A knowledge synthesis of health research reporting standards relevant to epilepsy surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Numerous studies have examined epilepsy surgery outcomes, yet the variability in the level of detail reported hampers our ability to apply these findings broadly across patient groups. Established reporting standards in other clinical research fields enhance the quality and generalizability of results, ensuring that the insights gained from studying these surgeries can benefit future patients effectively. This study aims to assess current reporting standards for epilepsy surgery research and identify potential gaps and areas for enhancement. METHODS: The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) repository was accessed from inception to April 27, 2023, yielding 561 available reporting standards. Reporting standards were manually reviewed in duplicate independently for applicability to epilepsy and/or neurosurgery research. The reporting standards had to cover the following aspects in human studies: (1) reporting standards for epilepsy/epilepsy surgery and (2) reporting standards for neurosurgery. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. The top five neurosurgery, neurology, and medicine journals were also identified through Google Scholar's citation index and examined to determine the relevant reporting standards they recommended and whether those were registered with EQUATOR. RESULTS: Of the 561 EQUATOR reporting standards, 181 were pertinent to epilepsy surgery. One was related to epilepsy, six were specific to surgical research, and nine were related to neurological/neurosurgical research. The remaining 165 reporting standards were applicable to research across various disciplines and included but were not limited to CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trails), STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). None of these required reporting factors associated with epilepsy surgery outcomes, such as duration of epilepsy or magnetic resonance imaging findings. SIGNIFICANCE: Reporting standards specific to epilepsy surgery are lacking, reflecting a gap in standards that may affect the quality of publications. Improving this gap with a set of specific reporting standards would ensure that epilepsy surgery studies are more transparent and rigorous in their design.

Association of first antiseizure medication with acute health care utilization in a cohort of adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Epilepsy is primarily treated with antiseizure medications (ASMs). The recommendations for first ASM in newly diagnosed epilepsy are inconsistently followed, and we sought to examine whether nonrecommended first ASM was associated with acute care utilization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years old) with newly diagnosed epilepsy (identified using validated epilepsy/convulsion International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification codes) in 2015-2019, sampled from Marketscan's Commercial and Medicare Databases. Exposure of interest was receipt of a non-guideline-recommended ASM, and the primary outcome was acute care utilization (an emergency department visit or hospitalization after the first ASM claim). Descriptive statistics characterized covariates, and multivariable negative binominal regression models were built adjusting for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, comorbid neurologic disease (e.g., stroke), and ASM polypharmacy. RESULTS: Approximately 14 681 people with new epilepsy were prescribed an ASM within 1 year. The three most prescribed medications were levetiracetam (54%, n = 7912), gabapentin (10%, n = 1462), and topiramate (7%, n = 1022). Approximately 4% (n = 648) were prescribed an ASM that should be avoided, and ~74% of people with new epilepsy had an acute care visit during the follow-up period. Mean number of acute care visits during follow-up was 3.34 for "recommended" ASMs and 4.42 for ASMs that "should be avoided." Prescription of a recommended/neutral ASM as compared to an ASM that should be avoided was associated with reduced likelihood of acute care utilization (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = .85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .77-.94). The recommended/neutral category of ASMs was not statistically significantly associated with seizure- or epilepsy-specific acute care utilization (IRR = .93, 95% CI = .79-1.09). SIGNIFICANCE: Adults with new epilepsy are frequent users of acute care. There remain a proportion of persons with epilepsy prescribed ASMs that guidelines suggest avoiding, and these ASMs are associated with increased likelihood of emergency department visit or hospitalization. These findings reinforce the importance of optimizing the choice of first ASM in epilepsy.

Association of new onset seizure and COVID-19 vaccines and long-term follow-up: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Seizures have been reported as an adverse event of the COVID-19 vaccine. However, there is no solid evidence of increased seizure occurrence compared to the general population. This study was undertaken to investigate seizure occurrence among COVID-19 vaccine recipients compared to unvaccinated controls. METHODS: A systematic search was made of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to April 9, 2024. Studies reporting seizure occurrence following COVID-19 vaccination were included. This study is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework and was conducted using random- and common-effect models. The risk of bias in the studies was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The outcome of interest was new onset seizure incidence proportion compared among (1) COVID-19 vaccine recipients, (2) unvaccinated cohorts, and (3) various types of COVID-19 vaccines. RESULTS: Forty studies were included, of which seven entered the meta-analysis. Results of the pooled analysis of the new onset seizure incidence (21- or 28-day period after vaccination) in 13 016 024 vaccine recipients and 13 013 262 unvaccinated individuals by pooling the cohort studies did not show any statistically significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio [OR] = .48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .19-1.20, p = .12, I2 = 95%, τ2 = .7145). Pooling four studies accounting for 19 769 004 mRNA versus 47 494 631 viral vector vaccine doses demonstrated no significant difference in terms of new onset seizure incidence between the groups (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = .78-1.78, p = .44, I2 = 0%, τ2 = .004). SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows no statistically significant difference in the risk of new onset seizure incidence between COVID-19 vaccinated individuals and unvaccinated individuals.

Association of seizure with COVID-19 vaccines in persons with epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Seizure aggravation following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is a major cause behind vaccine hesitancy among persons with epilepsy (PwE), resulting in lower immunization rates. We systematically reviewed seizure-activity-related events in PwE following COVID-19 vaccination. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, until January 31, 2023, and included articles reporting seizure activity-related events in PwE receiving COVID-19 vaccination. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were followed. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022312475). Outcomes included pooled incidence proportions of (a) increased seizure frequency, (b) status epilepticus (SE), and (c) change in seizure type. Of the 2207 studies, 16 entered the meta-analysis. The pooled incidence proportion of increased seizure frequency (16 studies-3245 PwE) was 5% (95% CI: 3%-7%, I2 = 52%). Regarding increased seizure frequency, no significant difference was observed between mRNA and viral vector (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.49-2.52, I2 = 0%), and between mRNA and inactivated virus (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 0.27-9.37; I2 = 0%). The pooled incidence proportion of SE (15 studies-2387 PwE) was 0.08% (95% CI: 0.02%-0.33%, I2 = 0%). Ultimately, the pooled incidence proportion of change in seizure type (7 studies-1172 PwE) was 1% (95% CI: 1%-2%, I2 = 0%). The meta-analysis revealed post-COVID-19-vaccination increased seizure frequency in 5% of PwE, with no difference between mRNA and viral vector or inactivated virus vaccines. Furthermore, we found 0.08% and 1% incidence proportions for postvaccination SE and change in seizure type, respectively. While noteworthy, these values are far less than reports for COVID-19 infection, emphasizing vaccination importance in preventing COVID-19 consequences in PwE.

Seizure onset patterns predict outcome after stereo-electroencephalography-guided laser amygdalohippocampotomy.

OBJECTIVE: Stereotactic laser amygdalohippocampotomy (SLAH) is an appealing option for patients with temporal lobe epilepsy, who often require intracranial monitoring to confirm mesial temporal seizure onset. However, given limited spatial sampling, it is possible that stereotactic electroencephalography (stereo-EEG) may miss seizure onset elsewhere. We hypothesized that stereo-EEG seizure onset patterns (SOPs) may differentiate between primary onset and secondary spread and predict postoperative seizure control. In this study, we characterized the 2-year outcomes of patients who underwent single-fiber SLAH after stereo-EEG and evaluated whether stereo-EEG SOPs predict postoperative seizure freedom. METHODS: This retrospective five-center study included patients with or without mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS) who underwent stereo-EEG followed by single-fiber SLAH between August 2014 and January 2022. Patients with causative hippocampal lesions apart from MTS or for whom the SLAH was considered palliative were excluded. An SOP catalogue was developed based on literature review. The dominant pattern for each patient was used for survival analysis. The primary outcome was 2-year Engel I classification or recurrent seizures before then, stratified by SOP category. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included, with a mean follow-up duration of 39 ± 12 months after SLAH. Overall 1-, 2-, and 3-year Engel I seizure freedom probability was 54%, 36%, and 33%, respectively. Patients with SOPs, including low-voltage fast activity or low-frequency repetitive spiking, had a 46% 2-year seizure freedom probability, compared to 0% for patients with alpha or theta frequency repetitive spiking or theta or delta frequency rhythmic slowing (log-rank test, p = .00015). SIGNIFICANCE: Patients who underwent SLAH after stereo-EEG had a low probability of seizure freedom at 2 years, but SOPs successfully predicted seizure recurrence in a subset of patients. This study provides proof of concept that SOPs distinguish between hippocampal seizure onset and spread and supports using SOPs to improve selection of SLAH candidates.

In-hospital outcomes in patients with and without epilepsy diagnosed with COVID-19-A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with mortality in persons with comorbidities. The aim of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with and without epilepsy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with COVID-19 admitted to a multicenter health system between March 15, 2020, and May 17, 2021. Patients with epilepsy were identified using a validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM)/ICD-10-CM case definition. Logistic regression models and Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted for mortality and non-routine discharges (i.e., not discharged home). An ordinary least-squares regression model was fitted for length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: We identified 9833 people with COVID-19 including 334 with epilepsy. On univariate analysis, people with epilepsy had significantly higher ventilator use (37.70% vs 14.30%, p < .001), intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (39.20% vs 17.70%, p < .001) mortality rate (29.60% vs 19.90%, p < .001), and longer LOS (12 days vs 7 days, p < .001). and fewer were discharged home (29.64% vs 57.37%, p < .001). On multivariate analysis, only non-routine discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.00-3.70; p < .001) and LOS (32.50% longer, 95% CI 22.20%-43.60%; p < .001) were significantly different. Factors associated with higher odds of mortality in epilepsy were older age (aOR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.08; p < .001), ventilator support (aOR 7.18, 95% CI 3.12-16.48; p < .001), and higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04-1.34; p = .010). In epilepsy, admissions between August and December 2020 or January and May 2021 were associated with a lower odds of non-routine discharge and decreased LOS compared to admissions between March and July 2020, but this difference was not statistically significant. SIGNIFICANCE: People with COVID-19 who had epilepsy had a higher odds of non-routine discharge and longer LOS but not higher mortality. Older age (≥65), ventilator use, and higher CCI were associated with COVID-19 mortality in epilepsy. This suggests that older adults with epilepsy and multimorbidity are more vulnerable than those without and should be monitored closely in the setting of COVID-19.

The worldwide epilepsy treatment gap: A systematic review and recommendations for revised definitions - A report from the ILAE Epidemiology Commission.

OBJECTIVE: In order to more appropriately apply and understand the "epilepsy treatment gap" (ETG) concept in current health systems, revised conceptual and operational definitions of ETG are timely and necessary. This article therefore systematically reviews worldwide studies of the ETG, distinguishing high-, middle-, and low-income regions, and provides recommendations for an updated International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) definition of ETG. METHODS: A systematic review of the ETG was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards. The search was conducted from January 1990 to July 2019, in the online databases of Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. Identified abstracts were reviewed in duplicate and data independently extracted using a standard proforma. Data describing treatment gap information including both diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of access to epilepsy treatment were recorded. Descriptive statistics are presented. RESULTS: The treatment gap reported in the 45 distinctive populations represented 33 countries. Treatment gap definitions varied widely. The reported ETGs ranged broadly from 5.6% in Norway to 100% in parts of Tibet, Togo, and Uganda. The wide range of reported ETGs was multifactorial in origin including true differences in the availability and utilization of health care among study populations, variations in operational definitions of the epilepsy treatment gap, and methodological differences in sampling and identifying representative epilepsy cases in populations. Significance and recommendations For the ETG to be a useful metric to compare levels of unmet epilepsy care across different countries and regions, a standardized definition must be adapted, recognizing some of the limitations of the current definitions. Our proposed definition takes into account the lack of effective health care insurance, the diagnostic gap, the therapeutic gap, quality-of-care, and other unmet health care needs."

The global cost of epilepsy: A systematic review and extrapolation.

OBJECTIVE: Global action for epilepsy requires information on the cost of epilepsy, which is currently unknown for most countries and regions of the world. To address this knowledge gap, the International League Against Epilepsy Commission on Epidemiology formed the Global Cost of Epilepsy Task Force. METHODS: We completed a systematic search of the epilepsy cost-of-illness literature and identified studies that provided a comprehensive set of direct health care and/or indirect costs, followed standard methods of case identification and cost estimation, and used data on a representative population or subpopulation of people with epilepsy. Country-specific costs per person with epilepsy were extracted and adjusted to generate an average cost per person in 2019 US dollars. For countries with no cost data, estimates were imputed based on average costs per person of similar income countries with data. Per person costs for each country were then applied to data on the prevalence of epilepsy from the Global Burden of Disease collaboration adjusted for the treatment gap. RESULTS: One hundred one cost-of-illness studies were included in the direct health care cost database, 74 from North America or Western Europe. Thirteen studies were used in the indirect cost database, eight from North America or Western Europe. The average annual cost per person with epilepsy in 2019 ranged from $204 in low-income countries to $11 432 in high-income countries based on this highly skewed database. The total cost of epilepsy, applying per person costs to the estimated 52.51 million people in the world with epilepsy and adjusting for the treatment gap, was $119.27 billion. SIGNIFICANCE: Based on a summary and extrapolations of this limited database, the global cost of epilepsy is substantial and highly concentrated in countries with well-developed health care systems, higher wages and income, limited treatment gaps, and a relatively small percentage of the epilepsy population.

Epilepsy-related stigma and attitudes: Systematic review of screening instruments and interventions - Report by the International League Against Epilepsy Task Force on Stigma in Epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: This is a systematic review aimed at summarizing the evidence related to instruments that have been developed to measure stigma or attitudes toward epilepsy and on stigma-reducing interventions. METHODS: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards. A broad literature search (1985-2019) was performed in 13 databases. Articles were included if they described the development and testing of psychometric properties of an epilepsy-related stigma or attitude scale or stigma-reducing interventions. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, and extracted data. Basic descriptive statistics are reported. RESULTS: We identified 4234 abstracts, of which 893 were reviewed as full-text articles. Of these, 38 met inclusion criteria for an instrument development study and 30 as a stigma-reduction intervention study. Most instruments were initially developed using well-established methods and were tested in relatively large samples. Most intervention studies involved educational programs for adults with pre- and post-evaluations of attitudes toward people with epilepsy. Intervention studies often failed to use standardized instruments to quantify stigmatizing attitudes, were generally underpowered, and often found no evidence of benefit or the benefit was not sustained. Six intervention studies with stigma as the primary outcome had fewer design flaws and showed benefit. Very few or no instruments were validated for regional languages or culture, and there were very few interventions tested in some regions. SIGNIFICANCE: Investigators in regions without instruments should consider translating and further developing existing instruments rather than initiating the development of new instruments. Very few stigma-reduction intervention studies for epilepsy have been conducted, study methodology in general was poor, and standardized instruments were rarely used to measure outcomes. To accelerate the development of effective epilepsy stigma-reduction interventions, a paradigm shift from disease-specific, siloed trials to collaborative, cross-disciplinary platforms based upon unified theories of stigma transcending individual conditions will be needed.

Systematic review of frequency of felt and enacted stigma in epilepsy and determining factors and attitudes toward persons living with epilepsy-Report from the International League Against Epilepsy Task Force on Stigma in Epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence of felt and enacted stigma and attitudes toward persons living with epilepsy, and their determining factors. METHODS: Thirteen databases were searched (1985-2019). Abstracts were reviewed in duplicate and data were independently extracted using a standardized form. Studies were characterized using descriptive analysis by whether they addressed "felt" or "enacted" stigma and "attitudes" toward persons living with epilepsy. RESULTS: Of 4234 abstracts, 132 met eligibility criteria and addressed either felt or enacted stigma and 210 attitudes toward epilepsy. Stigma frequency ranged broadly between regions. Factors associated with enacted stigma included low level of knowledge about epilepsy, lower educational level, lower socioeconomic status, rural areas living, and religious grouping. Negative stereotypes were often internalized by persons with epilepsy, who saw themselves as having an "undesirable difference" and so anticipated being treated differently. Felt stigma was associated with increased risk of psychological difficulties and impaired quality of life. Felt stigma was linked to higher seizure frequency, recency of seizures, younger age at epilepsy onset or longer duration, lower educational level, poorer knowledge about epilepsy, and younger age. An important finding was the potential contribution of epilepsy terminology to the production of stigma. Negative attitudes toward those with epilepsy were described in 100% of included studies, and originated in any population group (students, teachers, healthcare professionals, general public, and those living with epilepsy). Better attitudes were generally noted in those of younger age or higher educational status. SIGNIFICANCE: Whatever the specific beliefs about epilepsy, implications for felt and enacted stigma show considerable commonality worldwide. Although some studies show improvement in attitudes toward those living with epilepsy over time, much work remains to be done to improve attitudes and understand the true occurrence of discrimination against persons with epilepsy.

Neurostimulation in people with drug-resistant epilepsy: Systematic review and meta-analysis from the ILAE Surgical Therapies Commission.

OBJECTIVE: Summarize the current evidence on efficacy and tolerability of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting standards and searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and their corresponding open-label extension studies, as well as prospective case series, with ≥20 participants (excluding studies limited to children). Our primary outcome was the mean (or median, when unavailable) percentage decrease in frequency, as compared to baseline, of all epileptic seizures at last follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of treatment responders and proportion with seizure freedom. RESULTS: We identified 30 eligible studies, six of which were RCTs. At long-term follow-up (mean 1.3 years), five observational studies for VNS reported a pooled mean percentage decrease in seizure frequency of 34.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.1, 74.5). In the open-label extension studies for RNS, the median seizure reduction was 53%, 66%, and 75% at 2, 5, and 9 years of follow-up, respectively. For DBS, the median reduction was 56%, 65%, and 75% at 2, 5, and 7 years, respectively. The proportion of individuals with seizure freedom at last follow-up increased significantly over time for DBS and RNS, whereas a positive trend was observed for VNS. Quality of life was improved in all modalities. The most common complications included hoarseness, and cough and throat pain for VNS and implant site pain, headache, and dysesthesia for DBS and RNS. SIGNIFICANCE: Neurostimulation modalities are an effective treatment option for drug-resistant epilepsy, with improving outcomes over time and few major complications. Seizure-reduction rates among the three therapies were similar during the initial blinded phase. Recent long-term follow-up studies are encouraging for RNS and DBS but are lacking for VNS.

Timing of referral to evaluate for epilepsy surgery: Expert Consensus Recommendations from the Surgical Therapies Commission of the International League Against Epilepsy.

Epilepsy surgery is the treatment of choice for patients with drug-resistant seizures. A timely evaluation for surgical candidacy can be life-saving for patients who are identified as appropriate surgical candidates, and may also enhance the care of nonsurgical candidates through improvement in diagnosis, optimization of therapy, and treatment of comorbidities. Yet, referral for surgical evaluations is often delayed while palliative options are pursued, with significant adverse consequences due to increased morbidity and mortality associated with intractable epilepsy. The Surgical Therapies Commission of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) sought to address these clinical gaps and clarify when to initiate a surgical evaluation. We conducted a Delphi consensus process with 61 epileptologists, epilepsy neurosurgeons, neurologists, neuropsychiatrists, and neuropsychologists with a median of 22 years in practice, from 28 countries in all six ILAE world regions. After three rounds of Delphi surveys, evaluating 51 unique scenarios, we reached the following Expert Consensus Recommendations: (1) Referral for a surgical evaluation should be offered to every patient with drug-resistant epilepsy (up to 70 years of age), as soon as drug resistance is ascertained, regardless of epilepsy duration, sex, socioeconomic status, seizure type, epilepsy type (including epileptic encephalopathies), localization, and comorbidities (including severe psychiatric comorbidity like psychogenic nonepileptic seizures [PNES] or substance abuse) if patients are cooperative with management; (2) A surgical referral should be considered for older patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who have no surgical contraindication, and for patients (adults and children) who are seizure-free on 1-2 antiseizure medications (ASMs) but have a brain lesion in noneloquent cortex; and (3) referral for surgery should not be offered to patients with active substance abuse who are noncooperative with management. We present the Delphi consensus results leading up to these Expert Consensus Recommendations and discuss the data supporting our conclusions. High level evidence will be required to permit creation of clinical practice guidelines.

Postpartum psychiatric readmissions: A nationwide study in women with and without epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether epilepsy is associated with increased odds of 30-day readmission due to psychiatric illness during the postpartum period. METHODS: The 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database and the International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to identify postpartum women up to 50 years old in the United States, including the subgroup with epilepsy. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission and was categorized as (1) readmission due to psychiatric illness, (2) readmission due to all other causes, or (3) no readmission. Secondary outcome was diagnosis at readmission. The association of the primary outcome and presence of epilepsy was examined using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 1 558 875 women with admissions for delivery identified, 6745 (.45%) had epilepsy. Thirteen of every 10 000 women had 30-day psychiatric readmissions in the epilepsy group compared to one of every 10 000 in the no-epilepsy group (p < .0001). Of every 10 000 women with epilepsy, 256 had 30-day readmissions due to other causes compared to 115 of every 10 000 women in the no-epilepsy group (p < .0001). The odds ratio for readmission due to psychiatric illness was 10.13 (95% confidence interval = 5.48-18.72) in those with epilepsy compared to those without. Top psychiatric causes for 30-day readmissions among women with epilepsy were mood disorders, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and substance-related disorders. SIGNIFICANCE: This large-scale study demonstrated that postpartum women with epilepsy have higher odds of readmission due to a psychiatric illness compared to women without epilepsy. Postpartum treatment strategies and interventions to prevent psychiatric readmissions are necessary in this vulnerable population.

Brief potentially ictal rhythmic discharges and paroxysmal fast activity as scalp electroencephalographic biomarkers of seizure activity and seizure onset zone.

OBJECTIVE: The electroencephalographic (EEG) terms "brief potentially ictal rhythmic discharges" (BIRDs) and "paroxysmal fast activity" (PFA) are considered distinct entities; however, their definitions overlap, and they may have similar clinical significance. We investigated their clinical significance and their association with seizures and the seizure onset zone (SOZ). METHODS: We retrospectively identified an adult cohort (July 2015 to March 2018) whose long-term (>12 h) EEGs in any setting reported BIRDs (>4 Hz, lasting .5-10 s) and/or PFA. Different frequency cutoffs for PFA (>13 Hz or ≥8 Hz) were tested to compare their clinical significance. Patient demographics, clinical history, and EEG features were recorded. RESULTS: We identified 94 patients with BIRDs/PFA out of 3520 patients (3%); 36 were critically ill (12 with epilepsy), and 58 were noncritically ill (all with epilepsy). The frequency of BIRDs/PFA was largely dependent on EEG background: it tended to be slower (theta) in the absence of a posterior dominant rhythm or in the presence of continuous focal slowing in the same region (p = .01). Sixty-two of 94 patients (66%; 32/36 [89%] critically ill, 30/58 [52%] noncritically ill) had electrographic seizures during the recording. The scalp EEG SOZ colocalized with BIRDs/PFA in all cases. BIRDs with faster frequency (also qualifying as PFA by definition) had similar seizure risk to that of slower BIRDs (62%-71%), regardless of frequency cutoff used to define PFA. In addition, 30 of 30 (100%) patients with evolving BIRDs/PFA (which lasted a median of 6 s, range = 2-9.5 s) had electrographic seizures (>10 s), compared to 32 of 64 (50%) with nonevolving BIRDs (median = 1 s, range = .5-3.5 s; p < .01). SIGNIFICANCE: A high proportion of patients with BIRDs/PFA had seizures on EEG, regardless of their frequency (i.e., whether they also qualified as PFA), and their location colocalized with scalp SOZ in all cases. BIRDs appear to be a scalp EEG biomarker of uncontrolled seizure activity and a reliable localizing sign of the SOZ.

Epilepsy care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the care of all patients around the world. The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) COVID-19 and Telemedicine Task Forces examined, through surveys to people with epilepsy (PWE), caregivers, and health care professionals, how the pandemic has affected the well-being, care, and services for PWE. The ILAE included a link on their website whereby PWE and/or their caregivers could fill out a survey (in 11 languages) about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including access to health services and impact on mental health, including the 6-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. An anonymous link was also provided whereby health care providers could report cases of new-onset seizures or an exacerbation of seizures in the context of COVID-19. Finally, a separate questionnaire aimed at exploring the utilization of telehealth by health care professionals since the pandemic began was available on the ILAE website and also disseminated to its members. Seventeen case reports were received; data were limited and therefore no firm conclusions could be drawn. Of 590 respondents to the well-being survey (422 PWE, 166 caregivers), 22.8% PWE and 27.5% caregivers reported an increase in seizure frequency, with difficulty in accessing medication and health care professionals reported as barriers to care. Of all respondents, 57.1% PWE and 21.5% caregivers had severe psychological distress (k score >13), which was significantly higher among PWE than caregivers (p<0.01). An increase in telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic was reported by health care professionals, with 40% of consultations conducted by this method. Although 74.9% of health care providers thought that this impacted positively, barriers to care were also identified. As we move forward, there is a need to ensure ongoing support and care for PWE to prevent a parallel pandemic of unmet health care needs.

Hospital readmissions in older adults with epilepsy in the US - A population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine proportions, causes, and predictors of 30-day readmissions among older adults with epilepsy. Understanding predictors of readmissions may inform future interventions aimed at reducing avoidable hospitalizations in this vulnerable population. METHODS: Individuals 65 years or older with epilepsy were identified using previously validated ICD-9-CM codes in any diagnostic position in the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Proportions of 30-day readmissions and causes of readmissions in older adults with epilepsy were compared to both older adults without and younger adults (18-64 years old) with epilepsy. We identified predictors of readmission in older adults with epilepsy using logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 92,030 older adults with, 3,166,852 older adults without, and 168,622 younger adults with epilepsy. Proportions of readmissions were higher in older adults with (16.2%) than older adults without (12.5%) and younger adults with epilepsy (15.1%). The main cause of readmission for older adults with and without epilepsy was septicemia, and epilepsy/seizure in younger adults with epilepsy. Predictors of 30-day readmissions in older adults with epilepsy were: non-elective admissions (OR 1.37, 95%CI 1.27-1.48), public insurance (Medicaid vs. private insurance OR 1.19, 95%CI 1.02-1.39; Medicare vs. private insurance OR 1.11, 95%CI 1.00-1.22), lower median household income for patient's zip code ($1-$39,999 vs. $66,000 + OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08-1.22), hospital location in large metropolitan areas (OR 1.22, 95%CI 1.05-1.42), higher Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index (OR 1.11, 95%CI 1.10-1.02), and male sex (OR 1.04, 95%CI 1.00-1.09). SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings suggest that targeted interventions to reduce the risk of infection may potentially reduce readmission in older people with epilepsy, similarly to those without. Provision of coordinated care and appropriate discharge planning may reduce readmissions particularly in those who are males, are of lower socioeconomic status and with more comorbidities.

The co-occurrence of dementia in those with epilepsy is associated with 30-day readmission - A population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: Dementia and epilepsy often co-occur and are associated with poor health outcomes and increased healthcare utilization. The literature on the association between readmission and co-occurrence of dementia and epilepsy is scant. Our objective was to determine if dementia in patients with epilepsy >40 years old is associated with 30-day hospital readmission, in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, and length-of-stay. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database, containing data from hospital discharges across the US and readmissions. Epilepsy and dementia were identified using previously validated ICD-9-CM codes. Primary outcome was 30-day readmission, analyzed with univariable and multivariable logistic regressions. Secondary outcomes were discharge disposition, in-hospital mortality, and length-of-stay, analyzed with univariable multinomial logistic, univariable logistic, and univariable ordinary least squared regressions, respectively. The top ten causes of readmission in each group were compared as well. All analyses accounted for survey weights, cluster, and stratum. RESULTS: Patients with epilepsy with dementia (n = 15,588) had longer hospital stays [15% (95%CI 10-20%)], and higher odds of readmission [OR 1.11 (95%CI 1.05-1.17)], transfer to another facility [OR 2.18 (95%CI 1.93-2.46)], and in-hospital mortality [OR 1.50 (95%CI 1.25-1.79)] compared to those without dementia (n = 186,289).The top two causes of readmission were septicemia (dementia: 14.81%; no dementia: 9.45%) and epilepsy/convulsions (dementia: 5.91%; no dementia: 6.25%). Other top 10 causes of readmissions in those with epilepsy and dementia which were not present in those without dementia included delirium (5.21%), urinary tract infections (4.98%), and aspiration pneumonitis (4.29%). SIGNIFICANCE: Dementia in epilepsy is associated with worse outcomes, including higher in-hospital mortality and higher readmissions. Potentially preventable causes of readmission in those with epilepsy and dementia were identified, including septicemia, delirium, urinary tract infection, and aspiration pneumonitis. Future studies are needed to inform interventions aimed at decreasing premature mortality and reducing potentially preventable readmissions in this vulnerable population.

Seizure documentation in people living with epilepsy.

Seizure documentation is an essential component of epilepsy management. Not all persons with epilepsy choose to document their seizures, but many view the practice as essential to managing their disease. While seizure documentation is a valuable aspect of patient care, clinicians and patients must remain aware that seizure underreport and overreport commonly occur due to lack of seizure awareness. Additionally, in rare cases, persons with epilepsy may intentionally conceal their seizures from clinicians. The continued development of electronic seizure diaries and epilepsy self-management software provides patients with new and expanding options for seizure documentation and disease management. In order for these tools to be utilized most effectively, patient input must be central to their development. Given the limitations of seizure documentation, the development of accurate, non-invasive seizure detection devices is crucial for accurate seizure monitoring.

Readmission for cardiac and non-cardiac causes among adults with epilepsy or multiple sclerosis - A nationwide analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine proportions of 30-day cardiac readmissions in adults with epilepsy compared to multiple sclerosis (MS) or those with neither condition. Predictors and causes of readmissions were also examined. METHODS: We used the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database and ICD-9-CM codes to identify people with epilepsy, MS, and without epilepsy or MS. Multinomial logistic regressions were fitted to: (1) examine association between 30-day readmissions and epilepsy, MS or neither, and (2) to describe causes and predictors of 30-day readmission for cardiac readmissions in epilepsy. RESULTS: Out of 6,870,508 adults admitted in 2014, 202,938 (2.98%) had epilepsy and 29,556 (0.45%) had MS. The proportion of 30-day readmission for epilepsy and MS were, respectively: (1) due to cardiac causes (0.17% vs. 0.13%); (2) due to other causes (13.89% vs. 10.61%). The odds of 30-day cardiac readmission in those with epilepsy and MS were lower compared to those without either condition (OR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.57-0.73, p < 0.0001; OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.43-0.84, p = 0.003). Among those with epilepsy, increasing age (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.04, p < 0.0001) and a Charlson comorbidity index ≥1 (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.24-2.60, p = 0.002) were associated with higher odds of 30-day cardiac readmission. A higher proportion of those with epilepsy readmitted within 30-days due to cardiac causes died in hospital (10.09%) compared to those with MS (not reportable due to cell frequency <10) or without epilepsy or MS (5.61%). CONCLUSION: Those admitted to a hospital and living with epilepsy had a higher proportion of cardiac readmissions and death in hospital when compared to those living with MS, and the determinants are likely multifactorial. These findings are important and need to be further explored to identify strategies to prevent readmissions due to any cause and treatments that could reduce mortality.

Trends in lobectomy/amygdalohippocampectomy over time and the impact of hospital surgical volume on hospitalization outcomes: A population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite national guidelines supporting surgical referral in drug-resistant epilepsy, it is hypothesized that surgery is underutilized. We investigated the volumes of lobectomy/amygdalohippocampectomy surgeries over time and examined differences in outcomes between (1) high-volume (HV), middle-volume (MV), and low-volume (LV) hospitals and (2) Level 4 Centers versus non-Level 4 Centers. METHODS: The 2003-2014 National Inpatient Sample (the largest all-payer hospitalization database, representative of the US population) was utilized. Epilepsy was identified using a previously validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) case definition and surgeries using ICD-9-CM procedure codes. A hospital was considered a Level 4 Center if it performed intracranial electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring. Tumor surgeries were excluded. Linear regression was used to perform trend tests. Weighted multivariate logistic regression was used to summarize association of surgery with outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 4,487 lobectomy/amygdalohippocampectomy surgeries were performed in children and adults with epilepsy. Lobectomy/amygdalohippocampectomy surgeries significantly decreased over time (slope: -0.24, P < .001). This declining surgical trend was greater for all resective/disconnective surgery (slope: -0.45, P < .001), and greatest when compared to all types of epilepsy surgery, for example, resection/disconnection/radiosurgery/laser interstitial thermal therapy/vagus nerve stimulation/deep brain stimulation/responsive neurostimulation/intracranial EEG (slope: -0.95, P < .001). LV compared to HV hospitals had higher odds of transfer to other facilities (13.60% vs 4.24%, odds ratio [OR] = 2.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-6.82). LV hospitals had higher odds of surgical complications versus MV (12.69% vs 6.80%, OR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.01-5.09). HV hospitals incurred the least total charges. There were no differences in discharge status, adverse events, length of stay, or cost between Level 4 Centers versus non-Level 4 Centers. SIGNIFICANCE: Lobectomies/amygdalohippocampectomies are decreasing over time, suggesting ongoing underutilization. LV centers are associated with greater complication and transfer rates. Future studies are required to understand the reason for worse outcomes in LV centers and to determine whether a minimum number of surgeries must be performed to meet necessary standards.