Search

Purpose: People with intellectual disabilities (ID) suffer multimorbidity, polypharmacy and excess mortality at a younger age than general population. Those with ID and epilepsy are at higher risk of worse clinical outcomes than their peers without epilepsy. In the ID population the health profile of those aged ≥40 years can be compared to those aged over 65 in the general population. To date there is limited data available to identify clinical characteristics and risk factors in older adults (≥40 years) with ID and epilepsy.Methods: The Epilepsy in ID National Audit (Epi-IDNA) identified 904 patients with ID and epilepsy from 10 sites in England and Wales. This subsequent analysis of the Epi-IDNA cohort compared the 405 adults over 40 years with 499 adults ≥18 years aged under 40 years. Comparison was made between clinical characteristics and established risk factors using the Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) and Seizure Safety Checklist.Results: The older adults' cohort had significantly higher levels of co-morbid physical health conditions, mental health conditions, anti-seizure medications (median 5), and antipsychotics compared to the younger cohort. The older group were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with a co-morbid neurodevelopmental disorder, and to have an epilepsy care plan.Conclusion: This is the largest study to date focused on adults with ID and epilepsy over 40 years. The ≥40 years cohort compared to the younger group has higher levels of clinical risk factors associated with multi-morbidity, potential iatrogenic harm and premature mortality with worse clinical oversight mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: People with Intellectual Disabilities (PwID) are twenty times more likely than general population to have epilepsy. Guidance for prescribing antiseizure medication (ASM) to PwID is driven by trials excluding them. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a first-line ASM in the UK. Concerns exist regarding LEV's behavioural and psychological adverse effects, particularly in PwID. There is no high-quality evidence comparing effectiveness and adverse effects in PwID to those without, prescribed LEV., Methods: Pooled casenote data for patients prescribed LEV (2000-2020) at 18 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Demographics, starting and maximum dose, adverse effects, dropouts and seizure frequency between ID (mild vs. moderate-profound (M/P)) and general population for a 12-month period were compared. Descriptive analysis, Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact and logistic regression methods were employed., Results: 173 PwID (mild 53 M/P 120) were compared to 200 without ID. Mean start and maximum dose were similar across all groups. PwID (Mild & M/P) were less likely to withdraw from treatment (P = 0.036). No difference was found between ID and non-ID or between ID groups (Mild vs M/P) in LEV's efficacy i.e. >50 % seizure reduction. Significant association emerged between ID severity and psychiatric adverse effects (P = 0.035). More irritability (14.2 %) and aggression (10.8 %) were reported in M/P PwID., Conclusion: PwID and epilepsy have high rates of premature mortality, comorbidities, treatment resistance and polypharmacy but remain poorly researched for ASM use. This is the largest studied cohort of PwID trialled on LEV compared to general population controls. Findings support prescribing of LEV for PwID as a first-line ASM., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest RS has received institutional and research support from LivaNova, UCB, Eisai, Veriton Pharma, Bial, Angelini, UnEEG and Jazz/GW pharma outside the submitted work. He holds grants from NIHR AI, SBRI and other funding bodies all outside this work. No other author has any declared conflict of interest to this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study identifies epilepsy-related characteristics and SUDEP risk factors in people with epilepsy (PWE) attending an urban community ID service in the UK where managing epilepsy is not part of the service remit, to understand the care provided to this vulnerable population., Methods: An electronic database search in a north London community ID service (catchment population approx. 290,000) identified relevant ID/epilepsy characteristics in PWE to compare those with mild ID to moderate-profound ID. The SUDEP and Seizure Safety Checklist ("Checklist"), was administered to patients and families/carers. Risk management data was compared to similar data from Cornwall UK where PWE are supported within the ID service and the Checklist is used annually., Results: One fifth (137/697) of people attending the service had epilepsy. Over 3/4 had moderate-profound ID. Neurodevelopmental disorders were coexistent in 2/3, psychiatric conditions in 1/3 (1/4 of which was psychosis). The mean number of anti-seizure drugs was 1.45 ± 0.98, and 1/4 were taking psychotropic medications. Over a third did not have an epilepsy care plan. None contacted (n = 103) had SUDEP awareness. The median number of Checklist risk factors was seven (IQR 4.5-9). A third had experienced seizures lasting >5 min or status epilepticus. In comparison to the Cornish ID data significant differences were evident in four of seven modifiable risk factors., Conclusions: This real world study highlights the complexity and risks among PWE and ID. The lack of a "joined up" approach can undermine the safety of this vulnerable population. Person-centred risk communication and care plans are easily achievable and essential., (Copyright © 2020 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Epilepsy prevalence is significantly higher in people with Intellectual Disability (ID) compared to people with epilepsy (PWE) from the general population. Increased psychological and behavioural problems, healthcare costs, morbidity, mortality and treatment resistance to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is associated with epilepsy in ID populations. Prescribing AEDs for PWE and ID is challenging and influenced heavily by studies conducted with the general population. Our study compares Lacosamide (LCM) response for the ID population to those from the general population; using data from an UK based epilepsy database register (EP ID/PDD AED Register)., Methods: Pooled retrospective case notes data for PWE prescribed LCM at 11 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Participants were classified as per WHO guidance into groups of moderate-profound ID, mild ID and General population. Demographics, concomitant AEDs, starting and maximum dosage, exposure length, adverse effects, dropout rates, seizure frequency were collected. Group differences were reported as odds ratios estimated from univariable logistic regression models., Results: Of 232 consented participants, 156 were from the general population and 76 had ID (24 mild, 52 moderate-profound). Twelve month withdrawal rates and reasons, efficacy, side-effects, start and maximum doses were similar between the groups. Dose titration between baseline and three months was significantly slower in the ID group (p = 0.02)., Conclusion: There were no differences for LCM outcomes between general and ID groups. Slower LCM titration in ID populations in the first 3 months was associated with higher retention and lower behavioural side effects as compared to similar European studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No known conflict of interest exists for any of the authors involved in this manuscript., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Repeat attendances to emergency departments for seizures, impacts on the individual and burdens health care systems. We conducted a review to identify implementable measures which improve the management of people with epilepsy reducing healthcare costs and their supportive evidence., Methods: A scoping review design using suitable search strategy as outlined by PRISMA-ScR was used to examine seven databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PsychINFO, HMIC and BNI. A manual search of the COCHRANE database and citation searching was also conducted. A thematic analysis was conducted to explore the context and reasons of emergency department attendance for seizures, particularly repeat attendances and the strategies and measures deployed to reduce repeat attendances., Results: Twenty-nine reports were included, comprising of a systematic review, a randomised control study, a multi-method study, quantitative studies (n = 17), qualitative studies (n = 6), an audit, a survey and a quality improvement project. Thematic analysis identified four broad areas for reducing repeat attendances. These were developing care pathways, conducting care and treatment reviews, providing educational interventions and role of ambulance staff., Conclusion: The findings indicate varied reasons for attendance at ED following seizure, including mental health and knowledge of seizure management and lack of education. Implementations of care pathways in ED have been found to reduce admission related costs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No known conflict of interest exists for any of the authors involved in this manuscript., (Copyright © 2020 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine the prevalence and clinical features of epileptic seizures occurring in a memory clinic population., Method: We recruited patients receiving a diagnosis of dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at a regional memory clinic. We interviewed patients and informants using a proforma designed to elicit symptoms suggestive of epilepsy. Informants also completed the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) and the Cambridge Behavioural Inventory- Revised (CBI-R). Patients underwent cognitive testing using the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination - III (ACE-III). We also recruited an age- and gender- matched control group with no history of cognitive impairment. Diagnoses of dementia/MCI were checked against current diagnostic criteria., Results: We recruited 144 patients (mean age 77.98, mean ACE-III 74.16, 124 with dementia, 20 with MCI). We diagnosed epilepsy in 25.7%: probable in 12.5% (17 with dementia, 1 with MCI), possible 13.2% (18 with dementia, 1 with MCI). Seizure features included altered responsiveness, speech/behavioural arrest, oral/pharyngeal automatism, olfactory/gustatory aura, focal motor seizure, other sensory phenomena (including hallucination), and amnesia on waking. Epilepsy prevalence was significantly increased in the dementia and MCI group vs controls (p = 0.004). Cognitive performance in the patient groups did not distinguish those in whom epilepsy was suspected from those in whom it was not. Patients in whom epilepsy was suspected were more impaired on informant completed measures of daily function., Conclusions: The prevalence of epilepsy is increased in dementia. The seizures are often subtle and easily missed. The presence of epilepsy predicts more severe impairment in the activities of daily living., (Copyright © 2019 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Comorbid epilepsy is found in 22.5% of people with intellectual disability (ID). Responding to the continuing lack of clarity to the role of the ID psychiatrist in the United Kingdom with regards to epilepsy care, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) published the College Report (CR) 203 in May 2017. This proposed a three-tiered model of competency in ID epilepsy care, with minimum acceptable standards described as Bronze and greater expertise as Silver and Gold. This article documents the perceptions of ID psychiatrists as to their skills and training needs, and the perceived impact of CR203 on the profession., Methods: An e- questionnaire, matching the standards on CR203 and encouraging comments was designed, reviewed and approved by the RCPsych ID executive faculty. The survey was sent by email to all UK-registered RCPsych ID Faculty members via the RCPsych communications., Results: Of the expected 332 ID psychiatrists in the UK, 141 responses were received (42.4%). Key findings included that ID psychiatrists as a group have an interest in epilepsy but Bronze standards were frequently unmet, with variation across the UK. There was a noted lack of agreement on role among ID psychiatrists again linked to geographical variation. Regional disparity correlated to population density and proximity to tertiary neurological centres., Conclusion: There are significant implications on training, both pre- and post- accreditation for the ID psychiatry speciality. The CR203 standards appear to be steps in the right direction to help define the role ID psychiatrists have in the delivery of epilepsy care., (Copyright © 2018 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: There is a shortfall of suitably powered studies to provide evidence for safe prescribing of AEDs to people with Intellectual Disability (ID). We report clinically useful information on differences in response to Perampanel (PER) adjunctive treatment for refractory epilepsy between ID sub-groups and general population from the UK Ep-ID Research Register., Method: Pooled retrospective case notes data of consented people with epilepsy (PWE) prescribed PER from 6 UK centres was classified as per WHO guidance into groups of moderate -profound ID, mild ID and General population. Demographics, concomitant AEDs, starting and maximum dosage, exposure length, adverse effects, dropout rates, seizure type and frequency were collected. Group differences were reported as odds ratios estimated from univariable logistic regression models., Results: Of the 144 PWE (General population 71, Mild ID 48, Moderate to profound ID 48) examined the association between withdrawal and ID type was marginally statistically significant (p=0.07). Moderate to profound ID PWE were less likely to come off PER compared to mild ID (OR=0.19, CI=0.04-0.92, p=0.04). Differences in mental health side effects by groups was marginally statistically significant (p=0.06). Over 50% seizure improvement was seen in 11% of General population, 24% mild ID and 26% Moderate to profound ID., Conclusions: PER seems safe in PWE with ID. It is better tolerated by PWE with Moderate to profound ID than PWE with higher functioning. Caution is advised when history of mental health problems is present. The standardised approach of the Ep-ID register UK used confirms that responses to AEDs by different ID groups vary between themselves and General population., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)