Living with epilepsy during COVID-19 pandemic restrictions: A longitudinal perspective.

The purpose of our study was to explore how people with epilepsy fared during two of the most stringent 4-month society-wide COVID-19-related pandemic restrictions in Ireland, in 2020 and one year later in 2021. This was in the context of their seizure control, lifestyle factors, and access to epilepsy-related healthcare services. A 14-part questionnaire was administered to adults with epilepsy during virtual specialist epilepsy clinics in a University Hospital in Dublin, Ireland at the end of the two lockdowns. People with epilepsy were questioned on their epilepsy control, lifestyle factors, and quality of epilepsy-related medical care, compared to pre-COVID times. The study sample consisted of two separate cohorts of those diagnosed with epilepsy (100 (51.8%) in 2020, and 93 (48.2%) in 2021, with similar baseline characteristics. There was no significant change in seizure control or lifestyle factors from 2020 to 2021, except for deterioration in anti-seizure medication (ASM) adherence in 2021 compared to 2020 (p = 0.028). There was no correlation between ASM adherence and other lifestyle factors. Over the two years, poor seizure control was significantly associated with poor sleep (p < 0.001) and average seizure frequency in a month (p = 0.007). We concluded that there was no significant difference between seizure control or lifestyle factors between the two most stringent lockdowns in Ireland, in 2020 and 2021. Furthermore, people with epilepsy reported that throughout the lockdowns access to services was well maintained, and they felt well supported by their services. Contrary to the popular opinion that COVID lockdowns greatly affected patients with chronic diseases, we found that those with epilepsy attending our service remained largely stable, optimistic, and healthy during this time.

Vigabatrin retinopathy in an Irish cohort: lack of correlation with dose.

PURPOSE: The anticonvulsant vigabatrin (VGB) causes irreversible visual-field constriction in 19-92% of patients. It is unclear whether this correlates with dosing, and the natural history of the retinopathy remains obscure. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients receiving long-term VGB to examine whether toxicity is related to the daily dose, duration of therapy, or cumulative dose. METHODS: Information from 93 patients taking long-term, stable VGB therapy was analyzed. We recorded data on patient demographics, VGB dosing, and all visual-field assessments. We used the mean redial degrees (MRD) from the right eye to compare the amount of constriction with the dose of VGB. RESULTS: The mean number of assessments was two (range, 1-6). Of patients having more than one assessment (n = 65), the mean follow-up time was 2.4 years (range, 0.7-5.6 years); in 52.7%, visual-field constriction developed. Male and female patients were affected equally. We found no correlation between the average MRD and either the maximum dose of VGB taken, the duration of exposure, or the cumulative dose. The shortest exposure time to development of constriction was 1.1 years. All patients with normal fields on initial assessment continued to have normal fields on follow-up. Most patients who had evidence of constriction on initial assessment and remained taking VGB showed no progression on follow-up. One patient had a substantial recovery of vision after discontinuation of VGB. CONCLUSIONS: Development of visual constriction in patients receiving prolonged, standard doses of VGB does not depend on the daily dose, duration of exposure, or cumulative dose. Other contributing factors were not identified. Our data suggest that field defects may develop within the first few years of therapy and possibly remain stable thereafter.