Estimating the active and lifetime prevalence and incidence of epilepsy in Asian Countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In the current era of the World Health Organization's Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders 2022-2031 (IGAP), precise and updated estimates of epilepsy burden are vital in formulating policies to improve the care of persons with epilepsy, especially in Asian countries with significant treatment gap. Hence, we aimed to consolidate the available data and quantify epilepsy prevalence and incidence estimates in Asian countries. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and Scopus databases from inception until March 2023 for studies reporting epilepsy prevalence and incidence in Asian countries. We applied random effects meta-analysis to generate the pooled prevalence and incidence using the Meta package in R. Additionally, we performed a subgroup meta-analysis to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity. A meta-regression analysis was conducted to examine the trend of epilepsy over time. RESULTS: A total of 99 studies with 100,654,124 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence was 5.6 per 1000 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 4.4-6.8) for active epilepsy and 6.7 per 1000 (95 % CI 5.7-7.9) for lifetime epilepsy. The pooled incidence rate of epilepsy was 52.5 per 100,000 person-years (95 % CI 42.7-79.4). The subgroup analysis revealed a higher prevalence of active epilepsy (6.7/1000) and lifetime epilepsy (8.6/1000) in West Asia than in other regions. The funnel plot and Egger's test (p-value =<0.0001) revealed publication bias for active epilepsy. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight a high prevalence of active and lifetime epilepsy in West Asia and emphasize the necessity of implementing and formulating specific strategies to tackle the epilepsy burden in this region. Furthermore, high-quality epidemiological studies incorporating economic burdens and comorbidities associated with epilepsy in Asia are still needed.

National plans and awareness campaigns as priorities for achieving global brain health.

Neurological conditions are the leading cause of death and disability combined. This public health crisis has become a global priority with the introduction of WHO's Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders 2022-2031 (IGAP). 18 months after this plan was adopted, global neurology stakeholders, including representatives of the OneNeurology Partnership (a consortium uniting global neurology organisations), take stock and advocate for urgent acceleration of IGAP implementation. Drawing on lessons from relevant global health contexts, this Health Policy identifies two priority IGAP targets to expedite national delivery of the entire 10-year plan: namely, to update national policies and plans, and to create awareness campaigns and advocacy programmes for neurological conditions and brain health. To ensure rapid attainment of the identified priority targets, six strategic drivers are proposed: universal community awareness, integrated neurology approaches, intersectoral governance, regionally coordinated IGAP domestication, lived experience-informed policy making, and neurological mainstreaming (advocating to embed brain health into broader policy agendas). Contextualised with globally emerging IGAP-directed efforts and key considerations for intersectoral policy design, this novel framework provides actionable recommendations for policy makers and IGAP implementation partners. Timely, synergistic pursuit of the six drivers might aid WHO member states in cultivating public awareness and policy structures required for successful intersectoral roll-out of IGAP by 2031, paving the way towards brain health for all.

Uses and abuses of the neuropsychological assessment in the presurgical evaluation of epilepsy surgery candidates.

Recent guidelines from the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) delineating the role of the neuropsychologist in the assessment of epilepsy surgery patients stress the collaborative contribution neuropsychologists should make to seizure characterization, lateralization and localization in the pre-surgical setting. The role they should play in the comprehensive counselling of surgical candidates, including exploration of the patient's expectations of surgical treatment is also mandated. In this paper we present two contrasting case studies which illustrate the importance of these roles and the impact they can have on patient outcomes. In Case A we describe the patient journey of a 69-year-old women with left hippocampal sclerosis and concordant neurophysiology and seizure semiology. We present the series of discussions and decisions which led her to reject the surgical option following a detailed exploration of her motivations for surgery and the likely cognitive consequences of the procedure. In Case B we describe the series of errors and omissions which led to the failure of a clinical team to correctly interpret and integrate neuropsychological findings into the larger clinical picture of a 19-year-old woman with a seven year history of seizures. These errors ultimately culminated in the patient undergoing a right temporal lobe resection to treat psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). The extent of integration of the data from the clinical neuropsychological assessment in the full presurgical evaluation was critical in determining the outcomes in both of these cases. Surgery did not solve Case B's problems and left her with the lifelong cognitive vulnerabilities that are associated with unilateral temporal lobe resection. In contrast, Case A was a good surgical candidate, but comprehensive integration of the neuropsychological findings into the larger clinical picture established that surgery was not the best solution to the problem she wished to solve.

European Clinical Neuropsychology: Role in Healthcare and Access to Neuropsychological Services.

This study analyzed aspects of the work of clinical neuropsychologists across Europe. There are no published comparisons between European countries regarding the nature of clinical neuropsychologists' work. Forty-one national psychological and neuropsychological societies were approached, of which 31 (76%) responded. Data from seven countries with less than 10 neuropsychologists were excluded. A license is required to practice clinical neuropsychology in 50% of the countries. Clinical neuropsychologists work independently in 62.5%. Diagnostic/assessment work is the most frequently reported activity (54%). Most neuropsychologists work in public hospitals, followed by health centers. Adult neuropsychology was the most frequent area of activity. Services in public institutions are covered by public entities (45.8%), or by a combination of patient funds and public entities (29.2%) and only 4.2% by the patient; whereas services in private institutions are covered by the patient (26.1%) and the combination of patient, public entities (21.7%) or patient and private entities (17.4%). The data suggest that the number of neuropsychologists working across European countries is considerably low in comparison to other medical professionals. The results of the survey identified similar aspects of neuropsychologists' work, despite variations in terms of reimbursement and mechanisms, reflecting economic and healthcare differences. Estimates on the number of clinical neuropsychologists suggest insufficient access to neuropsychological services.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. INTERPRETATION: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. INTERPRETATION: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Indications and expectations for neuropsychological assessment in epilepsy surgery in children and adults.

In our first paper in this series (Epilepsia 2015; 56(5): 674-681), we published recommendations for the indications and expectations for neuropsychological assessment in routine epilepsy care. This partner paper provides a comprehensive overview of the more specialist role of neuropsychological assessment in the pre and postoperative evaluation of epilepsy surgery patients. The paper is in two parts. The first part presents the framework for the mandatory role of neuropsychologists in the presurgical evaluation of epilepsy surgery candidates. A preoperative neuropsychological assessment should be comprised of standardised measures of cognitive function in addition to wider measures of behavioural and psychosocial function. The results from the presurgical assessment are used to: (1) establish a baseline against which change can be measured following surgery; (2) provide a collaborative contribution to seizure characterization, lateralization and localization; (3) provide evidence-based predictions of cognitive risk associated with the proposed surgery; and (4) provide the evidence base for comprehensive preoperative counselling, including exploration of patient expectations of surgical treatment. The second part examines the critical role of the neuropsychologist in the evaluation of postoperative outcomes. Neuropsychological changes following surgery are dynamic and a comprehensive, long-term assessment of these changes following surgery should form an integral part of the postoperative follow-up. The special considerations with respect to pre and postoperative assessment when working with paediatric populations and those with an intellectual disability are also discussed. The paper provides a summary checklist for neuropsychological involvement throughout the epilepsy surgery process, based on the recommendations discussed.

Fetal antiepileptic drug exposure and learning and memory functioning at 6 years of age: The NEAD prospective observational study.

The Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (NEAD) Study was a prospective observational multicenter study in the USA and UK, which enrolled pregnant women with epilepsy on antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapy from 1999 to 2004. The study aimed to determine if differential long-term neurodevelopmental effects exist across four commonly used AEDs (carbamazepine, lamotrigine, phenytoin, and valproate). In this report, we examine fetal AED exposure effects on learning and memory functions in 221 six-year-old children (including four sets of twins) whose mothers took one of these AEDs during pregnancy. Their performance was compared with that of a national sample of normally developing six year olds from the standardization sample of the Children's Memory Scale (CMS). The major results of this study indicate that the mean performance levels of children exposed to valproate were significantly below that of the children in the normal comparison group across all seven of the CMS Indexes. With one exception, this finding held up at the subtest level as well. These findings taken together with nonsignificant verbal and nonverbal forgetting scores appear to indicate that, as a group, children exposed to valproate experienced significant difficulty in their ability to process, encode, and learn both auditory/verbal as well as visual/nonverbal material. In addition, they exhibited significant difficulty holding and manipulating information in immediate auditory working memory. However, once the information was learned and stored, the valproate-exposed children appeared to be able to retrieve the information they did learn at normal levels. Finally, the processing, working memory, and learning deficits demonstrated by the valproate-exposed children are dose-related. In contrast to valproate, the findings pertaining to the children exposed to carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and phenytoin in monotherapy are less clear. Therefore, further research will be required to delineate the potential risks to learning and memory functions in children exposed to carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and phenytoin in monotherapy during pregnancy. Additional research employing larger prospective studies will be required to confirm the long-term cognitive and behavioral risks to children of mothers who are prescribed these four AEDs during pregnancy as well as to delineate any potential risks of newer AEDs and to understand the underlying mechanisms of adverse AED effects on the immature brain.

Patient-Focused Drug Development Methods for Benefit-Risk Assessments: A Case Study Using a Discrete Choice Experiment for Antiepileptic Drugs.

Regulatory decisions may be enhanced by incorporating patient preferences for drug benefit and harms. This study demonstrates a method of weighting clinical evidence by patients' benefit-risk preferences. Preference weights, derived from discrete choice experiments, were applied to clinical trial data to estimate the expected utility of alternative drugs. In a case study, the rank ordering of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), as indicated from clinical studies, was compared with ordering based on weighting clinical evidence by patients' preferences. A statistically significant change in rank ordering of AEDs was observed for women of childbearing potential who were prescribed monotherapy for generalized or unclassified epilepsy. Rank ordering inferred from trial data, valproate > topiramate > lamotrigine, was reversed. Modeling the expected utility of drugs might address the need to use more systematic, methodologically sound approaches to collect patient input that can further inform regulatory decision making.

Intellectual functioning in clinically confirmed fetal valproate syndrome.

BACKGROUND: An increased risk of impaired intelligence (IQ) has been documented in valproate-exposed children, but investigations have not previously focused on those with a clinical diagnosis of Fetal Valproate Syndrome (FVS). METHODS: This cross sectional observational study recruited individuals with a diagnosis of FVS and completed standardized assessments of intellectual abilities making comparisons to a normative comparison group. Both mean difference (MD) and prevalence of scores below the lower average range were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean full-scale IQ in 31 individuals with FVS (mean age 14.97; range 6-27 years) was 19 points lower (19.55, 95% CI -24.94 to 14.15), and IQ scores <70 were present in 26%. The mean differences for verbal comprehension (21.07, 95% CI -25.84 to -16.29), working memory (19.77, 95% CI -25.00 to -14.55) and processing speed (16.87, 95% CI -22.24 to -11.50) performances were poorer than expected with the mean differences over one standard deviation from the comparison group. Sixty one percent of cases demonstrated disproportionately lower verbal comprehension ability. There were no significant group differences for IQ in high vs. moderate dose valproate or mono vs. polytherapy. There were no differences in IQ between those with and those without a major congenital malformation. The requirement for educational intervention was high at 74%. CONCLUSION: Intellectual difficulties are a central feature of FVS and are more severe in their presentation in individuals with a diagnosis of valproate embryopathy. Individuals with FVS who present with the characteristic facial presentation should be considered at high risk of cognitive difficulties regardless of the dose of valproate exposure or the presence of a major congenital malformation.

Fetal antiepileptic drug exposure and cognitive outcomes.

PURPOSE: Data highlighting valproate as a human teratogen put in context the need to balance both maternal and fetal needs; maximising maternal health whilst minimising fetal risk. This led to increased research efforts to understand the associated risks with AED treatments. METHODS: A review of currently published literature was undertaken. RESULTS: In utero exposure to valproate was associated with a range of poorer neurodevelopmental outcomes when compared to control children and children exposed to other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Children exposed to carbamazepine were not found by the majority of studies to have poorer early development, although there is a lack of evidence regarding specific cognitive skills later in childhood and adolescence. Research regarding lamotrigine was limited to a small number of studies but suggests early global development or school aged IQ does not differ from control children, but less is known about specific cognitive skills. Evidence for the other AEDs including levetiracetam and topiramate were significantly limited. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an improvement in momentum the evidence remains incomplete for neurodevelopmental outcomes and this limits evidence-based decision making. Further efforts are required to enhance the treatment of women by giving them the confidence that both the risks and the benefits of commonly used AEDs are known. Future research should also seek to increase our understanding of the children who experience neurodevelopmental difficulties in the context of exposure in the womb to AEDs and what interventions may be successful in maximising the outcome of these children.

Cognition in school-age children exposed to levetiracetam, topiramate, or sodium valproate.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of prenatal exposure to monotherapy levetiracetam, topiramate, and valproate on child cognitive functioning. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional observational study. Children exposed to monotherapy levetiracetam (n = 42), topiramate (n = 27), or valproate (n = 47) and a group of children born to women who had untreated epilepsy (n = 55) were enrolled retrospectively from the UK Epilepsy and Pregnancy Register. Assessor-blinded neuropsychological assessments were conducted between 5 and 9 years of age. Information was collected on demographic and health variables and adjusted for in multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: In the adjusted analyses, prenatal exposure to levetiracetam and topiramate were not found to be associated with reductions in child cognitive abilities, and adverse outcomes were not associated with increasing dose. Increasing dose of valproate, however, was associated with poorer full-scale IQ (-10.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] -16.3 to -5.0, p < 0.001), verbal abilities (-11.2, 95% CI -16.8 to -5.5, p < 0.001), nonverbal abilities (-11.1, 95% CI -17.3 to -4.9, p < 0.001), and expressive language ability (-2.3, 95% CI -3.4 to -1.6, p < 0.001). Comparisons across medications revealed poorer performance for children exposed to higher doses of valproate in comparison to children exposed to higher doses of levetiracetam or topiramate. CONCLUSIONS: Preconception counseling should include discussion of neurodevelopmental outcomes for specific treatments and their doses and women should be made aware of the limited nature of the evidence base for newer antiepileptic drugs.

Does the concept of resilience contribute to understanding good quality of life in the context of epilepsy?

A significant body of research highlights negative impacts of epilepsy for individual quality of life (QOL). Poor seizure control is frequently associated with reporting of poor QOL and good seizure control with good QOL; however, this is not a universal finding. Evidence suggests that some people enjoy good QOL despite ongoing seizures while others report poor QOL despite good seizure control. Understanding the factors that influence QOL for people with epilepsy and the processes via which such factors exert their influence is central to the development of interventions to support people with epilepsy to experience the best possible QOL. We present findings of a qualitative investigation exploring influences and processes on QOL for people with epilepsy. We describe the clinical, psychological, and social factors contributing to QOL. In particular, we focus on the value of the concept of resilience for understanding quality of life in epilepsy. Based on our analysis, we propose a model of resilience wherein four key component sets of factors interact to determine QOL. This model reflects the fluid nature of resilience that, we suggest, is subject to change based on shifts within the individual components and the interactions between them. The model offers a representation of the complex influences that act and interact to either mitigate or further compound the negative impacts of epilepsy on individual QOL.

NRSF and BDNF polymorphisms as biomarkers of cognitive dysfunction in adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Cognitive dysfunction is a common comorbidity in people with epilepsy, but its causes remain unclear. It may be related to the etiology of the disorder, the consequences of seizures, or the effects of antiepileptic drug treatment. Genetics may also play a contributory role. We investigated the influence of variants in the genes encoding neuron-restrictive silencer factor (NRSF) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), proteins previously associated with cognition and epilepsy, on cognitive function in people with newly diagnosed epilepsy. A total of 82 patients who had previously undergone detailed neuropsychological assessment were genotyped for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across the NRSF and BDNF genes. Putatively functional SNPs were included in a genetic association analysis with specific cognitive domains, including memory, psychomotor speed, and information processing. Cross-sectional and longitudinal designs were used to explore genetic influences on baseline cognition at diagnosis and change from baseline over the first year since diagnosis, respectively. We found a statistically significant association between genotypic variation and memory function at both baseline (NRSF: rs1105434, rs2227902 and BDNF: rs1491850, rs2030324, rs11030094) and in our longitudinal analysis (NRSF: rs2227902 and BDNF: rs12273363). Psychomotor speed was also associated with genotype (NRSF rs3796529) in the longitudinal assessment. In line with our previous work on general cognitive function in the healthy aging population, we observed an additive interaction between risk alleles for the NRSF rs2227902 (G) and BDNF rs6265 (A) polymorphisms which was again consistent with a significantly greater decline in delayed recall over the first year since diagnosis. These findings support a role for the NRSF-BDNF pathway in the modulation of cognitive function in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Pharmacogenetic testing prior to carbamazepine treatment of epilepsy: patients' and physicians' preferences for testing and service delivery.

AIM: Pharmacogenetic studies have identified the presence of the HLA-A*31:01 allele as a predictor of cutaneous adverse drugs reactions (ADRs) to carbamazepine. This study aimed to ascertain the preferences of patients and clinicians to inform carbamazepine pharmacogenetic testing services. METHODS: Attributes of importance to people with epilepsy and neurologists were identified through interviews and from published sources. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were conducted in 82 people with epilepsy and 83 neurologists. Random-effects logit regression models were used to determine the importance of the attributes and direction of effect. RESULTS: In the patient DCE, all attributes (seizure remission, reduction in seizure frequency, memory problems, skin rash and rare, severe ADRs) were significant. The estimated utility of testing was greater, at 0.52 (95% CI 0.19, 1.00) than not testing at 0.33 (95% CI -0.07, 0.81). In the physician DCE, cost, inclusion in the British National Formulary, coverage, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) were significant. Marginal rates of substitution indicated that neurologists were willing to pay £5.87 for a 1 percentage point increase in NPV and £3.99 for a 1 percentage point increase in PPV. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of both patients' and clinicians' perspectives represents an important contribution to the understanding of preferences towards pharmacogenetic testing prior to initiating carbamazepine. Both groups identified different attributes but had generally consistent preferences. Patients' acceptance of a decrease in treatment benefit for a reduced chance of severe ADRs adds support for the implementation of HLA-A*31:01 testing in routine practice.