Bone health, intellectual disability and epilepsy: An observational community-based study.

OBJECTIVES: Intellectual disability (ID) and epilepsy are independent risk factors for osteoporosis. Diverse predisposing factors influence this, for example in ID, genetics and poor nutrition and in epilepsy, anti-seizure medication (ASM). Around 25% people with ID have epilepsy, majority treatment resistant. ASMs polypharmacy is common. However, little is known about the bone-related characteristics of this vulnerable group. A prospective observational cohort study of bone profile across a community ID Epilepsy service was undertaken to understand this. MATERIALS & METHODS: Participants were on minimum 2 years of ASMs. Baseline demographics, epilepsy data, bone metabolism biomarkers, bone mineral density (BMD) and vitamin D levels were collected. Doses needed to correct vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency were calculated. RESULTS: At baseline, of 104 participants, 92 (90.2%) were vitamin D insufficient/deficient. Seventy-six (73.1%) had a DEXA scan, 50 of whom-in the osteopaenic/osteoporotic range. DEXA scores between ambulant and non-ambulant patients were significantly different (p = .05) but not for ID severity. A high alkaline phosphatase (ALP) predicted lower vitamin D levels. Borderline significance (p = .06) in calcium levels between normal and high ALP was identified. There were no significant associations between parathyroid hormone, inorganic phosphate and magnesium levels, with vitamin D status or DEXA hip T-scores. Normalizing vitamin D levels (mean 101.4 nmol/L) required an average of 1951IU cholecalciferol daily. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent in people with ID and epilepsy treated with ASMs impacting likely on their bone health. Screening with vitamin D levels, ALP and DEXA in this group should be pro-actively and routinely considered.

An 8-year study of admissions and discharges to a specialist intellectual disability inpatient unit.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, policy change has led to specialist intellectual disability inpatient bed reduction. Little evidence exists assessing the results for patients admitted to such units. This study evaluates the outcomes of a specialist intellectual disability inpatient unit. METHOD: Gender/age/ethnicity/intellectual disability severity/co-morbid psychiatric/developmental disorders, treatment length and stay data were collected. The health of the nation outcome scales for people with learning disabilities (HoNOS-LD) scores at admission, treatment completion and discharge were recorded. Analysis of these multiple variables and correlations within different patient groups was investigated using various statistical tests. RESULTS: Of 169/176 patients (2010-2018), admission to discharge, HoNOS-LD global and all individual items score decreased significantly, for all patient categories. Treatment completion to discharge duration was significant for the whole cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study of intellectual disability inpatient outcomes. Discharge from the hospital appears not associated with duration of treatment. Using HoNOS-LD to demonstrate treatment effectiveness is recommended.

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) and seizure safety: Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors differences between primary and secondary care.

INTRODUCTION: The SUDEP and Seizure Safety Checklist ("Checklist") is a risk factors Checklist based around a person with epilepsy (PWE) demographics, seizure, physical, psychological, and lifestyle issues. The Checklist provides a cumulative picture of current risk when applied to a PWE. This study compares and contrasts risk factors of PWE in primary versus secondary care. METHODS: The Checklist was applied to all PWE registered in four primary care practices in central Cornwall UK (pop: 120,000). Individual, modifiable, non-modifiable, and total risk factors and scores were compared between PWE open to secondary care and those not. Statistical tests were used to calculate significance of individual risk factors in primary or secondary care, to compare the total risk scores between care settings and to find the frequency differences of each risk factor between primary practices. RESULTS: People with total and non-modifiable risk scores were higher in secondary care (both p < 0.001). However, modifiable risk scores were higher in primary care (p < 0.001). Psychiatric concerns were the most prevalent modifiable risk factor in primary care. There were significant differences in the risk profiles between all four primary care practices. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that there is a lack of clarity on who is referred to secondary care and when. There needs to be an evidence-based system to allow for a bidirectional flow of PWE considering their fluctuating risk. The Checklist can be a decision support tool to enable this.

General practitioners' and psychiatrists' attitudes towards antidepressant withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent rise in antidepressant prescriptions. After the episode for which it was prescribed, the patient should ideally be supported in withdrawing the medication. There is increasing evidence for withdrawal symptoms (sometimes called discontinuation symptoms) occurring on ceasing treatment, sometimes having severe or prolonged effects. AIMS: To identify and compare current knowledge, attitudes and practices of general practitioners (GPs) and psychiatrists in Cornwall, UK, concerning antidepressant withdrawal symptoms. METHOD: Questions about withdrawal symptoms and management were asked of GPs and psychiatrists in a multiple-choice cross-sectional study co-designed with a lived experience expert. RESULTS: Psychiatrists thought that withdrawal symptoms were more severe than GPs did (P = 0.003); 53% (22/42) of GPs and 69% (18/26) of psychiatrists thought that withdrawal symptoms typically last between 1 and 4 weeks, although there was a wide range of answers given; 35% (9/26) of psychiatrists but no GPs identified a pharmacist as someone they may use to help manage antidepressant withdrawal. About three-quarters of respondents claimed they usually or always informed patients of potential withdrawal symptoms when they started a patient on antidepressants, but patient surveys say only 1% are warned. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatrists and GPs need to effectively warn patients of potential withdrawal effects. Community pharmacists might be useful in supporting GP-managed antidepressant withdrawal. The wide variation in responses to most questions posed to participants reflects the variation in results of research on the topic. This highlights a need for more reproducible studies to be carried out on antidepressant withdrawal, which could inform future guidelines.