The reality of epilepsy in primary care in Rio de Janeiro: the importance of educational projects for better patient care.

BACKGROUND: The Basic Health Unit (Unidade Básica de Saúde - UBS, in Portuguese) is the first point of contact in the public healthcare system for people with epilepsy. Primary care professionals need to appropriately diagnose, treat, and refer, if necessary, to tertiary services. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the knowledge of UBS professionals on the management of patients with epilepsy in Rio de Janeiro. METHODS: Online questionnaires were performed on the topic of epilepsy before and after exposure to classes taught by epileptologists. RESULTS: A total of 66 doctors participated, 54.5% of whom were residents or trained in family medicine. The majority had from 1 to 3 years of practice. Insecurity prevailed in the management of pregnant women and the elderly. Around 59.1% of the participants referred patients with seizures without examinations. A total of 78% of the participants did not correctly classify seizure types, and 2/3 did not define drug-resistant epilepsy. Induction and broad-spectrum drugs were common. The therapeutic decision depended on availability in the basic health unit (UBS) (81.8%), dosage (60.6%), side effects (34.8%), and age (36.4%). Comorbidities and sex influenced 1/4 of the sample. For 23% of the participants, the type of crisis did not affect the choice. Regarding typical non-pharmacological options, 75% of the participants were aware of cannabidiol, 40.9% of surgery, 22.7% of ketogenic diet, and 22.8% of deep brain stimulation/vagus nerve stimulation (DBS/VNS). A total of 90.2% indicated the need for training. CONCLUSION: There are deficits in the knowledge of UBS professionals in the management of epilepsy. Specialized training is imperative to optimize the care offered within SUS.

ANTECEDENTES: A Unidade Básica de Saúde (UBS) é o primeiro contato no sistema público de saúde para pessoas com epilepsia. Profissionais de atenção primária precisam diagnosticar, tratar e encaminhar adequadamente, se necessário, a serviços terciários. OBJETIVO: Avaliar o conhecimento dos profissionais das UBSs sobre o manejo de pacientes com epilepsia no Rio de Janeiro. MéTODOS: Foram realizados questionários online sobre o tema da epilepsia pré e pós exposição a aulas ministradas por epileptólogos. RESULTADOS: Participaram 66 médicos, sendo 54,5% residentes ou formados em medicina da família. A maioria tinha de 1 a 3 anos de prática. A insegurança prevaleceu no manejo de gestantes e idosos. Cerca de 59,1% dos participantes encaminhavam pacientes com crises sem exames. Um total de 78% dos participantes não classificou corretamente tipos de crises, e 2/3 não definiram epilepsia farmacorresistente. Fármacos indutores e de amplo espectro foram comuns. A decisão terapêutica dependeu da disponibilidade na Unidade Básica de Saúde (UBS) (81,8%), posologia (60,6%), efeitos colaterais (34,8%) e idade (36,4%). Comorbidades e sexo influenciaram 1/4 da amostra. Para 23% dos participantes, o tipo de crise não afetou a escolha. Quanto a opções não farmacológicas típicas, 75% conheciam o canabidiol, 40,9% a cirurgia, 22,7% a dieta cetogênica, 22,8% a estimulação cerebral profunda/estimulação do nervo vago (ECP/ENV). Um total de 90,2% dos participantes indicou necessidade de treinamento. CONCLUSãO: Há déficits no conhecimento dos profissionais das UBSs no manejo da epilepsia. O treinamento especializado é imperativo para otimizar o cuidado oferecido no âmbito do SUS.

The reality of epilepsy in primary care in Rio de Janeiro: the importance of educational projects for better patient care / A realidade da epilepsia na atenção primária no Rio de Janeiro: a importância de projetos educacionais para o melhor cuidado ao paciente

Abstract Background The Basic Health Unit (Unidade Básica de Saúde - UBS, in Portuguese) is the first point of contact in the public healthcare system for people with epilepsy. Primary care professionals need to appropriately diagnose, treat, and refer, if necessary, to tertiary services. Objective To evaluate the knowledge of UBS professionals on the management of patients with epilepsy in Rio de Janeiro. Methods Online questionnaires were performed on the topic of epilepsy before and after exposure to classes taught by epileptologists. Results A total of 66 doctors participated, 54.5% of whom were residents or trained in family medicine. The majority had from 1 to 3 years of practice. Insecurity prevailed in the management of pregnant women and the elderly. Around 59.1% of the participants referred patients with seizures without examinations. A total of 78% of the participants did not correctly classify seizure types, and 2/3 did not define drug-resistant epilepsy. Induction and broad-spectrum drugs were common. The therapeutic decision depended on availability in the basic health unit (UBS) (81.8%), dosage (60.6%), side effects (34.8%), and age (36.4%). Comorbidities and sex influenced 1/4 of the sample. For 23% of the participants, the type of crisis did not affect the choice. Regarding typical non-pharmacological options, 75% of the participants were aware of cannabidiol, 40.9% of surgery, 22.7% of ketogenic diet, and 22.8% of deep brain stimulation/vagus nerve stimulation (DBS/VNS). A total of 90.2% indicated the need for training. Conclusion There are deficits in the knowledge of UBS professionals in the management of epilepsy. Specialized training is imperative to optimize the care offered within SUS.

Resumo Antecedentes A Unidade Básica de Saúde (UBS) é o primeiro contato no sistema público de saúde para pessoas com epilepsia. Profissionais de atenção primária precisam diagnosticar, tratar e encaminhar adequadamente, se necessário, a serviços terciários. Objetivo Avaliar o conhecimento dos profissionais das UBSs sobre o manejo de pacientes com epilepsia no Rio de Janeiro. Métodos Foram realizados questionários online sobre o tema da epilepsia pré e pós exposição a aulas ministradas por epileptólogos. Resultados Participaram 66 médicos, sendo 54,5% residentes ou formados em medicina da família. A maioria tinha de 1 a 3 anos de prática. A insegurança prevaleceu no manejo de gestantes e idosos. Cerca de 59,1% dos participantes encaminhavam pacientes com crises sem exames. Um total de 78% dos participantes não classificou corretamente tipos de crises, e 2/3 não definiram epilepsia farmacorresistente. Fármacos indutores e de amplo espectro foram comuns. A decisão terapêutica dependeu da disponibilidade na Unidade Básica de Saúde (UBS) (81,8%), posologia (60,6%), efeitos colaterais (34,8%) e idade (36,4%). Comorbidades e sexo influenciaram 1/4 da amostra. Para 23% dos participantes, o tipo de crise não afetou a escolha. Quanto a opções não farmacológicas típicas, 75% conheciam o canabidiol, 40,9% a cirurgia, 22,7% a dieta cetogênica, 22,8% a estimulação cerebral profunda/estimulação do nervo vago (ECP/ENV). Um total de 90,2% dos participantes indicou necessidade de treinamento. Conclusão Há déficits no conhecimento dos profissionais das UBSs no manejo da epilepsia. O treinamento especializado é imperativo para otimizar o cuidado oferecido no âmbito do SUS.

Predictive factors for successful vagus nerve stimulation in patients with refractory epilepsy: real-life insights from a multicenter study.

Introduction: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy is an established treatment for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy that reduces seizure frequency by at least 50% in approximately half of patients; however, the characteristics of the patients with the best response have not yet been identified. Thus, it is important to identify the profile of patients who would have the best response to guide early indications and better patient selection. Methods: This retrospective study evaluated vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) as an adjuvant therapy for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy from six epilepsy centers in Brazil. Data from 192 patients aged 2-66 years were analyzed, and all patients received at least 6 months of therapy to be included. Results: Included patients were aged 2-66 years (25.6 ± 14.3), 105 (54.7%) males and 87 (45.8%) females. Median follow-up interval was 5 years (range, 2005-2018). Overall, the response rate (≥50% seizure reduction) after VNS implantation was 65.6% (126/192 patients). Most patients had 50-90% seizure reduction (60.9%) and nine patients became seizure-free. There were no serious complications associated with VNS implantation. The rate of a ≥ 50% seizure reduction response was significantly higher in patients with no history of neurosurgery. The presence of focal without generalized seizures and focal discharges on interictal EEG was associated with better response. Overall, etiological predictors of a better VNS response profile were tumors while a worse response to VNS was related to the presence of vascular malformations and Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome. Discussion: We observed an association between a better response to VNS therapy no history of neurosurgery, focal interictal epileptiform activity, and focal seizure pattern. Additionally, it is important to highlight that age was not a determinant factor of the response, as children and adults had similar response rates. Thus, VNS therapy should be considered in both adults and children with DRE.

Epilepsy and acute respiratory syndrome ­ related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): are people with epilepsy at risk? / Epilepsia e síndrome respiratória aguda relacionada ao coronavírus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): as pessoas com epilepsia estão em risco?

In February 2020, the pandemic disease designated COVID-19, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has shown to be able to cause severe illness in some patients. Recent studies have hypothesized that the SARS-CoV-2 exploits the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor to gain entry inside the cells and so reach the central nervous system1. Amid this context, we have about 50 million people with epilepsy taking antiseizure drugs (ASDs) and or other medications (eg.: steroids, Cannabidiol, etc.) that are at risk to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 virus. So, we did an extensive review in the literature searching for recent studies that had explored the effects of the role of SARS-CoV-2 infection and epilepsy. We did not find evidence of poor outcomes between epilepsy and COVID-19. Regarding ASDs, we have found that enzyme inducers and inhibitors can have significant interactions with drugs that have been used to treat COVID-19 such as antiretrovirals, antibiotics, and antimalarial drugs. In contrast, others have fewer or no interactions with them as such as benzodiazepines, Lamotrigine, Levetiracetam, Topiramate, Perampanel, and so on. Besides that, the management of seizures in epileptic patients and status epilepticus should not be different from the usual protocol. However, the acknowledgment of these potential drug interactions could help in the right choice of ASDs, and also be aware of potential risk drug combinations and the importance in some cases of close monitoring of serum levels and adverse events.

Desde de Fevereiro de 2020, a doença pandêmica conhecida como COVID-19, causada pelo Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tem se mostrado capaz de acometer gravemente alguns pacientes. Estudos recentes levantaram hipóteses de que o SARSCoV-2 explora o receptor da enzima conversora de angiotensina 2 (ACE2) para entrar no interior das células e atingir o sistema nervoso central1 . Nesse contexto, temos cerca de 50 milhões de pessoas com epilepsia em uso de medicações antiepilépticas (DAEs) e ou outras medicações (como corticoesteroides, Canabidiol, etc.). Por isso, fizemos uma extensa revisão na literatura, buscando estudos recentes que exploraram os efeitos do papel da infecção por SARS-CoV-2 e da epilepsia. Até o momento, não há evidências de que pessoas com epilepsia apresentam prognóstico ruim no que se refere ao COVID-19. No que se refere aos antiepilépticos, foi encontrado que indutores e inibidores enzimáticos são os que apresentam mais interação medicamentosa com drogas utilizadas no tratamento do COVID-19, tais como antirretrovirais, antibióticos, e drogas antimaláricas, enquanto outras apresentam pouca ou nenhuma interação com esses. Além disso, o manejo de crises epilépticas e estado de mal epiléptico não deve diferente do protocolo usual. No entanto, o reconhecimento das potenciais interações medicamentosas nesse contexto pode auxiliar na escolha correta do antiepiléptico, e alertar sobre os potenciais riscos de combinação entre drogas e a importância de em alguns casos monitorizar de perto os níveis séricos e eventos adversos.