Factors associated with patients not proceeding with proposed resective epilepsy surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the association between eligible patients not proceeding with resective epilepsy surgery and various demographic, disease-specific, and epilepsy-evaluation variables. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study included patients identified as candidates for resective epilepsy surgery at the Montefiore Medical Center between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2017. Chi-squared, two-tailed, independent sample t-test, Mann-Whitney U test and logistic regression were utilized to identify variables associated with patients not proceeding with surgery. RESULTS: Among the 159 potential surgical candidates reviewed over the 8.5-year study period, only 53 ultimately proceeded with surgery (33%). Eighty-seven (55%) out of these 159 patients were identified as appropriate for resective epilepsy surgery during the study period. Thirty-four (39%) of these 87 patients did not proceed with surgery. Variables independently correlated (either positively or negatively) with the patient not proceeding with surgery were: being employed [Odds Ratio (OR) 4.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-15.73], temporal lobe lesion on MRI (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14-0.84), temporal lobe EEG ictal onsets (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.62), and temporal lobe epileptogenic zone (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07-0.55). CONCLUSION: The novel finding in this study is the association between employment status and whether the patient had epilepsy surgery: employed patients were 4.2 times more likely to not proceed with surgery compared to unemployed patients. In addition, patients with a temporal lobe lesion on MRI, temporal lobe EEG ictal onsets, and/or a temporal epileptogenic zone were more likely to proceed with surgery. Future work will be needed to evaluate these findings prospectively, determine if they generalize to other patient populations, explore the decision whether or not to proceed with epilepsy surgery from a patient-centered perspective, and suggest strategies to reduce barriers to this underutilized treatment.

Seizure control, stress, and access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City: The patient perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Our epilepsy population recently experienced the acute effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. Herein, we aimed to determine patient-perceived seizure control during the surge, specific variables associated with worsened seizures, the prevalence of specific barriers to care, and patient-perceived efficacy of epilepsy care delivered via telephone and live video visits during the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study of adult epilepsy patients who had a scheduled appointment at a single urban Comprehensive Epilepsy Center (Montefiore Medical Center) between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020 during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Bronx. Subjects able to answer the questionnaire themselves in English or Spanish were eligible to complete a one-time survey via telephone or secure online platform (REDCap). RESULTS: Of 1212 subjects screened, 675 were eligible, and 177 adequately completed the questionnaire. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 75.1% of patients reported no change in seizure control, whereas 17.5% reported that their seizure control had worsened, and 7.3% reported improvement. Subjects who reported worsened seizure control had more frequent seizures at baseline, were more likely to identify stress and headaches/migraines as their typical seizure precipitants, and were significantly more likely to report increased stress related to the pandemic. Subjects with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 did not report worsened seizure control. Nearly 17% of subjects reported poorer epilepsy care, and 9.6% had difficulty obtaining their antiseizure medications; these subjects were significantly more likely to report worse seizure control. SIGNIFICANCE: Of the nearly 20% of subjects who reported worsened seizure control during the COVID-19 pandemic, stress and barriers to care appear to have posed the greatest challenge. This unprecedented pandemic exacerbated existing and created new barriers to epilepsy care, which must be addressed.

Access to Care Matters: Remote Health Care Needs During COVID-19.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is straining health care worldwide with >31 million confirmed cases. Currently, 1 in every 100 U.S. residents and 245,000 in New York City are confirmed positive. The Bronx, with high-risk comorbidities, due in part to socioeconomic factors, has seen disproportionately higher rates of COVID-19-related complications. Poor health care access is exacerbated as in-person visits now pose viral transmission risk. There has been limited discourse regarding widespread disparities underlying transitions to telemedicine. Methods: We review perspectives in recent literature on telemedicine and its potential within neurology. Results: While telemedicine has reduced strain on in-person visits, preliminary reflections highlight implementation successes and challenges. Conclusions: To provide effective care beyond this crisis, fundamental changes in training, technological accessibility, and health care policy are needed. We propose open access to telehealth training, screening of patient's potential technological inequities and socioeconomic insecurities, and advocacy to secure broad long-term access to telehealth care.

Quantitative readability analysis of websites providing information on traumatic brain injury and epilepsy: A need for clear communication.

OBJECTIVE: The use of the Internet for health-related questions is increasing, but it is not clear whether individuals can understand the information available online. Most health organizations recommend that health educational materials (HEMs) be written below the sixth grade reading level. This study was designed to evaluate the readability level of available online HEMs pertaining to traumatic brain injury (TBI), epilepsy, and posttraumatic epilepsy (PTE). METHODS: This cross-sectional readability assessment included HEMs from TBI and epilepsy stakeholder organizations and those obtained from four Internet searches. The search strategy was designed to replicate a nonmedical individual's keyword searches. Each HEM was assessed with an online automated readability tool using three indices (Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook). Findings were compared as a function of organization type (journalistic news or health organization), targeted medical condition (TBI, epilepsy, or PTE), or content topic (patient health education, clinical research education, or both). RESULTS: Readability analysis of 405 identified HEMs revealed scores above the sixth grade reading level recommendation. Only 6.2% of individual HEMs met the sixth grade recommendation. Journalistic news organizations' HEMs had similar readability levels to health organizations' HEMs. PTE-related HEMs required the highest readability level, >11th grade (P < .001). There were significant differences in the readability scores (P < .01 for all indices) among HEMs with information on health education, research education, or both topics. The highest required readability level (>12 grade level) was for HEMs that included both health and research education. SIGNIFICANCE: The majority of TBI-, epilepsy-, and PTE-related online HEMs do not meet the sixth grade reading recommendation. Improving the readability of HEMs may advance health literacy around TBI, epilepsy, and PTE, leading to more effective participant recruitment/retention strategies for future antiepileptogenesis trials in persons with TBI and perhaps better patient-centered outcomes.