An evidence-based approach to provide essential and desirable components to develop surveys on Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) for doctors: A focused review.

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is a major concern for people with epilepsy, their families, their care givers, and medical professionals. There is inconsistency in the SUDEP counselling doctors provide, compared to what is recommended in clinical guidelines. Numerous national and international surveys have highlighted how epilepsy professionals, usually doctors, deliver SUDEP risk counselling, particularly, when they deliver it and to whom. These surveys help understand the unmet need, develop suitable strategies, and raise awareness among clinicians with the eventual goal to reduce SUDEPs. However, there is no standardised survey or essential set of questions identified that can be used to evaluate SUDEP counselling practice globally. This focused review analyses the content of all published SUDEP counselling surveys for medical professionals (n=16) to date covering over 4000 doctors across over 30 countries and five continents. It identifies 36 question themes across three topics. The questions are then reviewed by an expert focus group of SUDEP communication experts including three doctors, an expert statistician and SUDEP Action, an UK based charity specialising in epilepsy deaths with a pre-set criterion. The review and focus group provide ten essential questions that should be included in all future surveys inquiring on SUDEP counselling. They could be used to evaluate current practice and compare findings over time, between services, across countries and between professional groups. They are provided as a template to download and use. The review also explores if there is a continued need in future for similar surveys to justify this activity.

Rapid switching from levetiracetam to brivaracetam in pharmaco-resistant epilepsy in people with and without intellectual disabilities: a naturalistic case control study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one quarter of people with an intellectual disability (PwID) have epilepsy of whom nearly three-quarters are pharmaco-resistant. There are higher reported neuropsychiatric side-effects to anti-seizure medication (ASM) in this group. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a first-line ASM with a stronger association with neuropsychiatric symptoms for PwID than other ASMs. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a newer ASM. Recent studies suggest a beneficial effect of swapping people who experience neuropsychiatric events with LEV to BRV. However, there is limited evidence of this for PwID. This evaluation analyses real world outcomes of LEV to BRV swap for PwID compared to those without ID. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, retrospective review of clinical records. Demographic, clinical characteristics and reported adverse events of patients switched from LEV to BRV (2016-2020) were recorded at 3 months pre and 6- and 12-month post-BRV initiation. Outcomes were compared between PwID and those without and summarised using cross-tabulations and logistic regression models. A Bonferroni correction was applied. RESULTS: Of 77 participants, 46 had ID and 52% had a past psychiatric illness. 71% participants switched overnight from LEV to BRV. Seizure reduction of > 50% was seen in 40% patients. Psychiatric illness history was predictive of having neuropsychiatric side-effects with LEV but not BRV (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference for any primary outcomes between PwID versus without ID. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from LEV to BRV appears as well tolerated and efficacious in PwID as those without ID with over 90% still on BRV after 12 months.

Tackling increased risks in older adults with intellectual disability and epilepsy: Data from a national multicentre cohort study.

PURPOSE: People with intellectual disabilities (ID) suffer multimorbidity, polypharmacy and excess mortality at a younger age than general population. Those with ID and epilepsy are at higher risk of worse clinical outcomes than their peers without epilepsy. In the ID population the health profile of those aged ≥40 years can be compared to those aged over 65 in the general population. To date there is limited data available to identify clinical characteristics and risk factors in older adults (≥40 years) with ID and epilepsy. METHODS: The Epilepsy in ID National Audit (Epi-IDNA) identified 904 patients with ID and epilepsy from 10 sites in England and Wales. This subsequent analysis of the Epi-IDNA cohort compared the 405 adults over 40 years with 499 adults ≥18 years aged under 40 years. Comparison was made between clinical characteristics and established risk factors using the Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) and Seizure Safety Checklist. RESULTS: The older adults' cohort had significantly higher levels of co-morbid physical health conditions, mental health conditions, anti-seizure medications (median 5), and antipsychotics compared to the younger cohort. The older group were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with a co-morbid neurodevelopmental disorder, and to have an epilepsy care plan. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study to date focused on adults with ID and epilepsy over 40 years. The ≥40 years cohort compared to the younger group has higher levels of clinical risk factors associated with multi-morbidity, potential iatrogenic harm and premature mortality with worse clinical oversight mechanisms.

The provision of care to adults with an intellectual disability in the UK. A Special report from the intellectual disability UK chapter ILAE.

PURPOSE: This article reflects the report by the British Branch of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Working Group on services for adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability (ID). Its terms of reference was to explore the current status of aspects of the care of people with an ID and epilepsy. METHODS: Survey content was developed from key themes identified by consensus of the working group. An electronic survey was distributed via email. The sample population was the membership of the ILAE UK, Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) Faculty of ID, Epilepsy Nurses Association (ESNA), and the Association of British Neurologists (ABN). Following a six week response period the data was then collated, anonymised and distributed to the working group in order that opinion statements could be gathered. RESULTS: The time taken for individuals with both new-onset and established epilepsy to undergo routine investigation was commonly at least 1-3 months, far beyond recommendations made by NICE (CG20). A small minority of clinicians would not consider non-pharmacological interventions including epilepsy surgery, vagus nerve stimulation, and ketogenic diet for this population. Almost universally responders are actively involved in the assessment and management of key risk areas including risk of drowning, hospitalization, medication side effects, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). CONCLUSION: This investigation identifies key themes and recommendations relating to care delivery and meeting the complex needs of people with ID and epilepsy. Adults with ID and epilepsy appear to exist in a unique, but inadequate, segment of epilepsy care delivery.