Seizure- or Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, 2019-2021.

Seizures, transient signs or symptoms caused by abnormal surges of electrical activity in the brain, can result from epilepsy, a neurologic disorder characterized by abnormal electrical brain activity causing recurrent, unprovoked seizures, or from other inciting causes, such as high fever or substance abuse (1). Seizures generally account for approximately 1% of all emergency department (ED) visits (2,3). Persons of any age can experience seizures, and outcomes might range from no complications for those with a single seizure to increased risk for injury, comorbidity, impaired quality of life, and early mortality for those with epilepsy (4). To examine trends in weekly seizure- or epilepsy-related (seizure-related) ED visits† in the United States before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, CDC analyzed data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP).§ Seizure-related ED visits decreased abruptly during the early pandemic period. By the end of 2020, seizure-related ED visits returned almost to prepandemic levels for persons of all ages, except children aged 0-9 years. By mid-2021, however, this age group gradually returned to baseline as well. Reasons for the decrease in seizure-related ED visits in 2020 among all age groups and the slow return to baseline among children aged 0-9 years compared with other age groups are unclear. The decrease might have been associated with fear of exposure to COVID-19 infection in EDs deterring parents or guardians of children from seeking care, adherence to mitigation measures including avoiding public settings such as EDs, or increased access to telehealth services decreasing the need for ED visits (5). These findings reinforce the importance of understanding factors associated with ED avoidance among persons with epilepsy or seizure, the importance that all eligible persons be up to date¶ with COVID-19 vaccination, and the need to encourage persons to seek appropriate care for seizure-related emergencies** to prevent adverse outcomes.

When and why US primary care providers do and do not refer their patients with new-onset seizures or existing epilepsy or seizure disorders to neurologists-2018 DocStyles.

Monitoring primary care providers' (PCP) attitudes and experiences with referrals of their patients with new-onset seizures or existing epilepsy/seizure disorders may help evaluate whether interventions to coordinate PCP and neurology care reduce treatment gaps and improve patient outcomes. To examine PCPs' attitudes toward, and experiences with, referral to specialty care of their patients with new-onset seizures or existing epilepsy/seizure disorders, we used cross-sectional 2018 DocStyles data to examine study outcomes. We selected a subsample of respondents who had a practice with at least 1% of patients with an epilepsy/seizure disorder and who answered questions about this disorder. We stratified provider actions, referral behavior, and referral enabling factors and barriers by epilepsy/seizure disorder caseload and provider type. We examined different patterns of responses by referral behavior and provider type. The final sample (n = 1284) included 422 family practitioners, 432 internists, 233 pediatricians, and 197 nurse practitioners. Most PCPs refer their patients with new-onset seizures to a neurologist, particularly to determine or confirm the diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Strikingly, about 40% of PCPs did not indicate a referral if their epilepsy/seizure disorder patient was unresponsive to treatment. Internists less likely referred their patients than pediatricians, nurse practitioners, or family practitioners. Less than one-third of all practitioners consulted seizure treatment guidelines. Prompt appointments, communication with the PCP, the patient's insurance, and referral back to primary care may facilitate referrals. Interventions that enhance enabling factors for guidelines-based care and that can increase opportunities for PCPs to consult with neurologists and/or refer their patients with uncontrolled seizures to specialty care are warranted.

Prevalence and Trends in Cigarette Smoking Among Adults with Epilepsy - United States, 2010-2017.

Cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States (1). Although the percentage of all U.S. adults who smoke cigarettes has declined substantially since the mid-1960s (1,2), marked disparities persist, and declines have not been consistent across population groups (1,2). Studies have shown that cigarette smoking is as common, and sometimes more so, among adults with a history of epilepsy compared with those without a history of epilepsy, but reasons for this are unclear (3-6). Compared with adults without epilepsy, adults with epilepsy report lower household income, more unemployment and disability, worse psychological health, and reduced health-related quality of life (3,4,6,7). Trends in cigarette smoking among U.S. adults with epilepsy have not been previously assessed. CDC analyzed National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data among 121,497 U.S. adults from 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2017 to assess current cigarette smoking by epilepsy status. From 2010 through 2017, the age-standardized percentages of current smoking were 24.9% among adults with active epilepsy, 25.9% among adults with inactive epilepsy, and 16.6% among adults with no history of epilepsy. After accounting for differences in data collection intervals and patterns in smoking status among subgroups, CDC found that current cigarette smoking declined significantly from 2010 to 2017 among adults with no history of epilepsy (19.3% to 14.0% [p<0.001]) and inactive epilepsy (29.2% to 16.2% [p = 0.03]), but declines among adults with active epilepsy were not statistically significant (26.4% to 21.8% [p = 0.2]). Epilepsy health and social service providers should promote smoking cessation resources to adults with active epilepsy who smoke cigarettes to help them quit smoking and to reduce their risk of smoking-related disease and death.

Epilepsy by the numbers - From the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Six in 10 adults with active epilepsy saw a neurologist or epilepsy specialist in the past year, United States, 2017.

This study used the most recent national data on epilepsy from the 2017 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to examine the distribution of types of provider visits in the last 12 months among 2.9 million adult respondents aged ≥18 years with active epilepsy (self-reported doctor-diagnosed epilepsy taking antiseizure medications and/or having ≥1 seizure in the past year) and compared these estimates with 2010 NHIS data. We calculated age-standardized percentages of visits to a general doctor and an epilepsy specialist during the past 12 months, accounting for the complex survey design. Among US adults with active epilepsy in 2017, 27.1% saw a general doctor only, 9.0% saw a neurologist/epilepsy specialist only, 53.0% visited both a general doctor and a neurologist/epilepsy specialist, and 11.4% did not see either a general doctor or a neurologist/specialist. Overall, 62.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 55.2%-67.5%] of adults with active epilepsy visited a neurologist or epilepsy specialist in the past year. A visit in the past 12 months with both provider types was not significantly different in 2017 compared with 2010 (53.0% vs 46.2%) while seeing a general doctor only had declined (41.8% vs 27.1%, p < 0.05). Given that 79.8% of US adults with active epilepsy reported being seen by a general doctor within the past 12 months, epilepsy stakeholders have an opportunity to enhance epilepsy care by ensuring that general practitioners have access to the latest information about epilepsy diagnosis and new treatment options. National Health Interview Survey data can be used to track the distribution of provider visits in the coming decade to assess changes in access to primary care, specialty care, or other types of healthcare for people with epilepsy.

Serious psychological distress among adults with active epilepsy in all racial/ethnic groups and among adults with inactive epilepsy in non-Hispanic whites is significantly higher than among adults without epilepsy-U.S. National Health Interview Survey, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2017.

Serious psychological distress (SPD) includes mental health problems severe enough to cause moderate-to-serious impairment in daily activities and to require treatment. Serious psychological distress is based on answers to six survey questions from the Kessler-6 scale used internationally in public health surveillance systems to assess recent feelings of sadness, restlessness, hopelessness, nervousness, worthlessness, and the sense that everything is an effort. We combined nationally representative samples in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2010 (N = 27,157), 2013 (N = 34,557), 2015 (N = 33,672), and 2017 (N = 26,742). We used a validated surveillance case definition to classify adults as having epilepsy if they reported a history of doctor-diagnosed epilepsy or seizure disorder (n = 2251). We further classified those with epilepsy as having active epilepsy (n = 1380) if they reported either taking epilepsy medications or having at least one seizure in the past 12 months or as having inactive epilepsy (n = 871) if they did not take epilepsy medication and had not had any seizures in the past 12 months. We used an NHIS recoded variable that classifies adults by Hispanic origin and race. Following age adjustment, among adults with active epilepsy, SPD prevalence was 13.7% among non-Hispanic white adults, 11.2% among non-Hispanic black adults, 20.7% among Hispanic adults, and 17.5% among non-Hispanic other adults. Compared with adults without epilepsy, adults with active epilepsy were 4.8 times more likely, and adults with inactive epilepsy 2.6 times more likely, to report SPD. In each racial/ethnic group, SPD among adults with active epilepsy is significantly higher than in adults without epilepsy. Among adults with active epilepsy, SPD prevalence did not differ by racial/ethnic groups. However, only among non-Hispanic white adults with inactive epilepsy did SPD prevalence significantly exceed that among non-Hispanic white adults without epilepsy. Epilepsy stakeholders can use these estimates to target culturally appropriate community-based and clinic-based interventions to reduce the high burden of psychological distress among adults with active epilepsy and inactive epilepsy.

National declines in the percentages of uninsured among adults aged 18-64 years with active epilepsy, 2010 and 2013 to 2015 and 2017-U.S. National Health Interview Survey.

Epilepsy is more common among children and adults living in households at lowest incomes. Like those living with any complex chronic condition, people with epilepsy need quality healthcare to improve their health and social outcomes. The purpose of this study was to use the latest national data to provide updated estimates of the percentages of adults aged 18-64 years with active epilepsy who were uninsured in 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2017 and to examine changes in health insurance coverage during these years. We analyzed nationally representative samples of adults (aged 18-64 years) from the 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2017 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We used a validated epilepsy surveillance case definition to classify adults as having active epilepsy during 2010 and 2013 (n = 507) and during 2015 and 2017 (n = 582). We used the NHIS recode variables available in each year that account for a series of questions posed to respondents to confirm coverage and that ultimately classify respondents with different healthcare coverage types. Overall, the percentage of uninsured adults among respondents aged 18-64 years with active epilepsy decreased by more than half (59%), from 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.6%-22.7%) in 2010 and 2013 to 7.3% (95% CI = 4.8%-10.7%) in 2015 and 2017. The decrease in the percentage of uninsured adults with active epilepsy after 2010 and 2013 was balanced by a similar increase in public insurance coverage and private insurance coverage in 2015 and 2017. Epilepsy stakeholders can ensure that all uninsured adults with epilepsy obtain access to health insurance coverage. National Health Interview Survey data on epilepsy, when available, can be used to monitor trends in insurance status in the new decade.

Close to 1 million US adults aged 55 years or older have active epilepsy-National Health Interview Survey, 2010, 2013, and 2015.

Epilepsy is common in older adults because known risk factors-such as traumatic brain injury, stroke, cerebrovascular disease, neurodegenerative disorders, and neoplasms-increase with age. This study uses the most recent data from the 2010, 2013, and 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to provide updated national estimates of epilepsy prevalence among US adults aged 55 years or older to help guide public health action. We used the following validated surveillance case definition for active epilepsy: adults with self-reported doctor-diagnosed epilepsy or seizure disorder who reported either currently taking medications to treat their epilepsy or seizure disorder or at least one seizure during the past 12 months. We estimated the prevalence of active epilepsy to be 1.4% (about 529,000) among US adults aged 55-64, 0.9% (225,000) for those aged 65-74, and 1.0% (178,000) for those aged ≥75 years. The prevalence of a history of epilepsy and active epilepsy among adults aged 55-64 years was significantly higher than the prevalence in older age groups. Collectively, close to 1 million adults aged 55 years or older reported active epilepsy. Epilepsy stakeholders should ensure that older adults with epilepsy have access to age-appropriate clinical preventive services, chronic disease self-management support, specialty care for epilepsy and other comorbidities, and appropriate community services to promote quality of life.

People with epilepsy are diagnosed most often with unspecified epilepsy, followed by focal epilepsy, generalized convulsive epilepsy, and generalized nonconvulsive epilepsy-US MarketScan data, 2010-2015.

The distribution of epilepsy types varies by age, etiology, provider diagnostic capabilities, and assessment criteria. No recent US study has examined the distribution of epilepsy types in a large, population-based sample of people with epilepsy. We used MarketScan data from January 1, 2010 through September 30, 2015, to estimate the proportion of epilepsy types among all (N=370,570) individuals diagnosed with epilepsy. We identified cases of epilepsy as individuals with at least one International Classification of Disease, 9th version (ICD-9) diagnostic code of 345.X and the use of at least one antiseizure drug described in the 2015 MarketScan Redbook. Unspecified epilepsy was more common (36.8%) than focal-localized epilepsy (24.6%), generalized convulsive epilepsy (23.8%), generalized nonconvulsive epilepsy (8.9%), other forms of epilepsy (5.2%), infantile spasm (0.3%), and epilepsia partialis continua (0.3%). The high proportion of epilepsy classified as unspecified might be lowered by improved training in epilepsy diagnosis and coding.

Use of telehealth services among Nepali living overseas during Covid-19 pandemic: The opportunities, limitations, lessons learned and recommendations.

There are estimated over 8 million Nepali migrants spread across various countries around the globe. Though the majority of them enjoy good health in general, a large proportion of them suffer from non-communicable diseases, mental health issues and communicable diseases. Telemedicine services, which are organized by Non-Resident Nepali Association (NRNA), have been proven to be effective in addressing some of the health and medical needs of the migrant Nepali workers. The purpose of this study is to assess the use of tele-health services among Nepali migrant population and examine the limitations. During the pandemic period from March 2020 through August 2021, Nepali in different countries utilized telehealth services. Mental health issues, chronic diseases, skin diseases were the most common ailments people sought telehealth services for. Many of them sought for urgent medical consultations related to Covid-19 symptoms and ailments. Digital gap, lack of cross-border regulations and unwillingness to utilize telemedicine were the challenges the service faced in the optimal utilization of such services. Training and education, use of easy Apps and subsidies from the government would help in the long-term use and sustainability of telehealth services amongst the Nepali migrants.

Unauthorized border crossings and migrant deaths: Arizona, New Mexico, and El Paso, Texas, 2002-2003.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the major causes of and risk factors for death among migrants who died while making unauthorized border crossings into the United States from Mexico. METHODS: Decedents were included in the study if (1) their remains were found between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003, in any US county along the 650-mi (1040-km) section of the US-Mexican border from Yuma, Ariz, to El Paso, Tex; (2) their immigration status was unauthorized; and (3) they were believed to have died during transit from Mexico to the United States. Characteristics of the decedents and causes of and risk factors for their deaths were examined. RESULTS: Among the 409 decedents meeting our inclusion criteria, environmental heat exposure (n=250; 61.1%) was the leading cause of death, followed by vehicle crashes (n=33; 8.1%) and drownings (n=24; 5.9%). Male decedents (n= 298; 72.8%) outnumbered female decedents (n = 105; 25.6%) nearly 3 to 1. More than half of the decedents were known to be Mexican nationals (n=235; 57.5%) and were aged 20 to 39 years (n=213; 52.0%); the nationality of 148 (36.2%) decedents was undetermined. CONCLUSIONS: Deaths among migrants making unauthorized crossings of the US-Mexican border are due to causes that are largely preventable. Prevention strategies should target young Mexican men, and focus on preventing them from conceiving plans to cross the border, discouraging them from using dangerous routes as crossing points, and providing search-and-rescue teams to locate lost or injured migrant crossers.

Beyond content: leadership development through a journal club.

CDC designed its Health Systems Integration Program to prepare leaders to function at the interface of public health and health care. Specific Health Systems Integration Program competencies in the areas of communication, analysis and assessment, and health systems were developed to nurture evidence-based decision-making and leadership skills crucial for future public health leaders. The program therefore designed an innovative journal club as part of its competency-based curriculum not only to meet the standard goals for a journal club-critical reading, interpretation, and acquiring content knowledge-but also to foster leadership development. This report describes the Health Systems Integration Program journal club format, its implementation, challenges, and key elements of success. Other programs using a journal club model as a learning format might consider using the Health Systems Integration Program's innovative approach that focuses on leadership development.