The relationship between physical activity and cognitive function in people with epilepsy: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to systematically review the published literature evaluating the association between physical activity and cognitive function in people with epilepsy (PWE). METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and PsychInfo was performed on June 20, 2022. Studies were excluded if they were not available in the English language, contained animal data only, did not include any original data, were not peer-reviewed, or did not include PWE as a discrete group. PRISMA guidelines were followed. The GRADE scale was used to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: Six studies were identified with a total of 123 participants. These included one observational study and five interventional studies, only one of which was a randomized controlled trial. In all studies, there was a positive association between physical activity and cognitive function in PWE. Both interventional studies showed improvement in at least one domain of cognitive functioning, though there was heterogeneity in the outcome measures used. CONCLUSIONS: There is a potential positive association between physical activity and cognitive function in PWE, but available data is limited by heterogeneity, small sample size, and an overall lack of published studies in this area of research. There is a need for more robust studies to be performed in larger samples of PWE.

A single-center survey on physical activity barriers, behaviors and preferences in adults with epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Improved understanding of physical activity barriersand preferences in people with epilepsyis needed to successfully design and perform larger, more robust effectivenesstrials. METHODS: Adult patients at a single tertiary epilepsy center between January and April 2020 were surveyed. The survey included a validated physical activity questionnaire (Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly) plus 15 items aimed to address 1) perceptions and beliefs regarding physical activity, 2) barriers to routine physical activity, and 3) willingness and ability to participate in a physical activity intervention and 4) current physical abilities, activities, and preferences. RESULTS: 95 participants with epilepsy (age 42 ± 16.2, 59 % female) completed the survey. Sixty-five participants (68.4 %) reported that they believe that physical activity could improve their seizure frequency. However, 40 % of those surveyed said their neurologist had never talked to them about physical activity. The most commonly reported barriers to physical activity were lack of time (24.7 %) and fear of having a seizure (19.7 %), while barriers to intervention participation included being unable to come to in-person sessions (53 % of those willing to participate),living far away (39.3 %), time constraints (28.6 %), and lack of transportation (21.4 %). CONCLUSION: Future physical activity studies in people with epilepsy should focus on using tailored interventions that accommodate their unique beliefs and barriers.

Incidence of seizure exacerbation and injury related to football participation in people with epilepsy.

INTRODUCTION: There is scant evidence to quantify the risk of contact sports such as football to patients with epilepsy. This retrospective review was performed to evaluate the incidence of injuries or seizure exacerbation related to football participation in patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Between the years 1994 and 2004, 157,709 consecutive clinic notes were searched for mention of "football" and "epilepsy" or "seizure". Resulting notes were reviewed to quantify the number of seizure exacerbations and the number of injuries in this cohort. RESULTS: Seven of 44 subjects with epilepsy (15.9%) experienced injury while playing football. Four of 32 (12.5%) patients experienced seizure exacerbation during a time when they were concurrently participating in football though 3 of these patients stopped taking or were weaned off of their antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). One in 32 patients with epilepsy (3.1%) had an exacerbation of seizures while playing football and consistently taking AEDs. CONCLUSION: The risk of injury and seizure exacerbation due to participation in football for patients with epilepsy is low. Clinicians should use their best judgment in deciding whether contact sports increase risks for a particular patient based on individual seizure frequency, concurrent neurological and medical issues, and medication adverse effects.

Quality of life in adults with epilepsy is associated with anticonvulsant polypharmacy independent of seizure status.

RATIONALE: Polypharmacy, sometimes necessary to control epilepsy, can result in adverse effects that may affect quality of life (QOL). Our purpose was to determine the association of polypharmacy with QOL. METHODS: Two hundred seven patients with epilepsy were surveyed on characteristics within the last 4weeks: QOL Quality of Life in Epilepsy-Patient-Weighted (QOLIE-10-P) and seizure status (seizure-free or not), demographics, epilepsy characteristics, insomnia, sleepiness, mood, sleep-wake timing, healthcare use, and employment. Those on polypharmacy (antiepileptic drug (AED)>1) were compared with controls (AED=1) with univariate comparisons and subsequent multivariate regression. RESULTS: Patients on polypharmacy had worse QOL scores (mean 33.3±6.9 versus 36.7±5.7), were less likely to be seizure-free (39 (44%) versus 82 (68%)), had more evening-weighted wakefulness, and were more likely unemployed (74% versus 49%). Polypharmacy was associated with worse QOL (odds ratio 1.068 and 95th CI 1.018-1.121) even after controlling for seizure status. Covariates offered no improvement to the model. CONCLUSION: Polypharmacy was associated with worse QOL in patients with epilepsy despite seizure control. Further investigation into specific etiology of polypharmacy's influence on QOL is warranted in order to develop paradigms for optimal treatment.

Quality of life during usual epilepsy care for anxiety or depression symptoms: Secondary patient-reported outcomes in a randomized trial of remote assessment methods.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Anxiety and depression are highly prevalent and impactful in epilepsy. American Academy of Neurology quality measures emphasize anxiety and depression screening and quality of life (QOL) measurement, yet usual epilepsy care QOL and anxiety/depression outcomes are poorly characterized. The main objective was to assess 6-month QOL, anxiety and depression during routine care among adults with epilepsy and baseline anxiety or depression symptoms; these were prespecified secondary outcomes within a pragmatic randomized trial of remote assessment methods. METHODS: Adults with anxiety or depression symptoms and no suicidal ideation were recruited from a tertiary epilepsy clinic via an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded process. Participants were randomized 1:1 to 6 month outcome collection via patient portal EHR questionnaires vs. telephone interview. This report focuses on an a priori secondary outcomes of the overall trial, focused on patient-reported health outcomes in the full sample. Quality of life, (primary health outcome), anxiety, and depression measures were collected at 3 and 6 months (Quality of Life in Epilepsy-10, QOLIE-10, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory-Epilepsy). Change values and 95 % confidence intervals were calculated. In post-hoc exploratory analyses, patient-reported anxiety/depression management plans at baseline clinic visit and healthcare utilization were compared with EHR-documentation, and agreement was calculated using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Overall, 30 participants (15 per group) were recruited and analyzed, of mean age 42.5 years, with 60 % women. Mean 6-month change in QOLIE-10 overall was 2.0(95 % CI -6.8, 10.9), and there were no significant differences in outcomes between the EHR and telephone groups. Mean anxiety and depression scores were stable across follow-up (all 95 % CI included zero). Outcomes were similar regardless of whether an anxiety or depression action plan was documented. During the baseline interview, most participants with clinic visit EHR documentation indicating action to address anxiety and/or depression reported not being offered a treatment(7 of 12 with action plan, 58 %), and there was poor agreement between patient report and EHR documentation (kappa=0.22). Healthcare utilization was high: 40 % had at least one hospitalization or emergency/urgent care visit reported and/or identified via EHR, but a third (4/12) failed to self-report an EHR-identified hospitalization/urgent visit. DISCUSSION: Over 6 months of usual care among adults with epilepsy and anxiety or depression symptoms, there was no significant average improvement in quality of life or anxiety/depression, suggesting a need for interventions to enhance routine neurology care and achieve quality of life improvement for this group.

Positive anxiety or depression screen despite ongoing antidepressant prescription in people with epilepsy: A large cross-sectional analysis.

Purpose: While antidepressants are recommended to manage anxiety or depression in epilepsy, limited effectiveness data exist in real-world epilepsy samples, and prior work indicated frequent positive screens despite antidepressant prescription. In response, this study evaluates factors associated with positive anxiety or depression screen during ongoing antidepressant prescription. Methods: Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were collected among consecutive adult epilepsy clinic patients completing validated anxiety and depression instruments. The sample was divided by presence vs absence of existing antidepressant prescription at time of screening. Among those on an antidepressant, multivariable logistic regression was performed on pre-selected characteristics to evaluate for association with positive anxiety and/or depression screen. Pre-selected characteristics included: antidepressant dose, antidepressant prescriber specialty, antiseizure medications (number, potential psychotropic effects), seizure frequency, employment, visit no-shows, and medical insurance. Results: Of 563 people with epilepsy, 152 had evidence of antidepressant prescription at time of screening and 73/152(48%) had positive anxiety and/or depression screen. Multivariable modeling demonstrated low antidepressant dose and no-show visit(s) were associated with positive screens (adjusted OR 2.29, CI 1.00-5.48 and 3.11, 1.26-8.22 respectively). Conclusion: Low antidepressant dose and factors potentially associated with adherence (visit no-shows) may contribute to persistent anxiety and/or depression among epilepsy patients on an antidepressant.

Patient-reported outcomes via electronic health record portal versus telephone: a pragmatic randomized pilot trial of anxiety or depression symptoms in epilepsy.

Objective: To close gaps between research and clinical practice, tools are needed for efficient pragmatic trial recruitment and patient-reported outcome collection. The objective was to assess feasibility and process measures for patient-reported outcome collection in a randomized trial comparing electronic health record (EHR) patient portal questionnaires to telephone interview among adults with epilepsy and anxiety or depression symptoms. Materials and Methods: Recruitment for the randomized trial began at an epilepsy clinic visit, with EHR-embedded validated anxiety and depression instruments, followed by automated EHR-based research screening consent and eligibility assessment. Fully eligible individuals later completed telephone consent, enrollment, and randomization. Participants were randomized 1:1 to EHR portal versus telephone outcome assessment, and patient-reported and process outcomes were collected at 3 and 6 months, with primary outcome 6-month retention in EHR arm (feasibility target: ≥11 participants retained). Results: Participants (N = 30) were 60% women, 77% White/non-Hispanic, with mean age 42.5 years. Among 15 individuals randomized to EHR portal, 10 (67%, CI 41.7%-84.8%) met the 6-month retention endpoint, versus 100% (CI 79.6%-100%) in the telephone group (P = 0.04). EHR outcome collection at 6 months required 11.8 min less research staff time per participant than telephone (5.9, CI 3.3-7.7 vs 17.7, CI 14.1-20.2). Subsequent telephone contact after unsuccessful EHR attempts enabled near complete data collection and still saved staff time. Discussion: In this randomized study, EHR portal outcome assessment did not meet the retention feasibility target, but EHR method saved research staff time compared to telephone. Conclusion: While EHR portal outcome assessment was not feasible, hybrid EHR/telephone method was feasible and saved staff time.