Surgical complications of vagus nerve stimulation surgery: A 14-years single-center experience.

Introduction: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is the most frequently used neuromodulation treatment for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy (DRE) patients. Complications of VNS surgery include surgical site infection and unilateral vocal cord paresis. Complication rates vary across studies. Research question: What is the safety profile of VNS related surgeries? Materials and methods: Retrospective cohort study using patient files of DRE-patients who had undergone primary implantation of a VNS-system, replacement of the VNS pulse generator, replacement of the lead, replacement of both pulse generator and lead, or VNS removal surgery in the Maastricht UMC+. Multiple Imputation was used for missing data. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis were performed to analyze possible risk factors, in case of a small sample size, an independent-samples t-test and Fisher's exact test or Pearson's X2-test were used. The complication rate was calculated as percentage. Results: This study included a total of 606 VNS surgical procedures, leading to 67 complications of which 3 permanent complications. Complication rate after primary implantation was 13.4%; 2,5% for pulse generator replacement; 21.4% for lead revision and 27.3% for complete VNS removal. No statistically significant results were found when analyzing the results of adults and children <18 years separately. Discussion and conclusion: Complication rates of VNS-related surgeries in our own institutional series are low and comparable to previously reported series. VNS surgery is a relatively safe procedure. The complication rate differs per type of surgery and mean surgery duration was longer for patients with complications after lead revision surgery compared to patients without complications.

Economic evaluations of nonpharmacological treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy: A systematic review.

This study was undertaken to systematically identify and critically appraise all published full economic evaluations assessing the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study criteria was used to design search strategies for the identification and selection of relevant studies. Literature search was performed using the MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, International Health Technology Assessment, National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases to identify articles published between January 2000 and May 2023. Web of Science was additionally used to perform forward and backward referencing. Title, abstract, and full-text screening was performed by two independent researchers. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 were applied for quality assessment. A total of 4470 studies were identified, of which 18 met our inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies conducted model-based economic evaluation, and others were trial-based. Three studies showed that epilepsy surgery was cost-effective in adults, whereas this remained inconclusive for children (two positive, three negative). Three studies showed negative economic outcome for ketogenic diet in children. One of four studies showed positive results for self-management. For vagus nerve stimulation, one study showed positive results in adults and another one negative results in children. One recent study showed cost-effectiveness of responsive neurostimulation (RNS) in adults. Finally, one study showed promising but inconclusive results for deep brain stimulation (DBS). The mean scores for risk of bias assessment (based on CHEC) and for reporting quality (CHEERS 2022) were 95.8% and 80.5%, respectively. This review identified studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological treatments in both adults and children with drug-resistant epilepsy, suggesting that in adults, epilepsy surgery, vagus nerve stimulation, and RNS are cost-effective, and that DBS and self-management appear to be promising. In children, the cost-effectiveness of epilepsy surgery remains inconclusive. Finally, the use of ketogenic diet was shown not to be cost-effective. However, limited long-term data were available for newer interventions (i.e., ketogenic diet, DBS, and RNS).

Resective Epilepsy Surgery, QUality of life and Economic evaluation (RESQUE): the change in quality of life after resective epilepsy surgery-protocol for a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Resective epilepsy surgery is often seen as a last resort when treating drug-resistant epilepsy. Positive results on quality of life (QoL) and economic benefits after surgery argue for a less restrictive attitude towards epilepsy surgery for drug-resistant epilepsy. QoL and economic benefits are country-dependent. The objective of the Resective Epilepsy Surgery, QUality of life and Economic evaluation (RESQUE) trial is to evaluate the change in QoL before and after epilepsy surgery in Dutch people with drug-resistant epilepsy. The results will form part of an economic evaluation of epilepsy surgery in people with epilepsy (PWE) in The Netherlands. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A longitudinal prospective multicentre cohort study involving 100 PWE undergoing epilepsy surgery between 2019 and 2025 is being performed in three Dutch academic hospitals. Excluded are PWE who have a lower level of intelligence (TIQ<70) or who do not master the Dutch language. Before surgery and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery, PWE receive validated online questionnaires (QOLIE-31, EQ-5D, iMCQ and iPCQ) on QoL, cost of care, expectations and satisfaction. Primary outcome is the change in QoL. Secondary outcomes are change in generic QoL, seizure reduction (International League Against Epilepsy Outcome Classification), medical consumption, productivity, the correlation between QoL and seizure reduction and expectation of and satisfaction with the surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study design has been approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee (METC) of Maastricht UMC+ (2019-1134) and the Amsterdam UMC (vu). At the time of writing, UMC Utrecht is in the process of considering approval. The study will be conducted according to the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act and the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be publicly disclosed and submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is no veto on publication by the involved parties. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL8278; Pre-results.

A model of healthy aging based on smartphone interactions reveals advanced behavioral age in neurological disease.

Smartphones offer unique opportunities to trace the convoluted behavioral patterns accompanying healthy aging. Here we captured smartphone touchscreen interactions from a healthy population (N = 684, ∼309 million interactions) spanning 16 to 86 years of age and trained a decision tree regression model to estimate chronological age based on the interactions. The interactions were clustered according to their next interval dynamics to quantify diverse smartphone behaviors. The regression model well-estimated the chronological age in health (mean absolute error = 6 years, R2 = 0.8). We next deployed this model on a population of stroke survivors (N = 41) to find larger prediction errors such that the estimated age was advanced by 6 years. A similar pattern was observed in people with epilepsy (N = 51), with prediction errors advanced by 10 years. The smartphone behavioral model trained in health can be used to study altered aging in neurological diseases.

Brivaracetam for the treatment of refractory epilepsy in patients with prior exposure to levetiracetam: A retrospective outcome analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine whether brivaracetam (BRV) provides an evident improvement in treatment efficacy and a reduction in treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in patients with refractory epilepsy, who previously failed treatment with levetiracetam (LEV). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data extracted from electronic patient files at Epilepsy Centre Kempenhaeghe (Heeze, the Netherlands) from the year 2000 until October 2020. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were met by 407 patients >18 years of age. During data collection, 26 patients were excluded due to too little follow-up information on the use of either LEV or BRV, and two more due to poor medication compliance, leaving a total of 379 patients for further analyses. All had used LEV before they started treatment with BRV. For every patient, data were collected including demographic information, efficacy (positive responder or non-responder) of LEV and BRV, and TEAEs occurring during LEV and BRV treatment. RESULTS: A total of 121 (29.8%) patients had discontinued BRV treatment before the end of data collection. At time of data collection the mean time since first seizure was 25.4 years. Of the 379 patients, 82.8% were diagnosed with focal epilepsy and 9.8% with generalized epilepsy. The median duration of treatment was 39 months for LEV and 20 months for BRV, the mean maximum dose was 1749.9 mg/day for LEV and 144.2 mg/day for BRV, and the mean number of concomitant AEDs was 1.4 at the start of LEV treatment and 2.0 at the start of BRV treatment. LEV was switched directly to BRV in 208 (54.9%) patients; 171 (45.1%) patients had an interval between discontinuation of LEV and the start of BRV. The mean duration of interval was 77.7 months. Of the patients who discontinued BRV, 30 (24.8%) switched back to LEV. Discontinuation of initial LEV treatment was due to TEAEs in 63.6% of patients, including 55.1% because of behavioural TEAEs. Discontinuation of BRV was due to inadequate efficacy in 24.0% of patients, to TEAEs in 47.1% and to both inadequate efficacy and TEAEs in 22.3%. Concerning efficacy, the analysis showed no significant difference between the positive responder rate of LEV and BRV (72.0% vs 69.1%, p>0.05). Of the patients who were positive responders to LEV treatment, 78.0% also had a positive response to BRV treatment. Of the non-responders to LEV treatment, 46.2% did have a positive response to BRV treatment. In comparison to LEV, patients reported significantly fewer TEAEs during BRV treatment (86.5% vs 61.7%, p<0.05). The most substantial difference was seen in the category 'behaviour' (55.1% vs 22.4%, p<0.05). Newly found behavioural TEAEs after switching from LEV to BRV were found in 7.1% of patients. CONCLUSION: Overall BRV was better tolerated than LEV, especially regarding the behavioural TEAEs. Efficacy analyses showed that patients are likely to have a positive response to BRV when they had a positive response to LEV. However, this is not always guaranteed. Lack of response to LEV does not preclude a positive response to BRV. All in all, BRV seems to be an interesting treatment option in patients previously treated with LEV.

Assessment of Quality of Life 8-Dimension (AQoL-8D): translation, validation, and application in two Dutch trials in patients with epilepsy and schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: To translate and linguistically validate the Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimensions (AQoL-8D) for use in the Netherlands and to compare the psychometric properties of AQoL-8D with the EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L) in two patient samples. METHODS: AQoL-8D was translated from English into Dutch. The translated AQoL-8D was then administered alongside the EQ-5D-5L at baseline and follow-up of two Dutch randomized controlled trials among patients with epilepsy and schizophrenia. These data were subjected to a post-hoc analysis assessing the psychometric properties of AQol-8D vis-à-vis EQ-5D-5L in terms of known-groups construct validity, responsiveness, and floor/ceiling effects. RESULTS: In total, 103 epilepsy patients and 99 schizophrenia patients were included in this study. In both datasets, the two instruments discriminated between known-groups, but in schizophrenia, AQoL-8D showed higher responsiveness than EQ-5D-5L, while both instruments showed equal responsiveness in epilepsy. Ceiling effects were only found for EQ-5D-5L in both epilepsy (26.6%) and schizophrenia (6.1%). CONCLUSION: Our results have shown that, among other things, AQoL-8D presents better ability to discriminate between known-groups and shows no ceiling effect. Based on our results, we would recommend the use of AQoL-8D in addition to EQ-5D-5L in trials assessing patient's quality of life in patients with epilepsy or schizophrenia.

Economic evaluation of deep brain stimulation compared with vagus nerve stimulation and usual care for patients with refractory epilepsy: A lifetime decision analytic model.

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to estimate the cost-effectiveness of deep brain stimulation (DBS) compared with vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and care as usual (CAU) for adult patients with refractory epilepsy from a health care perspective using a lifetime decision analytic model. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of DBS compared with VNS and CAU. Transition probabilities were estimated from a randomized controlled trial, and assumptions were made in consensus with an expert panel. Primary outcomes were expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and per responder. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to characterize parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In DBS, 28.4% of the patients were responders, with an average of 21.38 QALYs per patient and expected lifetime health care costs of €187 791. VNS had fewer responders (22.3%), fewer QALYs (20.70), and lower lifetime costs (€156 871). CAU had the fewest responders (6.2%), fewest QALYs (18.74), and lowest total health care costs (€64 670). When comparing with CAU, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) showed that costs per QALY gained were slightly lower for DBS (€46 640) than for VNS (€47 155). When comparing DBS with VNS, an incremental cost per additional QALY gained of €45 170 was found for DBS. Sensitivity analyses showed that ICERs were heavily dependent on assumptions regarding loss to follow-up in the respective clinical trial. SIGNIFICANCE: This study suggests that, given current limited evidence, VNS and DBS are potentially cost-effective treatment strategies compared to CAU for patients with refractory epilepsy. However, results for DBS were heavily impacted by assumptions made to extrapolate nonresponse from the original trial. More stringent assumptions regarding nonresponse resulted in an ICER just above an acceptable willingness to pay threshold. Given the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of DBS and the large impact of assumptions related to nonresponse, further empirical research is needed to reduce uncertainty.

Efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam in patients with intellectual disability and epilepsy.

Patients with intellectual disability (ID) are often excluded from clinical trials, and little is known about the best approach to treat their epilepsy. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) for adjunctive treatment in patients with focal-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization. We analyzed the efficacy and tolerability of BRV in patients with ID and epilepsy who either had or had not previously received treatment with levetiracetam (LEV). Data on efficacy and tolerability were retrospectively collected. After the initial start of BRV in our tertiary epilepsy center, we analyzed medical records at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up. 116 patients were included (mean age = 34.9 years, 44% female). All had complete data of 3-month follow-up, 76 of 6-month follow-up, and 39 patients of 1-year follow-up. Median starting dose of BRV was 50.0 mg/day and the mean number of concomitant AEDs was 2.6. Seizure reduction and no side effects were reported in more than half of all patients. The most reported side effects were somnolence, dizziness and aggression. Retention rates for BRV were 84.4%, 75.5% and 58.1% after 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Seizure reduction and side effects did not differ significantly between the groups with or without previous LEV treatment. We demonstrate that BRV is effective and well tolerated in patients with epilepsy and ID, even in those where previous LEV treatment failed.

European perspective of perampanel response in people with Intellectual Disability.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy prevalence is over 20% for those with ID. It is difficult to diagnose and treat and more likely to be treatment resistant. The evidence informing prescribing is sparse, particularly for new drugs such as perampanel (PMP). AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study seeks to strengthen the research evidence regarding PMP for people with ID by pooling information from two isolated and separately conducted studies: the UK-based Epilepsy Database Register (Ep-ID) and the data from the Kempenhaeghe clinic in the Netherlands. METHODS: A single data set of comparable data was created and analysed under agreement and supervision of a UK statistician. RESULTS: Seizure reduction within twelve months was evident in 62% of Dutch and 47% of UK patients. Retention rates were higher for those in the UK (P = .01) and for patients with moderate to profound ID, whilst side effects were more prominent in the Dutch cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Comparable rates of seizure reduction are in line with estimates for non-ID patients, adding to the evidence suggesting that PMP has a similar impact on those with ID. Taking a European perspective and sharing data across centres can help strengthen the evidence for prescribing antiepileptic drugs in the ID population.

Short-term discontinuation of vagal nerve stimulation alters 18F-FDG blood pool activity: an exploratory interventional study in epilepsy patients.

BACKGROUND: Vagus nerve activation impacts inflammation. Therefore, we hypothesized that vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) influenced arterial wall inflammation as measured by 18F-FDG uptake. RESULTS: Ten patients with left-sided VNS for refractory epilepsy were studied during stimulation (VNS-on) and in the hours after stimulation was switched off (VNS-off). In nine patients, 18F-FDG uptake was measured in the right carotid artery, aorta, bone marrow, spleen, and adipose tissue. Target-to-background ratios (TBRs) were calculated to normalize the respective standardized uptake values (SUVs) for venous blood pool activity. Median values are shown with interquartile range and compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Arterial SUVs tended to be higher during VNS-off than VNS-on [SUVmax all vessels 1.8 (1.5-2.2) vs. 1.7 (1.2-2.0), p = 0.051]. However, a larger difference was found for the venous blood pool at this time point, reaching statistical significance in the vena cava superior [meanSUVmean 1.3 (1.1-1.4) vs. 1.0 (0.8-1.1); p = 0.011], resulting in non-significant lower arterial TBRs during VNS-off than VNS-on. Differences in the remaining tissues were not significant. Insulin levels increased after VNS was switched off [55.0 pmol/L (45.9-96.8) vs. 48.1 pmol/L (36.9-61.8); p = 0.047]. The concurrent increase in glucose levels was not statistically significant [4.8 mmol/L (4.7-5.3) vs. 4.6 mmol/L (4.5-5.2); p = 0.075]. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term discontinuation of VNS did not show a consistent change in arterial wall 18F-FDG-uptake. However, VNS did alter insulin and 18F-FDG blood levels, possibly as a result of sympathetic activation.

Risk factors predisposing to psychotic symptoms during levetiracetam therapy: A retrospective study.

PURPOSE: While levetiracetam (LEV) usage is a known risk factor for psychosis in epilepsy, the modulating effect of certain patient and treatment characteristics on the risk of psychosis has yet to be fully elucidated. METHODS: In our tertiary epilepsy center, 84 patients with psychotic symptoms during LEV usage and 100 controls without psychotic symptoms during LEV usage were selected. Patient records were reviewed including demographics, medical history, antiepileptic drug use, and cognitive abilities. Univariate comparisons were performed, and variables with p < 0.1 were selected for binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The total incidence of psychosis during LEV therapy in our population was 3.7%. The timing of psychotic symptoms was classified as postictal in 20 (19.8%), interictal in 14 (15.4%), postepilepsy surgery in 1 (1.1%), and unknown in 18 cases (19.8%). In 31 cases (34.1%), psychotic symptoms were classified as an antiepileptic drug-induced psychotic disorder (AIPD) as a result of LEV. In 7 cases (7.7%), AIPD occurred as a result of a different antiepileptic drug. A significant association was found between the experience of psychotic symptoms and status epilepticus (p = 0.002), a history of psychotic symptoms (p < 0.000), a history of psychiatric illness other than psychosis (p = 0.010), and concomitant phenytoin (PHT) usage (p = 0.044). Cotherapy with lamotrigine (LTG) was protective (p = 0.042). A separate analysis of controls and exclusively the 31 cases with LEV-induced AIPD yielded comparable results; a significant association was confirmed with status epilepticus (p = 0.021) and history of psychotic symptoms (p = 0.018), as well as with female gender (p = 0.047) and intellectual disability (p = 0.043). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study found that psychotic symptoms during LEV therapy were significantly associated with status epilepticus, a history of psychotic symptoms, a history of psychiatric illness other than psychosis, and concomitant PHT usage, whereas concomitant LTG usage was protective. Psychotic symptoms specifically as an adverse drug reaction to LEV were significantly associated with female gender, intellectual disability, status epilepticus, and a history of psychotic symptoms.

Evaluation of seizure treatment in anti-LGI1, anti-NMDAR, and anti-GABABR encephalitis.

OBJECTIVE: This nationwide cohort study evaluates seizure responses to immunotherapy and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in patients with anti-leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1 (LGI1), anti-NMDA receptor (NMDAR), and anti-gamma-aminobutyric-acid B receptor (GABABR) encephalitis. METHODS: Anti-LGI1, anti-NMDAR, and anti-GABABR encephalitis patients with new-onset seizures were included. Medical information about disease course, AEDs and immunotherapies used, effects, and side effects were collected. Outcome measures were (1) seizure freedom while using AEDs or immunotherapy, (2) days to seizure freedom from start of AEDs or immunotherapy, and (3) side effects. RESULTS: Of 153 patients with autoimmune encephalitis (AIE) (53 LGI1, 75 NMDAR, 25 GABABR), 72% (n = 110) had epileptic seizures, and 89% reached seizure freedom. At least 53% achieved seizure freedom shortly after immunotherapy, and 14% achieved seizure freedom while using only AEDs (p < 0.0001). This effect was similar in all types (p = 0.0001; p = 0.0005; p = 0.013, respectively). Median time to seizure freedom from AEDs start was 59 days (interquartile range [IQR] 27-160), and 28 days from start of immunotherapy (IQR 9-71, p < 0.0001). Side effects were psychotic behavior and suicidal thoughts by the use of levetiracetam, and rash by the use of carbamazepine. Carbamazepine was more effective than levetiracetam in reducing seizures in anti-LGI1 encephalitis (p = 0.031). Only 1 patient, of 86 surviving patients, developed epilepsy after resolved encephalitis. CONCLUSION: Epilepsy after resolved encephalitis was rare in our cohort of patients with AIE treated with immunotherapy. In addition, seizure freedom is achieved faster and more frequently after immunotherapy. Therefore, AEDs should be considered as add-on treatment, and similar to treatment of other encephalitis symptoms, immunotherapy is crucial.

Structural covariance networks relate to the severity of epilepsy with focal-onset seizures.

PURPOSE: The brains of patients with epilepsy may exhibit various morphological abnormalities, which are often not directly visible on structural MR images, as they may be focally subtle or related to a more large-scale inconspicuous disorganization of brain structures. To explore the relation between structural brain organization and epilepsy characteristics, including severity and cognitive co-morbidity, we determined structural covariance networks (SCNs). SCNs represent interregional correlations of morphologic measures, for instance in terms of cortical thickness, between various large-scale distributed brain regions. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with focal seizures of all subtypes and 21 healthy controls underwent structural MRI, neurological, and IQ assessment. Cortical thickness was derived from the structural MRIs using FreeSurfer. Subsequently, SCNs were constructed on a group-level based on correlations of the cortical thicknesses between various brain regions. Individual SCNs for the epilepsy patients were extracted by adding the respective patient to the control group prior to the SCN construction (i.e. add-one-patient approach). Calculated network measures, i.e. path length, clustering coefficient and betweenness centrality were correlated with characteristics related to the severity of epilepsy, including seizure history and age at onset of epilepsy, and cognitive performance. RESULTS: Stronger clustering in the individual SCN was associated with a higher number of focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures during life time, a younger age at onset, and lower cognitive performance. The path length of the individual SCN was not related to the severity of epilepsy or cognitive performance. Higher betweenness centrality of the left cuneus and lower betweenness centrality of the right rostral middle frontal gyrus were associated with increased drug load and younger age at onset, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the correlations between interregional variations of cortical thickness reflect disease characteristics or responses to the disease and deficits in patients with epilepsy with focal seizures.

Anti-GAD antibodies in a cohort of neuropsychiatric patients.

OBJECTIVE: Antiglutamate decarboxylase (anti-GAD) antibodies are associated with several neurological manifestations, like epilepsy and movement disorders. However, in daily neurological practice, it remains hard to define when to test for anti-GAD antibodies in patients with neurologic and/or psychiatric symptoms. Therefore, here, we report the patient characteristics of a large retrospective cohort of patients tested for anti-GAD antibodies in clinical practice and compare the characteristics of anti-GAD positive and anti-GAD negative patients. METHODS: We blindly assessed relevant clinical symptoms and comorbidities and functional outcome with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) in a retrospective observational cohort of all patients in which the decision to assess anti-GAD levels had been made based solely on the presence of possible associated neurological and/or psychiatric symptoms (N=119). RESULTS: Out of 119 patients, 17 (14.3%) were anti-GAD positive. The anti-GAD positive patients had a median age of 30years (range: 3-64; 2 children). They all had epilepsy, with 8 (47%) patients reporting cognitive complaints. Psychiatric symptoms were less prevalent in anti-GAD positive patients, only 1 anti-GAD positive patient (6%) versus 34 anti-GAD negative patients (33%) reported psychiatric symptoms (p=0.021). The most frequent comorbidity of anti-GAD positive patients was diabetes mellitus type 1 (n=8). Twelve (71%) and 13 (78%) of the anti-GAD positive patients were functionally independent at the time of diagnosis and after one year, respectively (mRS score: 0 to 2). There was no significant difference in functional status at any time during follow-up compared with the anti-GAD negative group. CONCLUSION: Antiglutamate decarboxylase (anti-GAD) antibodies relate to epilepsy with or without cognitive complaints. However, psychiatric symptoms were almost absent in anti-GAD positive patients, and the presence of anti-GAD antibodies contributed little to the prognosis in our cohort.

Effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the ZMILE study was to compare the effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention (MCI) with care as usual (CAU) in adult patients with epilepsy (PWE) over a six-month period. METHODS: Participants (PWE & relative) were randomized into intervention or CAU groups. Self-report questionnaires were used to measure disease-specific self-efficacy as the primary outcome measure and general self-efficacy, adherence, seizure severity, emotional functioning, quality of life, proactive coping, and side-effects of antiepileptic drugs (AED) as secondary outcome measures. Instruments used at baseline and during a six-month follow-up period were the following: disease-specific self-efficacy (Epilepsy Self-Efficacy Scale [ESES], General Self-Efficacy Scale [GSES]); adherence (Medication Adherence Scale [MARS] and Medication Event Monitoring System [MEMS]); seizure severity (National Hospital Seizure Severity Scale [NHS3]); emotional well-being (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]); quality of life (Quality of Life in Epilepsy [QOLIE-31P]); proactive coping (Utrecht Proactive Coping Competence [UPCC]); and side-effects of antiepileptic drugs [SIDAED]. Multilevel analyses were performed, and baseline differences were corrected by inclusion of covariates in the analyses. RESULTS: In total, 102 PWE were included in the study, 52 of whom were in the intervention group. On the SIDAED and on three of the quality of life subscales QOLIE-31P, a significant difference was found (p<0.05) in the intervention group. Self-efficacy, however, showed no significant differences between the MCI and the CAU groups. None of the other outcome measures showed any significant difference between the two groups. SIGNIFICANCE: Although we found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome measure, disease-specific self-efficacy, this MCI could prove promising, since we found improvement in some domains of quality of life in epilepsy scale and a decrease in AED side-effects in the MCI group compared with the CAU group.

A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the responsiveness of and correlation between the EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P in patients with epilepsy, and develop a mapping function to predict EQ-5D-5L values based on the QOLIE-31P for use in economic evaluations. METHODS: The dataset was derived from two clinical trials, the ZMILE study in the Netherlands and the SMILE study in the UK. In both studies, patients' quality of life using the EQ-5D-5L and QOLIE-31P was measured at baseline and 12 months follow-up. Spearman's correlations, effect sizes (EF) and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated for both the EQ-5D-5L and QOLIE-31P domains and sub scores. Mapping functions were derived using ordinary least square (OLS) and censored least absolute deviations models. RESULTS: A total of 509 patients were included in this study. Low to moderately strong significant correlations were found between both instruments. The EQ-5D-5L showed high ceiling effects and small EFs and SRMs, whereas the QOLIE-31P did not show ceiling effects and also showed small to moderate EFs and SRMs. Results of the different mapping functions indicate that the highest adjusted R 2 we were able to regress was 0.265 using an OLS model with squared terms, leading to a mean absolute error of 0.103. CONCLUSIONS: Results presented in this study emphasize the shortcomings of the EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy and the importance of the development of condition-specific preference-based instruments which can be used within the QALY framework. In addition, the usefulness of the constructed mapping function in economic evaluations is questionable.

Process evaluation of a multi-component self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study).

BACKGROUND: People with epilepsy need to monitor and manage their symptoms. They, as well as their relatives, have to deal with the psychological burden, reflected in a reduced quality of life. Support in self-management can be of importance. We have developed a multi-component self-management intervention for patients and their relatives (MCI). This eight-week group intervention is conducted by nurse practitioners and consists of six two-hour sessions. The main components are: 1) providing self-management education, 2) stimulating proactive coping and goal-setting and 3) facilitating peer and social support. This study is a process evaluation to establish the feasibility, fidelity and acceptability of the intervention by assessing performance according to protocol, attendance and adherence, and the opinion of patients, relatives and facilitators about the intervention. METHOD: Study population consists of 52 patients with epilepsy living in the community (e.g. at home), 37 relatives and six facilitators. In this prospective mixed methods study, data were gathered using questionnaires for patients and relatives, registration forms for facilitators and by carrying out semi-structured group interviews with patients, relatives and facilitators. RESULTS: Patients and relatives attended a mean of 5.2 sessions. Forty-seven (90%) patients and 32 (86.5%) relatives attended at least five sessions. The mean group size was 8.1 (SD=1.3; range 6-10). All elements of the intervention were offered to participants, except for one e-Health tool which was only available at the start of the study. Overall, the sessions were considered useful by patients, their relatives and facilitators. The participation of a relative (social support) and sharing ideas and feelings about having epilepsy with peers (peer support) were rated as important aspects. CONCLUSION: This process evaluation revealed that the MCI was largely performed according to protocol, attendance rate was high, and participants and facilitators had, on the whole, a favourable opinion about the MCI, and would recommend it to others with epilepsy and their relatives. Overall, the adherence of patients and relatives was high. The MCI is considered feasible according to patients, relatives and facilitators. Implementation is recommended if the intervention proves to be effective.

An economic evaluation of a multicomponent self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study).

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this (trial-based) economic evaluation was, from a societal perspective, to compare the cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention (MCI) with care as usual (CAU) in adult patients with epilepsy over a 12-month period. METHODS: In a randomized-controlled trial, participants were randomized into intervention or CAU group. Adherence, self-efficacy (Epilepsy Self-Efficacy Scale [ESES]), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), healthcare costs, production losses, and patient and family costs were assessed at baseline and during the 12-month study period. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (i.e., cost per increased adherence, self-efficacy, or QALY), and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 102 patients were included in the study, of whom 52 were in the intervention group. Adherence rates over 6 months were 63.7% for the CAU group and 75.9% for the intervention group. Adherence, ESES, and quality of life did not differ significantly between groups. An ICER of €54 per point increase in ESES score at 6 months and €1,105 per point increase at 12-month follow-up was found. The intervention resulted in an ICER of €88 per percentage of adherence increase at 6 months. ICERs of €8,272 and €15,144 per QALY gained were found at 6- and 12-month follow-up, respectively. SIGNIFICANCE: Although no statistically significant difference was found after baseline adjustments, cost-effectiveness estimates for MCI appear promising. As rules of inference are arbitrary, it has been argued that decisions should be based only on the net benefits, irrespective of whether differences are statistically significant. Hence, the MCI may be a cost-effective addition to the current standard care for adults with epilepsy.

Long-term clinical outcomes and economic evaluation of the ketogenic diet versus care as usual in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine long-term retention rate, clinical outcomes, cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of the Ketogenic Diet (KD) compared with care as usual (CAU) in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy from a societal perspective. METHODS: Participants were randomized into a KD or CAU group. Seizure frequency, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), side-effects, seizure severity, health care costs, production losses, patient and family costs were assessed at baseline and during 16-months of follow-up. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (i.e. cost per QALY and cost per responder) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves are presented. RESULTS: 48 children were included in the analyses of this study (26 from KD group). In total, 58% of the KD group completed the follow-up of 16 months; 11 dropped-out for various reasons. At 16 months, 35% of the KD participants had a seizure reduction≥50% from baseline, compared with 18% of the CAU participants. Mean costs per patient in the CAU group were €53,367 (extrapolated) compared to €61,019 per patient in the KD group, resulting in an ICER of €46,564 per responder. Cost per QALY rose well above any acceptable ceiling ratio. At 4-months' follow-up, the KD group showed significantly more gastro-intestinal problems compared to the CAU group. At 16 months, the KD group reported fewer problems compared to CAU. Furthermore, 46.2% of the KD group reported a decrease in severity of their worst seizure compared to 32% of the CAU group. CONCLUSION: The KD group resulted in more responders and showed greater improvement on seizure severity. Furthermore, the KD did not lead to worsening of side-effects other than gastro-intestinal problems (only at 4 months' follow-up). However, as only a minimal difference in QALYs was found between the KD group and the CAU group, the resulting cost per QALY ratios were inconclusive.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy.

The increasing number of treatment options and the high costs associated with epilepsy have fostered the development of economic evaluations in epilepsy. It is important to examine the availability and quality of these economic evaluations and to identify potential research gaps. As well as looking at both pharmacologic (antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) and nonpharmacologic (e.g., epilepsy surgery, ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation) therapies, this review examines the methodologic quality of the full economic evaluations included. Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Econlit, Web of Science, and CEA Registry. In addition, Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane DARE and Cochrane Health Technology Assessment Databases were used. To identify relevant studies, predefined clinical search strategies were combined with a search filter designed to identify health economic studies. Specific search strategies were devised for the following topics: (1) AEDs, (2) patients with cognitive deficits, (3) elderly patients, (4) epilepsy surgery, (5) ketogenic diet, (6) vagus nerve stimulation, and (7) treatment of (non)convulsive status epilepticus. A total of 40 publications were included in this review, 29 (73%) of which were articles about pharmacologic interventions. Mean quality score of all articles on the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC)-extended was 81.8%, the lowest quality score being 21.05%, whereas five studies had a score of 100%. Looking at the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), the average quality score was 77.0%, the lowest being 22.7%, and four studies rated as 100%. There was a substantial difference in methodology in all included articles, which hampered the attempt to combine information meaningfully. Overall, the methodologic quality was acceptable; however, some studies performed significantly worse than others. The heterogeneity between the studies stresses the need to define a reference case (e.g., how should an economic evaluation within epilepsy be performed) and to derive consensus on what constitutes "standard optimal care."