing the factors deemed most relevant by patients and caregivers for the management of the disease.

Burden of Neurological Disorders Across the US From 1990-2017: A Global Burden of Disease Study.

Importance: Accurate and up-to-date estimates on incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (burden) of neurological disorders are the backbone of evidence-based health care planning and resource allocation for these disorders. It appears that no such estimates have been reported at the state level for the US. Objective: To present burden estimates of major neurological disorders in the US states by age and sex from 1990 to 2017. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study. Data on incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) of major neurological disorders were derived from the GBD 2017 study of the 48 contiguous US states, Alaska, and Hawaii. Fourteen major neurological disorders were analyzed: stroke, Alzheimer disease and other dementias, Parkinson disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, migraine, tension-type headache, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus. Exposures: Any of the 14 listed neurological diseases. Main Outcome and Measure: Absolute numbers in detail by age and sex and age-standardized rates (with 95% uncertainty intervals) were calculated. Results: The 3 most burdensome neurological disorders in the US in terms of absolute number of DALYs were stroke (3.58 [95% uncertainty interval [UI], 3.25-3.92] million DALYs), Alzheimer disease and other dementias (2.55 [95% UI, 2.43-2.68] million DALYs), and migraine (2.40 [95% UI, 1.53-3.44] million DALYs). The burden of almost all neurological disorders (in terms of absolute number of incident, prevalent, and fatal cases, as well as DALYs) increased from 1990 to 2017, largely because of the aging of the population. Exceptions for this trend included traumatic brain injury incidence (-29.1% [95% UI, -32.4% to -25.8%]); spinal cord injury prevalence (-38.5% [95% UI, -43.1% to -34.0%]); meningitis prevalence (-44.8% [95% UI, -47.3% to -42.3%]), deaths (-64.4% [95% UI, -67.7% to -50.3%]), and DALYs (-66.9% [95% UI, -70.1% to -55.9%]); and encephalitis DALYs (-25.8% [95% UI, -30.7% to -5.8%]). The different metrics of age-standardized rates varied between the US states from a 1.2-fold difference for tension-type headache to 7.5-fold for tetanus; southeastern states and Arkansas had a relatively higher burden for stroke, while northern states had a relatively higher burden of multiple sclerosis and eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson disease, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine and tension-type headache, and meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus. Conclusions and Relevance: There is a large and increasing burden of noncommunicable neurological disorders in the US, with up to a 5-fold variation in the burden of and trends in particular neurological disorders across the US states. The information reported in this article can be used by health care professionals and policy makers at the national and state levels to advance their health care planning and resource allocation to prevent and reduce the burden of neurological disorders.

History of violence/maltreatment and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures.

PURPOSE: To study the association of earlier violence/maltreatment with the occurrence of PNES in a nationwide population sample. METHODS: This is a nested case-control study performed using Swedish nationwide registers. Cases were all individuals born in Sweden between 1941 and 2009 with incident PNES between 2001 and 2013 while resident in Sweden according to the Swedish Patient Register. For each case, 10 controls, alive and PNES-free at time of PNES diagnosis of the matched case, were randomly selected from the Swedish Total Population Register, matched on age and sex. To test the specificity of the association, we conducted two similar analyses for epilepsy and dissociative disorder with motor symptoms or deficit, as comparators to PNES. Registers were examined in search of all coded diagnoses of child maltreatment or violence episodes before the index date among the cases and controls. RESULTS: 885 patients received a first diagnosis of PNES. 7.6 % of cases had a history of violence/maltreatment, compared to 1.1 % of controls, giving a crude OR of 7.9 (95 % CI: 3.7-11.0). The ORs decreased but remained significant after adjustment for socio-economic factors (OR = 6.3, 95 % CI: 4.4-9.0) and psychiatric comorbidities (OR = 5.2, 95 % CI: 3.5-7.9). The association was also evident for epilepsy and dissociative disorder, although of lower magnitude. CONCLUSION: Patients with PNES have a history of violence/maltreatment more frequently than the rest of the population. This association can be influenced by socio-economic factors and the presence of concurrent psychiatric disturbances.

Self-Report questionnaires for the diagnosis of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures in clinical practice. A comprehensive review of the available instruments.

We searched Medline from 1946 to 2019 for reports exploring differences between PNES and other comparable paroxysmal events using clinical instruments, few of which focused on the differential diagnosis using broad-based questionnaires covering multiple aspects of this condition. The majority investigated single items to highlight specific differences, either qualitative or quantitative, between groups and to elucidate some of the pathogenetic mechanisms of PNES. We selected all variables that proved to be useful for differentiating PNES from other types of paroxysmal events and classified them by category, by instrument utilized and method of investigation. This body of data will constitute the basis for assembling a new set of evidence-based questionnaires for patients and eyewitnesses to facilitate the differential diagnosis of these disorders, especially in resource-poor clinical settings. This will require a skillful translation of the content of each selected variable into clear and intuitive questions, appropriate for lay responders. Predictive variables found by more than one investigator, especially if using different approaches, have greater diagnostic weight and should be prominent in future questionnaires. However, even variables so far found to be predictive by one investigator will deserve consideration. Once the preliminary text of the questionnaires is consolidated, the instrument will need extensive testing and validation in large prospective studies before becoming available for clinical use in its definitive format.

Risk factors for neonatal seizures: A case-control study in the province of Parma, Italy.

PURPOSE: The present study evaluated the risk factors for electroencephalographic (EEG)-confirmed seizures during the whole neonatal period in preterm and term neonates born in the province of Parma between January 2009 and December 2014. METHODS: We selected as cases the infants that presented EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (NS). Two population controls for each case were matched by gestational age (GA), sex, hospital, and period of birth. Information on the mother, the pregnancy, the labor and delivery, and the neonates were taken from the Emilia-Romagna Certificate of Delivery Assistance database and from hospital charts and ICD-9-CM codes. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: In the 6-year period of this study, 22 patients were recorded with NS. The association between at least one pregnancy complication and at least one neonatal complication, a low Apgar score, the need for resuscitation at birth, intraventricular hemorrhages (IVH) grades II-IV for preterm, and acute perinatal asphyxia/hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) for term infants were all statistically significant among cases. Neonates presenting these risk factors are more prone to develop NS and have to be strictly monitored.