Ten things every neurologist needs to know about neuropsychological assessments and interventions in people with epilepsy.

This paper describes 10 core features of a neuropsychological assessment with the aim of helping neurologists understand the unique contribution the evaluation can make within the wider context of diagnostic methods in epilepsy. The possibilities, limitations and cautions associated with the investigation are discussed under the following headings. (1) A neuropsychological assessment is a collaborative investigation. (2) Assessment prior to treatment allows for the accurate assessment of treatment effects. (3) The nature of an underlying lesion and its neurodevelopmental context play an important role in shaping the associated neuropsychological deficit. (4) Cognitive and behavioural impairments result from the essential comorbidities of epilepsy which can be considered as much a disorder of cognition and behaviour as of seizures. (5) Patients' subjective complaints can help us understand objective cognitive impairments and their underlying neuroanatomy, resulting in improved patient care. At other times, patient complaints reflect other factors and require careful interpretation. (6) The results from a neuropsychological assessment can be used to maximize the educational and occupational potentials of people with epilepsy. (7) Not all patients are able to engage with a neuropsychological assessment. (8) There are limitations in assessments conducted in a second language with tests that have been standardized on different populations from that of the patient. (9) Adequate intervals between assessments maximize sensitivity to meaningful change. (10) Patients should be fully informed about the purpose of the assessment and have realistic expectations of the outcome prior to referral.

Two-year development of children conceived by IVM: a prospective controlled single-blinded study.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there a difference in mental development of children conceived by IVM in comparison to IVF or ICSI, independently, at the age of 2 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: No differences could be found in mental development of IVM children compared to IVF and IVM children compared to ICSI as well. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Only few retrospective or non-controlled studies addressed the health of IVM children and did not show a negative impact of the IVM procedure. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Prospective controlled single-blinded study including 63 pregnancies (21 per IVM, IVF and ICSI groups) with 70 children expected. Examinations of 62 embryos at first trimester screening, of 57 fetuses at 21st week of pregnancy, of 60 children at birth and of 37 children at their second birthday were performed during the study period from January 2009 until October 2016. Bayley score at the age of 2 was the primary outcome parameter. Data of 40 children after spontaneous conception from a previous prospective unrelated study were further used as control at 2 years examination and compared to the pooled ART group (IVM, IVF and ICSI). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Twenty-one IVM pregnancies achieved in the study period were included. For each of them, the following IVF- and ICSI pregnancies were recruited as controls. Ultrasound examinations during pregnancy, examinations of newborns and of children around their second birthday were done by blinded prenatal specialists, pediatricians and neuropediatricians, respectively. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Children conceived after IVM did not show differences during embryonic development, at birth nor in their neuropediatric development at the age of 2 compared to their counterparts after IVF and after ICSI (Bayley score 91.3 ± 21.0 for IVM, 96.8 ± 13.2 for IVF and 103.9 ± 13.1 for ICSI) and of the pooled ART group compared to children after spontaneous conception (96.6 ± 16.4 ART and 103.2 ± 9.4 spontaneous conception). When analyzing singleton pregnancies only, again no differences during pregnancy, at birth and at their 2-year evaluation were detected between IVM versus IVF and IVM versus ICSI. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to the small sample size data must be interpreted with caution. To allow a confirmative answer that there are no health risks for children conceived by IVM, large multicenter cohort or registry-based studies are urgently needed. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The study adds further information to previous uncontrolled or retrospective studies, which were unable to detect risks for the health of IVM children. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by the 'Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft' (DFG): STR 387/4-1. G.R. receives royalties from Pearson Assessment Germany (editor fee for Bayley-III). The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Introduction and first validation of EpiTrack Junior, a screening tool for the assessment of cognitive side effects of antiepileptic medication on attention and executive functions in children and adolescents with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Maximum seizure control, preservation of cognition, and prevention of developmental hindrance are major aims of the pharmacological treatment of children and adolescents with epilepsy. Herewith we introduce the junior version of EpiTrack, a 12- to 15-minute screening test for monitoring the cognitive effects of antiepileptic drug treatment in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. METHODS: The test, which comprises six subtests (Speed, Flexibility, Planning, Response Inhibition, Word Fluency, Working Memory), was administered to 277 children and adolescents aged 6-18 years, 111 of whom were retested after an interval of 3 months. For the first clinical validation, 155 patients (46% idiopathic/benign, 62% seizure free) were evaluated. RESULTS: Standardization and correction for age resulted in a mean score of 33 ± 2 points, which was no longer correlated with age (r=0.005). The retest practice effect was 0.7 ± 2 points, and the reliability r(tt)=0.78. Factor analysis indicated one executive factor in controls and patients. In the epilepsy group, 50% of the patients were impaired (controls 14%). Number of antiepileptic drugs, use/no use of individual drugs, type of epilepsy, earlier age at onset, generalized tonic-clonic seizures, and history of febrile seizures made a difference in test performance. For patients and controls, EpiTrack scores reflected parents' performance ratings and the children's needs for extra education. CONCLUSION: The junior version of EpiTrack appears to be a valid and reliable screening tool for the assessment of executive functions in children and adolescents. Future studies with a repeated measurement design must show how well this tool is suited for the tracking of cognitive effects of antiepileptic drug treatment.